Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L05-030 - LA PIANTA - TUKWILA SOUTH SHORELINE MASTER PLANTUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT SHORELINE MASTER PLAN SHORELINE MANAGEMENT L05-030 ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Fl ty, CMC, City Clerk APPROV M BY: City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. c): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TUKWILA'S SHORELINE MASTER PLAN MAP TO PRE - DESIGNATE THE SHORELINE AREA LOCATED WITHIN THE TUKWILA SOUTH POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA AS "URBAN ENVIRONMENT" AND FOR SUCH DESIGNATION TO BE EFFECTIVE UPON ANNEXATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan Map to pre- designate the shoreline area within the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area ( "FAA ") to the "Urban Environment" classification; and WHEREAS, pre - designation of the subject area as "Urban Environment" under the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan will ensure that appropriate shoreline use and development controls, consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan, are in place immediately upon annexation of the FAA; and WHEREAS, under "pre- designation," the Urban Environment classification would become effective only upon annexation; and WHEREAS, pre - designation is allowed under the Washington State Shoreline Management rules (WAC 173 -26 -150); NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Shoreline Master Plan Map Amended. The Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan Map is hereby amended to pre - designate the shoreline area located within the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area as "Urban Environment" The potential annexation area for which this pre - designation applies is set forth in Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force upon the date on which all the property set forth in "Exhibit A" is within the municipal boundaries of the City of Tukwila. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Special Meeting thereof this ST) day of -T iA) L , 2009. rney W:\ Word Processing \ Ordinances \ Tukwila South Shoreline Master Plan Amend.doc LV:ksn 06/05/2009 ,i Hagger p 'fi Filed with the City Clerk: 3 Passed by the City Council: Published. Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Attachment Exhibit A - Tukwila South Shoreline Master Program Map Amendment Page 1 of 1 TO: City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL. MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton City Council Jim Haggerton, Mayor FROM: Lisa Verner, Mayor's Office DATE: May 26, 2009 SUBJECT: Tukwila South Project: 1) Tukwila South Master Plan, 2) amendments to Title 18 (Zoning Code), 3) amendments to Title 17 (Binding Site Plan), and 4) amendment to Shoreline Master Plan map ISSUE Four actions went before the Planning Commission for review and are now before the City Council for action. These are related to the Tukwila South Project: 1) Tukwila South Master Plan (file L05 -041), 2) amendments to Title 18, TMC (Zoning Code) (file L05- 029A), 3) amendments to Title 17 ite Plan) (file L05- 029B), and 4) amendment to Shoreline Master Pla BACKGROUND Staff reports for each of these actions have been prepared and are attached to this Informational Memorandum. The Planning Commission held four public hearings on September 29, 2005, reviewed all four proposals and voted unanimously to recommend approval to City Council. DISCUSSION Public hearings on all four issues have been scheduled for May 26, 2009. Deliberations on these issues, as well as on the Tukwila South Project Development Agreement, have also been scheduled for the May 26, 2009 Committee of the Whole meeting. RECOMMENDATION The Council is being asked to conduct deliberations on these issues after the public hearings at the May 26, 2009 Committee of the Whole meeting and forward subsequent to the June 1, 2009 Regular meeting for action. ATTACHMENTS Staff Report Regarding Tukwila South Master Plan (file L05 -041). Staff Report Regarding Zoning Code Amendments (file L05- 029A). Staff Report Regarding Amendments to the Subdivision (file L05- 029B). Staff Report Regarding Shoreline Master Plan Map Amendment (L05 -030). Ordinance adopting Tukwila South Master Plan. Ordinance adopting amendments to Title 18, TMC (Zoning Code). Ordinance adopting amendments to Title 17, TMC (Binding Site Plan). Ordinance adopting Shoreline Master Plan map amendment. 317 318 PUBLIC HEARING: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SHORELINE DESIGNATION: STAFF: REGARDING ATTACHMENTS: STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL SHORELINE MASTER PLAN MAP AMENDMENT May 26, 2009 Notice of the City Council public hearing was published in the newspaper on May 11, 2009. The Notice was mailed to property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the Tukwila South Project boundaries on May 7, 2009. It was posted at two locations on the Tukwila South property. L05 -030 Segale Properties (aka La Pianta, LLC) Amend Tukwila's Shoreline Master Plan to pre - designate the shoreline area located within the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area as within the "Urban Environment." The "Urban Environment" shoreline designation would take effect upon annexation. 200 feet wide strip of land lying generally west of the Green River, between the current south Tukwila city limit and South 204 Street, in unincorporated King County. See Exhibit L05- 041 -1. SEPA DETERMINATION: Tukwila South Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued April 5, 2005. The Final EIS was issued on July 7, 2005. An Addendum to the Final EIS was issued on September 23, 2005. Industrial (King County Comprehensive Plan). Tukwila Valley South (Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan). Rural Environment (King County Shoreline Master Program). Lisa Verner Site Map Staff Report to City Council L05 -030 Page 2 of 5 FINDINGS Description of Request The applicant requests an amendment to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan pre - designating the shoreline area within the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area (PAA) to the "Urban Environment" classification. Under "pre- designation," the Urban Environment classification would become effective only upon annexation. Pre - designation is allowed under the Washington State Shoreline Management rules (WAC 173 -26 -150). The applicant requests the City designate "Urban Environment" as the appropriate shoreline environment now so that upon annexation this designation will take effect immediately. Then Applicant can apply for a Substantial Development Permit (SDP) from the City for proposed work in the area of shoreline jurisdiction, which it needs in order to obtain various other permits it has applied for in conjunction with the Tukwila South Project. Background and Site Information The affected property is part of the proposed Tukwila South Project. The Tukwila South Project proposes a mixed -use, master planned development of up to 10 3 million square feet in a large - scale, campus setting on approximately 500 contiguous acres (located generally south of the Tukwila City limit, west of the Green River, north of South 204 Street and east of OrilliaRoad/I -5). The Tukwila South Project proposal is described in detail by the Tukwila South EIS. Approximately 211 of the 492 acres are currently located with the City of Tukwila, and the portion of that area within the regulated shoreline is designated "Urban Environment." Approximately 259 acres are located in Tukwila's South Potential Annexation Area (PAA), which is currently in unincorporated King County. The regulated shoreline portion of the PAA is designated "Rural Environment" by the King County Shoreline Master Program. It is this unincorporated shoreline area that is subject to this application (see Exhibit L0S- 041 -1, attached). Approximately 22 acres of the Tukwila South project area lie within the City of Kent and are not directly affected by the requested shoreline pre - designation. At the request of Washington State Department of Ecology, La Pianta acquired a permanent easement to retain wetlands on an additional 11 acres in Kent (Zagragen property). Current land uses within the area subject to this request include the Green River levee, agricultural lands and stormwater facilities. Surrounding land uses include commercial/industrial uses to the north, commercial/industrial and public park uses to the east (across the Green River), and agricultural uses to the south and west. The area subject to this shoreline pre - designation request is owned by the applicant, with the exception of a surface water management pond owned by King county and located just north of C: \temp\XFgrpwise\STAFF REPORT FOR COUNCIL - SMP Amend.doc 319 Development allowed waterward of ordinary high water mark? Yes, but only if "water related" and no hazard to navigation. Yes, but only structures or accessory facilities that "protect or promote the public interest." Height limit for structures 35 feet, but may be increased up to 75 feet with additional setback; may exceed 75 feet in "mixed -use" developments. 35 feet within 100 feet of mean high water mark; otherwise 125 feet Open space 50 feet adjacent to a "natural environment" must be left as open space. 40 feet landward of mean high water mark limited to recreational use, pedestrian access and essential facilities. Public access Setback incentives provided to encourage public access. Public access encouraged. Provision of public access or "private natural area" required (Comp Plan policy). Allowed uses All uses allowed by underlying Industrial zoning. All uses allowed by proposed TSO zoning. Setbacks from high water mark - No setback required for "water- dependent" uses. - 20 to 50 feet for "water- related" uses, depending on provision of public access. - 20 to 75 feet, depending on provision of public access 40 feet, except recreational, public access and essential facilities. Staff Report to City Council L05 -030 Page 3 of 5 South 200 Street, and a corridor containing the green River outfall for Johnson Ditch located between South 200 and South 204 Streets, owned by King County Drainage District #1. Existing King County "Rural Environment" The unincorporated portion of the applicant's property currently has a Rural Environment designation under the King County Shoreline Master Program, but is zoned I/Industrial under the county's zoning code. Table 1 describes key aspects of King County's applicable regulations and compares them with the proposed Urban designation under Tukwila' shoreline program. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER KING COUNTY "RURAL" DESIGNATION AND TUKWILA "URBAN" DESIGNATION King County "Rural" With "Industrial" zonin C: \temp\XPgrpwise\STAFF REPORT FOR COUNCIL - SNIP Amend.doc 320 Tukwila "Urban" with "TSO" zonin Staff Report to City Council L05 -030 Page 4 of 5 Review Process The SMP calls for amendments to be reviewed under TMC 18.80, "Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations." After review at a public meeting on June 20, 2005, the Tukwila City Council forwarded the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the application, deliberated and made a recommendation to the City Council on September 29, 2005. Now the City Council will hold a public hearing and review the Commission's recommendation; if the City Council approves the amendment, the amendment must also go to the Department of Ecology for review and approval before taking effect. Chapter 18.80 TMC implements requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) concerning consolidation of Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal for consideration no more than once per year. Shoreline master program amendments are exempt from this requirement under the provisions of Section 36.70A 130(2)(a)(ii) Revised Code of Washington. Review Criteria Amendments to the Shoreline Master Program are legislative decisions. The Council used the following criteria found at TMC 18.80.050(B) in it's determination to forward the SMP amendment to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. 1. Is the issue already adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? The issue is addressed by the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but is not adequately addressed by the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan. The Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the Green River shoreline upstream (south) from the SR99 Bridge to South 204 Street as "Urban/Open space Environment ". This designation includes the subject area. The Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan provides no designation for the subject area. Designating the subject area "Urban" under the Shoreline Master Plan would implement the policy established by the Comprehensive Plan for this area. 2. If the issue is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, is there a public need for the proposed change? Yes. The subject area lies within Tukwila's recognized Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and is proposed for annexation to the City of Tukwila. Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) shorelines must be designated Urban, Rural, Conservancy or Natural within one year of annexation, and may be pre - designated prior to annexation (WAC 173 -62- 150). Pre - designating the subject area "Urban" under Tukwila's Shoreline Master Plan will ensure that appropriate management of the shoreline is in place immediately upon annexation. C: \temp\XPg pwise\STAFF REPORT FOR COUNCIL - SMP Amend.doc 321 Staff Report to City Council L05 -030 Page 5 of 5 3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified need? Yes. The Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan, updated in 2004, has determined that the area is appropriate for an "Urban/Open Space" designation. The "Urban Environment" designation is the appropriate designation under the City's Shoreline Management Plan to ensure implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 4. Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? Yes. The proposed pre - designation of the subject area "Urban" is an important element in achieving the City's vision and policies for future development of the area, consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan (see especially the Tukwila South element, pages 103- 108 of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan). CONCLUSION Pre - designation of the subject area as "Urban Environment" under the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan will ensure that appropriate shoreline use and development controls, consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan, are in place immediately upon annexation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of the amendment to the Shoreline Master Plan pre - designating as "Urban Environment" the shoreline area west of the Green River between the existing city limits and S 204 Street in anticipation of annexation of the property into the City of Tukwila. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL That the City Council approve the amendment to the Shoreline Master Plan pre - designating as "Urban Environment" the shoreline area west of the Green River between the existing city limits and S 204 Street in anticipation of annexation of the property into the City of Tukwila. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL That the City Council approve the amendment to the Shoreline Master Plan pre - designating as "Urban Environment" the shoreline area west of the Green River between the existing city limits and S 204 Street in anticipation of annexation of the property into the City of Tukwila. 322 C:ltemp\XPgrpwise\STAFF REPORT FOR COUNCIL - SMP Amend.doc City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TUKWILA'S SHORELINE MASTER PLAN MAP TO PRE - DESIGNATE THE SHORELINE AREA LOCATED WITHIN THE TUKWILA SOUTH POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA AS "URBAN ENVIRONMENT" AND FOR SUCH DESIGNATION TO BE EFFECTIVE UPON ANNEXATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan Map to pre- designate the shoreline area within the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area ( "PAA ") to the "Urban Environment" classification; and WHEREAS, pre - designation of the subject area as "Urban Environment" under the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan will ensure that appropriate shoreline use and development controls, consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan, are in place immediately upon annexation of the FAA; and WHEREAS, under "pre- designation," the Urban Environment classification would become effective only upon annexation; and WHEREAS, pre - designation is allowed under the Washington State Shoreline Management rules (WAC 173 -26 -150); NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Shoreline Master Plan Map Amended. The Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan Map is hereby amended to pre - designate the shoreline area located within the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area as "Urban Environment." The potential annexation area for which this pre - designation applies is set forth in Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force upon the date on which all the property set forth in "Exhibit A" is within the municipal boundaries of the City of Tukwila. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2009. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Office of the City Attorney Jim Haggerton, Mayor W:\ Word Processing \ Ordinances \ Tukwila South Shoreline Master Plan Amend.doc LV:ksn 05/28/2009 Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: Attachment Exhibit A - Tukwila South Shoreline Master Program Map Amendment Page 1 of 1 377 •.. I■ 1 1 E:II! :inil 11 r. :1In' 111111 111111 n111■ 1■.■ ■1 I M U raE mum ELS 1111 Ira Minna tiS nise waw :: ill ESP ° I l r ..1�. 11111iu1 C im� �� 1::: �.■ 1: " 111 um ■1, -- .. a 11111111 w 2 ii11111C 1U' 111 ■1. 1 11'111:' :G :I:JB:n11111IIIl_ =11111'1'11111111 J 1'I!11 11 �� .:■ . 1..1. 1 :11111 :1 : :: :111111 BMW' u = i l i1 i� i ri fPiiilu°`. ° is.J1Nra =ontmemouRoza 1111111111111111111111 = 111P :11'i1;' NM= -•1%u -I M Ihus 8 4/11111// ..1111111: 1111.1■■.■. 111111111111 - :� =Al= :11111: IIi tl MOP M a UM ► p. ■n1 -: =limn :: 01u1i =mug wi mman � NEP IMP ■ mIlllllllllllll 1111111 fIItIOIIIIIIIIuI111 -- - Dm a I - -. .— -O =ma MIO .— BIM 1:11111111111111 11111 1111111: MI•I /' m11 11 1 1 1 " � I1 LO $.0414. AL: Wan :11 Gam Una • • • . vv. Iz- • :i 1. , f l u ni/ t2' • u'vi�dE I •.U. -... :1111 :11: :I No - U • 0 PERI ER 1 L S184( ST a na.w Purim. int 114 LIM -, . I / HI . : : _ ■ :.ill ANGLE LAK 0 111111111111 I II 1 LEGEND: `r1 I Exhibit A TUKWILA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY AFTER LA PIANTA ANNEXATION EXISTING TUKWILA I KING COUNTY UNE EXISTING TUKWILA SHORELINE JURISDICTION AREA (200 -FEET) PROPOSED TUKWILA SHORELINE JURISDICTION AREA (200-FEET) AREA TO BE ANNEXED GOLDSMITH TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT TUKWILA SOUTH SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM MAP AMENDMENT TUKWILA. KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON 379 PUBLIC HEARING: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: SHORELINE DESIGNATION: STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING SHORELINE MASTER PLAN MAP AMENDMENT January 20, 2009 Notice of the City Council public hearing was published in the newspaper on January 5, 2009. The Notice was mailed to property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the Tukwila South Project boundaries on , 2008. It was posted at two locations on the Tukwila South property. L05 -030 Segale Properties (aka La Pianta, LLC) /r` Amend Tukwila's Shoreline Master Plan�to pre - designate the shoreline area located within the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area as within the "Urban Environment." The "Urban Environment" shoreline designation would take effect upon annexation. 200 feet wide strip of land lying generally west of the Green River, between the current south Tukwila city limit and South 204` Street, in unincorporated King County. See Exhibit L05- 041 -1. SEPA DETERMINATION: Tukwila South Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued April 5, 2005. The Final EIS was issued on July 7, 2005. An Addendum to the Final EIS was issued on September 23, 2005. COMPREHENSIVE Industrial (King County Comprehensive Plan). PLAN DESIGNATION: Tukwila Valley South (Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan). Rural Environment (King County Shoreline Master Program). Lisa Verner Application and proposal Staff Report to City Council L05 -030 Page 2 of 5 FINDINGS Description of Request The applicant requests an amendment to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan pre- designating the shoreline area within the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area (PAA) to the "Urban Environment" classification. Under "pre- designation," the Urban Environment classification would become effective only upon annexation. Pre - designation is allowed under the Washington State Shoreline Management rules (WAC 173 -26 -150). The applicant requests the City designate "Urban Environment" as the appropriate shoreline environment now so that upon annexation this designation will take effect immediately. Then Applicant can apply for a Substantial Development Permit (SDP) from the City for proposed work in the area of shoreline jurisdiction, which it needs in order to obtain various other permits it has applied for in conjunction with the Tukwila South Project. Background and Site Information The affected property is part of the proposed Tukwila South Project. The Tukwila South Project proposes a mixed -use, master planned development of up to 14 million square feet in a large - scale, campus setting on approximately 500 contiguous acres (located generally south of the Tukwila City limit, west of the Green River, north of South 204 Street and east of OrilliaRoad/I -5). The Tukwila South Project proposal is described in detail by the Tukwila South EIS. Approximately 211 of the 492 acres are currently located with the City of Tukwila, and the portion of that area within the regulated shoreline is designated "Urban Environment." Approximately 259 acres are located in Tukwila's South Potential Annexation Area (PAA), which is currently in unincorporated King County. The regulated shoreline portion of the PAA is designated "Rural Environment" by the King County Shoreline Master Program. It is this unincorporated shoreline area that is subject to this application (see Exhibit L05- 041 -1, attached). Approximately 22 acres of the Tukwila South project area lie within the City of Kent and are not directly affected by the requested shoreline pre- designation. Current land uses within the area subject to this request include the Green River levee, agricultural lands and stormwater facilities. Surrounding land uses include commercial /industrial uses to the north, commercial /industrial and public park uses to the east (across the Green River), and agricultural uses to the south and west. The area subject to this shoreline pre- designation request is owned by the applicant, with the exception of a surface water management pond owned by King county and located just north of South 200 Street, and a corridor containing the green River outfall for Johnson Ditch located between South 200 and South 204 Streets, owned by King County Drainage District #1. P: \Long Range Projects \Tukwila South Project \SMP Map Amendment \STAFF REPORT FOR COUNCIL - SMP Amend.doc Development allowed waterward of ordinary high water mark? Yes, but only if "water related" and no hazard to navigation. Yes, but only structures or accessory facilities that "protect or promote the public interest." Height limit for structures 35 feet, but may be increased up to 75 feet with additional setback; may exceed 75 feet in "mixed -use" developments. 35 feet within 100 feet of mean high water mark; otherwise 125 feet Open space 50 feet adjacent to a "natural environment" must be left as open space. 40 feet landward of mean high water mark limited to recreational use, pedestrian access and essential facilities. Public access Setback incentives provided to encourage public access. Public access encouraged. Provision of public access or "private natural area" required (Comp Plan policy). Allowed uses All uses allowed by underlying Industrial zoning. All uses allowed by proposed TSO zoning. Setbacks from high water mark - No setback required for "water- dependent" uses. - 20 to 50 feet for "water- related" uses, depending on provision of public access. - 20 to 75 feet, depending on provision of public access 40 feet, except recreational, public access and essential facilities. Staff Report to City Council L05 -030 Page 3 of 5 Existing King County "Rural Environment" The unincorporated portion of the applicant's property currently has a Rural Environment designation under the King County Shoreline Master Program, but is zoned I /Industrial under the county's zoning code. Table 1 describes key aspects of King County's applicable regulations and compares them with the proposed Urban designation under Tukwila's shoreline program. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER KING COUNTY "RURAL" DESIGNATION AND TUKWILA "URBAN" DESIGNATION King County "Rural" With "Industrial" zonin Tukwila "Urban" with "TSO" zonin Additional details concerning the existing King County "Rural Environment" shoreline regulations are included in Exhibit L05- 041 -3, attached. P: \Long Range Projects \Tukwila South Project \SMP Map Amendment \STAFF REPORT FOR COUNCIL - SMP Amend.doc Staff Report to City Council L05 -030 Page 4 of 5 Review Process The SMP calls for amendments to be reviewed under TMC 18.80, "Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations." After review at a public meeting, the Tukwila City Council forwarded the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the application, deliberated and made a recommendation to the City Council on September 29, 2005. Now the City Council will hold a public hearing and review of the Commission's recommendation; if the City Council approves the amendment, the amendment must also go to the Department of Ecology for review and approval before taking effect. Chapter 18.80 TMC implements requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) concerning consolidation of Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal for consideration no more than once per year. Shoreline master program amendments are exempt from this requirement under the provisions of Section 36.70A 130(2)(a)(ii) Revised Code of Washington. Review Criteria Amendments to the Shoreline Master Program are legislative decisions. The Council used the following criteria found at TMC 18.80.050(B) in it's determination to forward the SMP amendment to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. 1. Is the issue already adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? The issue is addressed by the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but is not adequately addressed by the Tukwila Shoreline Management Plan. The Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the Green River shoreline upstream (south) from the SR99 Bridge to South 204 Street as "Urban /Open space Environment" (see Exhibit L05- 041 -2, attached). This designation includes the subject area. The Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan provides no designation for the subject area. Designating the subject area "Urban" under the Shoreline Management Plan would implement the policy established by the Comprehensive Plan for this area. 2. If the issue is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, is there a public need for the proposed change? Yes. The subject area lies within Tukwila's recognized Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and is proposed for annexation to the City of Tukwila. Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) shorelines must be designated Urban, Rural, Conservancy or Natural within one year of annexation, and may be pre- designated prior to annexation (WAC 173 -62- 150). Pre - designating the subject area "Urban" under Tukwila's Shoreline Management Plan will ensure that appropriate management of the shoreline is in place immediately upon annexation. P: \Long Range Projects \Tukwila South Project \SMP Map Amendment \STAFF REPORT FOR COUNCIL - SMP Amend.doc Staff Report to City Council L05 -030 Page 5 of 5 3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified need? Yes. The Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan, updated in 2004, has determined that the area is appropriate for an "Urban/Open Space" designation. The "Urban Environment" designation is the appropriate designation under the City's Shoreline Management Plan to ensure implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 4. Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? Yes. The proposed pre- designation of the subject area "Urban" is an important element in achieving the City's vision and policies for future development of the area, consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan (see especially the Tukwila South element, pages 103- 108 of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan). CONCLUSION Pre - designation of the subject area as "Urban Environment" under the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan will ensure that appropriate shoreline use and development controls, consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan, are in place immediately upon annexation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSINO That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of the amendment to the Shoreline Master Plan pre - designating as "Urban Environment" the shoreline area west of the Green River between the existing city limits and S 204 Street in anticipation of annexation of the property into the City of Tukwila. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITYCOUNCIL That the City Council approve the amendment to the Shoreline Master Plan pre - designating as "Urban Environment" the shoreline area west of the Green River between the existing city limits and S 204 Street in anticipation of annexation of the property into the City of Tukwila. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL That the City Council approve the amendment to the Shoreline Master Plan pre - designating as "Urban Environment" the shoreline area west of the Green River between the existing city limits and S 204 Street in anticipation of annexation of the property into the City of Tukwila. P: \Long Range Projects \Tukwila South Project \SMP Map Amendment \STAFF REPORT FOR COUNCIL - SMP Amend.doc • • PUBLIC HEARING: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SHORELINE DESIGNATION: STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 29, 2005 Notice of the public hearing was published in the newspaper on September 16, 2005. The Notice was mailed to property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the Tukwila South Project boundaries on September 15, 2005. It was posted at two locations on the Tukwila South property. L05 -030 Segale Properties (aka La Pianta, LLC) Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Amend Tukwila's Shoreline Master Plan to pre- designate the shoreline area located within the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area as within the "Urban Environment. ". The "Urban Environment" shoreline designation would take effect upon annexation. 200 feet wide strip of land lying generally west of the Green River, between the current south Tukwila city limit and South 204 Street, in unincorporated King County. See Exhibit L05- 041 -1. SEPA DETERMINATION: Tukwila South Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued April 5, 2005. The Final EIS was issued on July 7, 2005. An Addendum to the Final EIS was issued on September 23, 2005. Industrial (King County Comprehensive Plan). Tukwila Valley South (Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan). Rural Environment (King County Shoreline Master Program). Lisa Verner Application and proposal 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 The affected property is part of the proposed Tukwila South Project. The Tukwila South Project proposes a mixed -use, master planned development of up to 14 million square feet in a large - scale, campus setting on approximately 500 contiguous acres (located generally south of the l i$'A 5 —Tu wnita�ityfimit, west of the Green River, north of South 204 Street and east of OrilliaRoad/I -5). The Tukwila South Project proposal is described in detail by the Tukwila South EIS. Staff Report to Planning Commission L05 -030 Page 2 of 5 FINDINGS Description of Request The applicant requests an amendment to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan pre - designating the shoreline area within the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area (PAA) to the "Urban Environment" classification. Under "pre- designation," the Urban Environment classification would become effective only upon annexation. Pre- designation is allowed under the Washington State Shoreline Management rules (WAC 173 -26 -150). The applicant requests the City designate "Urban Environment" as the appropriate shoreline environment now so that upon annexation this designation will take effect immediately. Then Applicant can apply for a Substantial Development Permit (SDP) from the City for proposed work in the area of shoreline jurisdiction, which it needs in order to obtain various other permits it has applied for in conjunction with the Tukwila South Project. Background and Site Information Approximately 211 of the 492 acres are currently located with the City of Tukwila, and the portion of that area within the regulated shoreline is designated "Urban Environment." Approximately 259 acres are located in Tukwila's South Potential Annexation Area (PAA), which is currently in unincorporated King County. The regulated shoreline portion of the PAA is designated "Rural Environment" by the King County Shoreline Master Program. It is this unincorporated shoreline area that is subject to this application (see Exhibit L05- 041 -1, attached). Approximately 22 acres of the Tukwila South project area lie within the City of Kent and are not directly affected by the requested shoreline pre- designation. Current land uses within the area subject to this request include the Green River levee, agricultural lands and stormwater facilities. Surrounding land uses include commercial /industrial uses to the north, commercial /industrial and public park uses to the east (across the Green River), and agricultural uses to the south and west. The area subject to this shoreline pre - designation request is owned by the applicant, with the exception of a surface water management pond owned by King county and located just north of P: \Steve and Lisa's Segale Folder \SMP Map Amendment\STAFF REPORT - SMP Amend.doc Development allowed waterward of ordinary high water mark? Yes, but only if "water related" and no hazard to navigation. Yes, but only structures or accessory facilities that "protect or promote the public interest." Height limit for structures 35 feet, but may be increased up to 75 feet with additional setback; may exceed 75 feet in "mixed -use" developments. 35 feet within 100 feet of mean high water mark; otherwise 125 feet Open space 50 feet adjacent to a "natural environment" must be left as open space. 40 feet landward of mean high water mark limited to recreational use, pedestrian access and essential facilities. Public access Setback incentives provided to encourage public access. Public access encouraged. Provision of public access or "private natural area" required (Comp Plan policy). Allowed uses All uses allowed by underlying Industrial zoning. All uses allowed by proposed TSO zoning. Setbacks from high water mark - No setback required for "water- dependent" uses. - 20 to 50 feet for "water- related" uses, depending on provision of public access. - 20 to 75 feet, depending on provision of public access 40 feet, except recreational, public access and essential facilities. Staff Report to Planning Commission L05 -030 Page 3 of 5 South 200 Street, and a corridor containing the green River outfall for Johnson Ditch located between South 200 and South 204 Streets, owned by King County Drainage District #1. Existing King County "Rural Environment" The unincorporated portion of the applicant's property currently has a Rural Environment designation under the King County Shoreline Master Program, but is zoned I /Industrial under the county's zoning code. Table 1 describes key aspects of King County's applicable regulations and compares them with the proposed Urban designation under Tukwila's shoreline program. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER KING COUNTY "RURAL" DESIGNATION AND TUKWILA "URBAN" DESIGNATION King County "Rural" With "Industrial" zoning Tukwila "Urban" with "TSO" zoni P: \Steve and Lisa's Segale Folder \SMP Map Amendment \STAFF REPORT - SMP Amend.doc Staff Report to Planning Commission L05 -030 Page 4 of 5 Additional details concerning the existing King County "Rural Environment" shoreline regulations are included in Exhibit L05- 041 -3, attached. Review Process The SMP calls for amendments to be reviewed under TMC 18.80, "Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations." After review at a public meeting, the Tukwila City Council forwarded the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Now the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to review the application and make a recommendation to the City Council. After it's public hearing and review of the Commission's recommendation, if the City Council approves the amendment, the amendment must also go to the Department of Ecology for review and approval before taking effect. Chapter 18.80 TMC implements requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) concerning consolidation of Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal for consideration no more than once per year. Shoreline master program amendments are exempt from this requirement under the provisions of Section 36.70A 130(2)(a)(ii) Revised Code of Washington. Review Criteria Amendments to the Shoreline Master Program are legislative decisions. For the Commission's information, the Council used the following criteria found at TMC 18.80.050(B) in it's determination to forward the SMP amendment to the Commission for a recommendation. 1. Is the issue already adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? The issue is addressed by the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but is not adequately addressed by the Tukwila Shoreline Management Plan. The Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the Green River shoreline upstream (south) from the SR99 Bridge to South 204` Street as "Urban/Open space Environment" (see Exhibit L05- 041 -2, attached). This designation includes the subject area. The Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan provides no designation for the subject area. Designating the subject area "Urban" under the Shoreline Management Plan would implement the policy established by the Comprehensive Plan for this area. 2. If the issue is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, is there a public need for the proposed change? Yes. The subject area lies within Tukwila's recognized Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and is proposed for annexation to the City of Tukwila. Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) shorelines must be designated Urban, Rural, Conservancy or Natural P: \Steve and Lisa's Segale Folder \SMP Map Amendment \STAFF REPORT - SMP Amend.doc Staff Report to Planning Commission L05 -030 Page 5 of 5 within one year of annexation, and may be pre- designated prior to annexation (WAC 173 -62- 150). Pre - designating the subject area "Urban" under Tukwila's Shoreline Management Plan will ensure that appropriate management of the shoreline is in place immediately upon annexation. 3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified need? Yes. The Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan, updated in 2004, has determined that the area is appropriate for an "Urban/Open Space" designation. The "Urban Environment" designation is the appropriate designation under the City's Shoreline Management Plan to ensure implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 4. Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? Yes. The proposed pre- designation of the subject area "Urban" is an important element in achieving the City's vision and policies for future development of the area, consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan (see especially the Tukwila South element, pages 103- 108 of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan). CONCLUSION Pre - designation of the subject area as "Urban Environment" under the Tukwila Shoreline Master Program will ensure that appropriate shoreline use and development controls, consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan, are in place immediately upon annexation. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of the amendment to the Shoreline Master Program pre- designating as "Urban Environment" the shoreline area west of the Green River between the existing city limits and S 204 Street in anticipation of annexation of the property into the City of Tukwila. P: \Steve and Lisa's Segale Folder \SMP Map Amendment \STAFF REPORT - SMP Amend.doc 1 VE !izatarl' ^wa�1 ZZ E 1 ■ 1 a • wszi - tJT SRC+ .1O / i win4L'E�crtc'� ■ ' 1 r , 1't� ■M 1 i 111OI 1 11 t l ; rasa � "'0 1 ... oM 1 ■■■� ' ■.11i 11// ■ li :■ i t i11 lll :■ 1. r e i ■ / /: -:■ /Ili �- .�- aaam aa© iad I l m 11■ ■1 ■111 �.■ 1 ■/� 11�1111. : as� � � � i1 lIIIIIlluii i . I IIIII 1 1'� 1 1l 1 11■ / 11111i111111I 1111111 �p 1ll�a I1■Ir ■:1= 1111111111 11111111 MM. . :llli n: ■11111i11i1: - ::1HI11uiiiui ::: : 1 _ill l llil.'dilua _ = ■ f;:i „ �1ni':.■ =i� b:u111111: ■1111 / ■r■ 11. 11811 IlIUlI1111I11111111:s :IPI I I I 1 111 111111 IIII1111111111l111/111m CI1 i111o'111 non •_ n Il 1 � UMW Ol ■1W= EI 1111 1 r � J � i■ ;:• 4. �■ MN C /• 1111!Ii � � � \ llrl!tll: /I BE II . rni1 11. ems Or II IWNI;I 4AWi ll ... I11111111aa�.i ♦ I1 * 7 . Om • ♦ �1 . � 11 d 1 ■11■ 'In. B EII w PI' VO �i11 11 11 �rN .... � I • j`rt� CIlull .. Ca MN NM IIIIIn1 11 111 - :::: h "911!•?; ANGLE LAKE 188 ST GOLDSMITH & ASSOCK1ES1 LEGEND: EXHIBIT L05 -030 -1 4 TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT TUKWILA SOUTH SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AMENDMENT TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Net 41 RItren s TUKWILA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY AFTER LA PIANTA ANNEXATION — ^- — — — EXISTING TUKWILA I KING COUNTY LINE EXISTING TUKWRA SHORELINE JURISDICTION AREA PROPOSED TUKWILA SHORELINE JURISDICTION AREA ACTUAL ADDITIONAL SHORELINE AREA WITHIN MANAGEMENT ZONE . Shoreline • • 54 • URBAN -OPEN SPACE ENVIRONMENT upstream from SR99 bridge to S. 204 St. EXHIBIT L05 -030 -2 MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL CENTER ENVIRONMENT upstream from north City limits to SR 599 bridge Figure 7 - Shoreline environment designations (map) e November 22, 2004 RURAL ENVIRONMENT 25.20.010 - 25.20.030 Sections: 25.20.010 Purpose. 25.20.020 Designation criteria. 25.20.030 General requirements. 25.20.040 Agricultural practices. 25.20.050 Aquatic resource practices. 25.20.060 Forest practices. 25.20.070 Commercial development. 25.20.080 Signs. 25.20.090 Residential development. 25.20.100 Subdivisions. 25.20.110 Utilities. 25.20.120 Industrial development. 25.20.130 Shoreline protection. 25.20.140 Excavation, dredging and filling. 25.20.150 Recreation. KING COUNTY CODE Chapter 25.20 RURAL ENVIRONMENT 25.20.010 Purpose. The purpose of designating the rural environment is to restrict intensive development, function as a buffer between urban areas, and maintain open spaces and opportunities for recreational uses, within the ecological carrying capacity of the land and water resource. New developments in a rural environment should reflect the character of the surrounding area by limiting intensity, providing permanent open space and by maintaining adequate building setbacks from water to prevent shoreline resources from being destroyed for other rural types of uses. (Ord. 3688 § 501, 1978). 25.20.020 Designation criteria. Designation criteria for the rural environment shall be: A. Shorelines of the state possessing high capability to support active agriculture purposes; B. Shorelines of the state used or designated for residential development at a density of three units per acre or less; C. Shorelines of the state used or designated for light manufacturing or neighborhood business type uses; D. Shorelines of the state developed for residential purposes where surrounding land use is residential in character without all urban services; E. Shorelines of the state to be designated rural shall not have severe biophysical limitations to development such as floodplains, steep slopes, slide hazard areas and /or marshes, swamps or bogs. (Ord. 3688 § 502, 1978). 25.20.030 General requirements. A. Nonwater related and residential development shall not be permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark. B. Except in those cases when the height requirements of the underlying zone are more restrictive, no structure shall exceed a height of thirty-five feet above average grade level. This requirement may be modified if the view of a substantial number of residences will not be obstructed, if permitted by the applicable provisions of the underlying zoning, and if the proposed development is agricultural or water dependent. EXHIBIT L05-030-3 • 25.20.030 - 25.20.060 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT C. All development shall be required to comply with K.C.C. chapter 9.04 to control runoff and to provide adequate surface water and erosion and sediment control during the construction period. D. Development shall maintain the first fifty feet of property abutting a natural environment as required open space. E. Parking facilities except parking facilities associated with detached single - family and agricultural development shall retain existing vegetation or be planted in conformance with the landscape standards enumerated in the general requirements (K.C.C. 25.16.030) of the urban environment. F. Water quality treatment in compliance with K.C.C. chapter 9.04 shall be required where stormwater runoff would materially degrade or add to the pollution of recipient waters or adjacent properties. G. The regulations of this chapter have been categorized in a number of sections; regardless of the categorization of the various regulations, all development must comply with all applicable regulations. H. Development proposed in shorelines of the state shall maintain setbacks, provide easements or otherwise develop the site to permit a trail to be constructed or public access to continue where: 1. There is a proposed trail in the King County trail system; or 2. Part of the site is presently being used and has historically been used for public access. I. Along shorelines of the state on lake Sammamish, no building shall be placed on lands below thirty -two and one -half feet mean sea level. J. The regulations of this chapter are in addition to other adopted ordinances and rules. Where conflicts exist, that which provides more protection to the sensitive area shall apply; except that water dependent uses shall adhere to the applicable regulations and policies of the King County Shoreline Master Program. (Ord. 13190 § 26, 1998: Ord. 9614 § 112, 1990: Ord. 3688 § 503, 1978). 25.20.040 Agricultural practices. Agricultural practices may be permitted in the rural environment subject to the agricultural practices provisions (Section 25.16.040) of the urban environment. (Ord. 3688 § 504, 1978). 25.20.050 Aquatic resource practices. Aquatic resource practices may be permitted in the rural environment subject to the aquatic resource practice provisions (Section 25.16.050) of the urban environment. (Ord. 3688 § 505, 1978). 25.20.060 Forest practices. Forest practices may be permitted in the rural environment provided: A. Forest practices (see chapter 76.09 RCW) within shorelines require a shoreline conditional use permit when occurring outside of the lands classified F in the King County zoning code. Forest practices within shorelines on lands classified F in the King County zoning code shall require a shoreline conditional use permit when shorelines of statewide significance are involved or the forest practices would potentially impact: 1. Geological hazards which could damage public resources; 2. State threatened or endangered species; 3. Critical wildlife habitat; 4. Streams which could create instability of the drainage or affect temperature or sediment delivery to other streams resulting in damage to public resources; 5. Identified critical areas of watersheds supplying fish hatcheries, artificial rearing areas, domestic or municipal water systems; 6. Areas having archeological or cultural significance; 7. Areas with a high potential of soil erosion. B. Buffers. On all forest practices requiring a shoreline conditional use permit, a minimum buffer of 100 feet from either the ordinary high water mark or the edge of the FEMA floodway, whichever is greater, shall be established. The buffer shall be extended as necessary pursuant to the sensitive areas code to protect critical fish habitat for spawning or rearing; to alleviate surface water runoff problerps; to protect habitat for endangered, threatened, sensitive or monitor species listed by the federal government or the state of Washington; to control erosion hazards or for other reasons set out in K.C.C. chapter 21A.24. Along shorelines outside of lands classified F, there shall be no harvest of timber within the buffer except for necessary roads and crossings. Along shorelines within the lands classified F where a conditional use permit is required, timber harvest within the buffer is permitted so long as the functions of the buffer are not damaged and the applicant submits a harvest plan for review and approval. (King County 6 -2000) 25 -32 RURAL ENVIRONMENT 25.20.060 - 25.20.070 C. All culverts shall be designed to comply with K.C.C. chapter 9.04 and shall be kept clear of obstructions. The minimum size for culverts shall be fifteen inches in diameter. D. Culverts installed in streams used by fish shall meet all requirements set by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife and K.C.C. chapter 9.04. E. Roads and landings shall not be constructed within shoreline areas except when necessary to: 1. Cross streams; 2. Avoid road construction on unstable soils or on steep slopes when such construction would be more harmful than a shoreline location; 3. Perform water course improvement work only after approval of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. F. Roads shall minimize cut and fill. G. Where roadside material is potentially unstable or erodible, it shall be stabilized by use of seeding, compacting, riprapping, benching or other suitable means. H. Cut slopes shall not exceed: (X to Y) 1/4 to 1 in rock 3/4 to 1 in stable soils 1 -1/2 to 1 in unstable soils I. Side cast and embankment fill slopes shall not exceed: (X to Y) 1 -1/3 to 1 in broken rock and stable soils 1 -1/2 to 1 in unstable soils J. Running surface widths should be kept to a minimum, with not more than twenty-six feet for two -lane roads and not more than fourteen feet for single lane roads. K. Embankment fills shall: 1. Be constructed and compacted in layers no more than two feet thick; 2. Consist of inorganic material with no buried slash or debris beneath the running surface; 3. Not encroach upon a one - hundred -year floodplain so as to reduce its storage capacity or disturb riparian vegetation. L. Where side cast would encroach upon a one - hundred -year floodplain, end haul construction is required. M. Waterway crossings shall be constructed with minimum disturbance to banks and existing channels. N. Any soil or debris accidentally placed in the channel during bridge construction shall be removed by approved methods. All exposed soils shall be stabilized. O. All bridges shall be high enough to pass all anticipated debris and high water flows. P. Where aggregate earthen materials are used for paving or accumulate on bridges, sufficient curbs shall be installed to contain the surface material. 0. Each stringer bridge shall have one secured end and one end free to swing. R. When active use of a logging road is discontinued, it shall be left in such condition to provide adequate drainage and soil stability. S. Equipment used for transportation, storage or application of chemicals shall be maintained in leakproof condition. If there is evidence of chemical leakage, the further use of such equipment must be suspended until the deficiency has been satisfactorily corrected. T. Materials treated with penta, creosote or other chemicals shall be dried completely before use in any lake or stream. (Ord. 13190 § 27, 1998: Ord. 11792 § 27, 1995: Ord. 9614 § 113, 1990: Ord. 3688 § 506, 1978). 25.20.070 Commercial development. Commercial development may be permitted in the rural environment subject to the commercial development requirements (Section 25.16.070) of the urban environment, the general requirements (Section 25.20.030) of this chapter and provided: A. The commercial activity is permitted in the underlying zone. B. Water dependent commercial development shall not be required to maintain a shoreline setback. 25-33 (King County 9 -98) • 25.20.070 - 25.20.090 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT C. Water related commercial development shall maintain a shoreline setback of either fifty feet from the ordinary high water mark or twenty feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever is greater. This shoreline setback may be reduced to either twenty feet from the ordinary high water mark or ten feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever is greater, if the water related development provides limited public access or public access. D. Nonwater related commercial development shall maintain a shoreline setback of either seventy-five feet from the ordinary high water mark or thirty feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever is greater. This shoreline setback may be reduced to either fifty feet from the ordinary high water mark or twenty feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever is greater, if the nonwater related development provides limited public access. This shoreline setback may be reduced to either twenty feet from the ordinary high water mark or ten feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever is greater if the nonwater related development provides public access. E. Piers, moorages, floats and launching facilities may be permitted accessory to commercial development, provided: 1. The structure will serve a water dependent use; 2. The structure does not constitute a hazard to navigation; 3. No portion of the structure shall be located more than one hundred twenty feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark. (Ord. 3688 § 507, 1978). 25.20.080 Signs. Signs are permitted in the rural environment subject to the provisions of the underlying zoning and sign provisions of the urban environment (Section 25.16.080), provided that no sign shall be larger than fifty square feet. (Ord. 3688 § 508, 1978). 25.20.090 Residential development. A. Multifamily residential development may be permitted in the rural environment subject to the general requirements of K.C.C. 25.20.030 and the residential provisions of K.C.C. 25.16.090 through 25.16.140 of the urban environment; provided, that multifamily development shall maintain a minimum setback of seventy-five feet from the ordinary high water mark, except that: 1. If the minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark of a river or stream falls within the floodway, the development shall be required to locate past the upland edge of the floodway, 2. If the development is proposed on shorelines, including one or more sensitive areas, as defined in K.C.C. 21A.06 such development shall be done in accordance with regulations and procedures set forth in K.C.C. 21A.24. B. Single- family residential development may be permitted in the rural environment subject to the general requirements of K.C.C. 25.20.030 and the residential provisions of K.C.C. 25.16.090 through 25.16.140 of the urban environment. C. Any pier, moorage, float or launching facility permitted accessory to single or multifamily development or common use facility accessory to a subdivision, short subdivision or planned unit development in the rural environment shall be subject to the residential pier, moorages, float or launching facility provisions of the urban environment. (Ord. 11792 § 28, 1995: Ord. 5734 § 7, 1981: Ord. 3688 § 509, 1978). (King County 6 -2000) 25 -34 URBAN ENVIRONMENT 25.20.100 - 25.20.120 25.20.100 Subdivisions. The lot standards enumerated in this section apply to any lot which has buildable area within the shorelines of the state. Buildable area means that area of the lot, exclusive of any required open space, yards or setbacks upon which a structure may be constructed. A. The minimum required area of a lot in the rural environment shall be five acres; provided, however; 1. The minimum lot area may be reduced to twenty thousand square feet when: a. All lots are part of an approved subdivision or short subdivision; b. All lots are served by public water; c. All lots are served by an approved sewage disposal system; d. All lots are served by paved streets; e. All lots have a minimum width of one hundred feet; f. The base units per acre for that portion of a site under shoreline management jurisdiction in this case for a planned unit development or multifamily development shall be two. 2. The minimum lot area may be reduced to twelve thousand five hundred square feet when: a. All lots are part of an approved subdivision or short subdivision; b. All lots are served by public water; c. All lots are served by public sewers; d. All lots are served by paved streets; e. All lots have a minimum width of eighty feet; f. The base units per acre for that portion of a site under shoreline management jurisdiction in this case for a multifamily development shall be three. B. Any existing lot that does not comply with the minimum lot area requirement of subsection A and located wholly or partially within the shorelines of the state shall be subject to the fdllowing provisions: 1. If the adjoining property is not under the same ownership as such lot, then the lot shall be considered a separate building site. 2. If the adjoining property is under the same ownership as such lot, then the lot shall not be considered a separate building site until the lot is combined with adjoining property under the same ownership in such a way as to comply with the requirements of subsection A. C. Submerged land within the boundaries of any waterfront parcel shall not be used to compute lot area, lot dimensions, yards, open space or other similar required conditions of land subdivision or development, except, where specifically authorized by ordinance, such lands may be used in area computations as an incentive to encourage common open space waterfront areas. D. The foregoing lot area and width standards may be further reduced in direct proportion to the amount of usable area dedicated as common open space within the shorelines of the state as long as the net density remains the same. The common open space shall provide physical access to the ordinary high water mark for the residents of an approved subdivision; short subdivision or planned unit development; provided, that in no case may the lot standards be reduced below the lot standards required by Title 21A (the zoning code) for the zone classification in which the lot(s) is (are) located. E. Lot averaging shall not be used to comply with the minimum lot area requirements of subsection A for any lot wholly or partially within the shorelines of the state. (Ord. 11792 § 29, 1995: Ord. 3688 § 510, 1978). 25.20.110 Utilities. Utility facilities may be permitted in the rural environment subject to the utilities requirements (Section 25.16.160) of the urban environment and the general requirements (Section 25.20.030) of this chapter. (Ord. 3688 § 511, 1978). 25.20.120 Industrial development. A. The provisions of this chapter apply to industrial and manufacturing types of activities including ports. B. Industrial development may be permitted in the rural environment subject to the industrial development provisions (Section 25.16.170) of the urban environment and the general requirements (Section 25.20.030) of this chapter,, provided the 'industria activity is permitted,in the underlying zone. C. Water dependent industrial development shall not be required to maintain a shoreline setback. D. Water related industrial development shall maintain a shoreline setback of either fifty feet from the ordinary high water mark or twenty feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever Is greater. This shoreline setback may be reduced to either twenty feet from the ordinary high water mark or ten feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever is greater, if the water related development provides limited public access or public access. 25-35 • • 25.20.120 - 25.20.150 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT E. Nonwater related industrial development shall maintain a shoreline setback of either seventy-five feet from the ordinary high water mark or thirty feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever is greater. This shoreline setback may be reduced to either fifty feet from the ordinary high water mark or twenty feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever is greater,if the nonwater related development provides limited public access. This shoreline setback may be reduced to either twenty feet from the ordinary high water mark or ten feet from the edge of the floodway, whichever is greater, if the nonwater related development provides public access. F. Piers, moorages, floats or launching facilities may be permitted accessory to industrial development, provided: 1. The structure will serve a water dependent use; 2. The structure does not constitute a hazard to navigation. (Ord. 3688 § 512, 1978). 25.20.130 Shoreline protection. A. Shoreline protection may be permitted in the rural environment subject to the shoreline protection provisions (Section 25.16.180) of the Urban Environment. B. Breakwaters shall not be permitted. (Ord. 3688 § 513, 1978). 25.20.140 Excavation, dredging and filling. Excavation, dredging and filling may be permitted in the rural environment subject to the provisions of K.C.C. 25.16.190 of the urban environment provided: A. Excavation, dredging and filling below the ordinary high water mark shall be permitted only: 1. To serve a water dependent use or when necessary to: 2. Mitigate conditions which endanger public safety or fisheries resources, or 3. As part of and necessary to roadside or agricultural ditch maintenance that is performed consistent with best management practices promulgated through administrative rules pursuant to the sensitive areas provisions of K.C.C. chapter 21A.24 and if: a. the maintenance does not involve any expansion of the ditch beyond its previously excavated size. This limitation shall not restrict the county's ability to require mitigation, pursuant to K.C.C. chapter 21A.24, or other applicable laws; b. the ditch was not constructed or created in violation of law; c. the maintenance is accomplished with the least amount of disturbance to the stream or ditch as possible; d. the maintenance occurs during the summer low flow period and is timed to avoid disturbance to the stream or ditch during periods critical to salmonids; and e. the maintenance complies with standards designed to protect salmonids and salmonid habitat, consistent with K.C.C. chapter 21A.24; B. Channelizing, straightening or relocating rivers or streams shall not be permitted. (Ord. 13247 § 4, 1998: Ord. 5734 § 8, 1981: Ord. 3688 § 514, 1978). 25.20.150 Recreation. Recreational development may be permitted in the rural environment subject to the general requirements (Section 25.20.030) of this chapter and the recreation provisions (Section 25.16.190) of the urban environment; provided, that any pier, moorage, float or launching facility constructed in conjunction with a recreational development shall be governed by the pier and moorage regulations for commercial development (Section 25.20.070) in this chapter. (Ord. 3688 § 515, 1978). (King County 6 -2000) 25-37 L 9nn city of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: City Council FROM: Steve Lancaster DATE: June 6, 2005 SUBJECT: Request for Shoreline Management Plan Amendment L05 -030 Tukwila South (SegaleProperties) Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Attached for your information is the Staff Report and application for an amendment to the Tukwila Shoreline Management Plan. Such amendments are considered under the procedures for Comprehensive Plan amendments provided by Chapter 18.80 TMC. TMC 18.80.040 requires that the Staff Report for proposed amendments be transmitted to the City Council at least two weeks prior to the Public Meeting at which the request will be considered. The Public Meeting for this request has been scheduled for your June 20 regular City Council meeting. This item will also be on the Community Affairs and Parks Committee agenda at its June 14 meeting. After the June 20 Public Meeting, you have the option of: o referring the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation; o deferring the proposed amendment for one or more years to allow further evaluation; or o rejecting the proposed amendment. As indicated by the Report, staff is recommending that you refer this proposal to the Planning Commission for review and a recommendation. If that is your decision, the Planning Commission's recommendation will be brought back to the City Council, along with Planning Commission and staff recommendations on other aspects of the Tukwila South proposal (Tukwila South Master Plan approval, zoning and subdivision code amendments, Sensitive Area Master Plan designation and a development agreement). We continue to work toward having these items come before the City Council for public hearing and deliberation in August. Please contact Lisa Verner or me at 206/431 -3670 if you require additional information or clarification. Cc: Mayor Mullet Rhonda Berry Jane Cantu Lisa Verner Sue Carlson File # L05 -030 Q: \PAA \TVS Segale \Code Amendments \SMPthresholdMemo.doc -sjl- Created on 06/06/2005 4:15 PM Page 1 of 1 [`.. :._ 1111111 T.. 1....:1_ ►.I/ ..L:_. -a.... r1010 _ nl... -. )I1( Al 9 9<'711 - c..... 9116 AOt a.XC City of Tukwila PUBLIC MEETING: June 20, 2005 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL NOTIFICATION: Notice of public meting pertaining to the City Council threshold determination was published on May 23, 2005. Notice of Application was mailed to property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the affected property on May 31, 2005 and was posted at two locations on the subject property. FILE NUMBER: L05 - 030 APPLICANT: Segale Properties (aka La Pianta, LLC) REQUEST: Amend Tukwila's Shoreline Master Plan to pre- designate the shoreline area located within the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area as within the "Urban Environment." The "Urban Environment" shoreline designation would take effect upon annexation. LOCATION: STAFF: Lisa Verner 200 feet wide strip of land lying generally west of the Green River, between the current south Tukwila city limit and South 204 Street, in unincorporated King County. See Exhibit 1, attached to application. COMPREHENSIVE Industrial (King County Comprehensive Plan). PLAN DESIGNATION: Tukwila Valley South (Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan). SHORELINE DESIGNATION: Rural Environment (King County Shoreline Master Program). SEPA DETERMINATION:Tukwila South Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued April 5, 2005. Final EIS pending. ATTACHMENTS: Application Exhibit 1: Tukwila South Shoreline Master Program Amendment Exhibit 2: Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Figure 7 — Shoreline Environment Designations Q: \PAA \TVS Segale \Code Amendments \SMPthreshold.doc Sjl Page 1 of 4 AVM Cnuthwntvr Rnnlvvarit_ .Snite own • Tukwila_ Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 FINDINGS Description of Request The applicant requests an amendment to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan pre- designating the shoreline area within the Tukwila South Potential Annexation Area (PAA) to the "Urban Environment" classification. Under "pre- designation," the Urban Environment classification would become effective only upon annexation. Pre - designation is allowed under the Washington State Shoreline Management rules (WAC 173 -62 -150). Background and Site Information The affected property is part of the proposed Tukwila South Project. The Tukwila South Project proposes a mixed -use, master planned development of up to 14 million square feet in a large - scale, campus setting on approximately 498 contiguous acres (located generally south of the Tukwila City limit, west of the Green River, north of South 204 Street and east of OrilliaRoad/I -5). The Tukwila South Project proposal is described in detail by the Tukwila South Draft EIS. Approximately 217 of the 498 acres are currently located with the City of Tukwila, and the portion of that area within the regulated shoreline is designated "Urban Environment." Approximately 259 acres are located in Tukwila's South Potential Annexation Area (PAA), which is currently in unincorporated King County. The regulated shoreline portion of the PAA is designated "Rural Environment" by the King County Shoreline Master Program. It is this unincorporated shoreline area that is subject to this application (see Exhibit 1, attached to the application). Approximately 22 acres of the Tukwila South project area lie within the City of Kent and are not directly affected by the requested shoreline pre- designation. Current land uses within the area subject to this request include the Green River levee, agricultural lands and stormwater facilities. Surrounding land uses include commercial /industrial uses to the north, commercial /industrial and public park uses to the east (across the Green River), and agricultural uses to the south and west. The area subject to this shoreline pre- designation request is owned by the applicant, with the exception of a surface water management pond owned by King county and located just north of South 200` Street, and a corridor containing the green River outfall for Johnson Ditch located between South 200` and South 204` Streets, owned by King County Drainage District #1. Review Process The Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) requires that SMP amendments be processed and considered under the provisions of Chapter 18.80 TMC, "Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations." Under these provisions, the City Council is to consider such requests at a public meeting and make a "threshold determination" among the following options: Q: \PAA \TVS Segale \Code Amendments \SMPthreshold.doc SjI Page 2 of 4 1. Refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for further review and a recommendation to the City Council. 2. Defer further Council consideration for one or more years to allow the City further time to evaluate the application. 3. Reject the proposed amendment (TMC 18.80.050C). Chapter 18.80 TMC implements requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) concerning consolidation of Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal for consideration no more than once per year. Shoreline master program amendments are exempt from this requirement under the provisions of Section 34.70A 130(2)(a)(ii) Revised Code of Washington. Review Criteria 36 The City Council's threshold determination is to be based upon the considerations listed under TMC 18.80.050(B). Following is staff's evaluation of these criteria. 1. Is the issue already adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? The issue is addressed by the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but is not adequately addressed by the Tukwila Shoreline Management Plan. The Tukwila Comprehensive Land use Plan designates the Green River shoreline upstream (south) from the SR99 Bridge to South 204 Street as "Urban/Open space Environment" (see Exhibit 2, attached). This designation includes the subject area. The Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan provides no designation for the subject area. Designating the subject area "Urban" under the Shoreline Management Plan would implement the policy established by the Comprehensive Plan for this area. 2. If the issue is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, is there a public need for the proposed change? Yes. The subject area lies within Tukwila's recognized Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and is proposed for annexation to the City of Tukwila. Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) shorelines must be designated Urban, Rural, Conservancy or Natural within one year of annexation, and may be pre- designated prior to annexation (WAC 173 -62- 150). Pre - designating the subject area "Urban" under Tukwila's Shoreline Management Plan will ensure that appropriate management of the shoreline is in place immediately upon annexation. 3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified need? Yes. The Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan, updated in 2004, has determined that the area is appropriate for an "Urban /Open Space" designation. The "Urban Environment" designation is the appropriate designation under the City's Shoreline Management Plan to ensure implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Q: \PAA \TVS Segale \Code Amendments \SMPthreshold.doc SjI Page 3 of 4 4. Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? Yes. The proposed pre- designation of the subject area "Urban" is an important element in achieving the City's vision and policies for future development of the area, consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan (see especially the Tukwila South element, pages 103- 108 of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan). CONCLUSIONS Pre - designation of the subject area as "Urban Environment" under the Tukwila Shoreline Management Plan will ensure that appropriate shoreline use and development controls, consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan, are in place immediately upon annexation. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council refer the proposed Shoreline Management Plan amendment, File # LOS - 030, to the Planning Commission for further review and a recommendation to the City Council. Q: \PAA \TVS Segale \Code Amendments \SMPthreshold.doc SjI Page 4 of 4 APPLCCTION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Tukwila South Project LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. See Attached List Quarter: Section: Township: Range: See Attached List (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Sue Carlson, Segale Properties Address: 5811 Segale Park Dr C, Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: 206- 75-2000 FAX: 206 - 575 -1837 Signature: �,�,(y G: W PPHAMLANDUSE. APP\COMPAPP.doc. 06/28/00 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us /T. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS C P.A Date: ,5,lp .745 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P- CPA/P -ZCA Planner: l File Number: LO -- ttizie d - 3 D Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: APPLCCTION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Tukwila South Project LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. See Attached List Quarter: Section: Township: Range: See Attached List (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Sue Carlson, Segale Properties Address: 5811 Segale Park Dr C, Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: 206- 75-2000 FAX: 206 - 575 -1837 Signature: �,�,(y G: W PPHAMLANDUSE. APP\COMPAPP.doc. 06/28/00 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us /T. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS C P.A Date: ,5,lp .745 A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: Combination of LDR, MUO, HI, TUC & TVS Proposed: same B. ZONING DESIGNATION: Existing: Combination of LDR, MUO, HI, TUC & TVS Proposed: Tukwila South Overlay District C. LAND USE(S): Existing: Combination of agricultural and industrial Proposed: Proposed mixed use "Tukwila South Master Plan" (for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones) D. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES: Describe the existing uses located within 1,000 feet in all directions from the property or area for which a change is proposed. North side: A commercial /industrial mix, in Tukwila, zoned "Tukwila Urban Center" East side: Bounded by the Green River. Beyond, in Tukwila & Kent, is an industrial /commercial mix, along with one parcel in Kent zoned "OS" South side: Agricultural and low density residential in Kent West side: Bounded entirely by Orillia Rd & Interstate 5. To the west of Orillia is a small pocket of LDR in King County, and beyond 1 -5 in SeaTac is SFR. G :UPPHANLL.ANDUSE.APPICOMPAPP.daq 06/28100 City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment Application May 23, 2005 City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment Application Revised May 23, 2005 To: Ms. Lisa Verner, City of Tukwila From: Sue Carlson, Director of Development, Segale Properties LLC RE: Proposed Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment/Pre- designation to Accommodate the Proposed Tukwila South Master Plan Development in the City. A. 1. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? The proposal to amend Tukwila's Shoreline Master Plan addresses the portion of the site subject to annexation and shoreline re- designation, currently designated "Rural" under the King County Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Designation of the newly annexed Tukwila South shoreline as "Urban Environment" would be consistent with the Shoreline Element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Since the use, setback, height restriction and other provisions of the existing King County and proposed Tukwila shoreline master program designations are similar, no net loss of shoreline ecological functions would be anticipated.. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan in Goal 5.1, Policy 5.1.1 says " The following area shall be designated as the Urban — Open Space Environment: The entire shoreline zone from the Highway 99 bridge upstream extending to South 204 Street." The area under consideration lies within this described area. This application implements the intent of the City of Tukwila's adopted Comprehensive Plan. A. 2. Why is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? State law requires local governments to amend their Shoreline Master Program to include the annexed area within one year from the effective date of annexation. La Pianta submitted a notice of intent to annex the South Tukwila area to the city in November of 2004. This application pre- designates this area to conform to Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program. WAC 173 Local government annexation. " In the event of annexation of a shoreline of the state, the local government assuming jurisdiction shall notify the department of such annexation and develop or amend a master program to include the annexed area. Such master program development or amendment Segale Properties Tukwila South Project Page 1 City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment Application May 23, 2005 shall be consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines and shall be submitted to the department for approval no later than one year from the effective date of annexation." The proposed Shoreline Master Program map amendment provides for the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Goals and Policies. Please see response to Question B.3. A. 3. Why will the proposed change be a net benefit to the community? The proposed Shoreline Master Program Map Amendment area, together with the portion of the Tukwila South Master Plan area currently within the City limits represent approximately 500 acres of property proposed as a master planned development to accommodate national and international corporations in an integrated campus environment. Additional types of develop may include residential, retail and service uses. This integrated planned community will provide economic and environmental benefits to the public in the form of jobs, increased tax revenues, shoreline restoration, open space, expanded public access to the Green River shoreline and wetland restoration and enhancement. B.1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why. The purpose and need for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) minor amendment/ pre- designation is to accommodate the proposed Tukwila South Master Plan Development in the City of Tukwila. The proposed SMP minor amendment will bring shorelines now in King County's Urban Growth Area (UGA), mainly zoned for industrial development, into the City of Tukwila to be regulated under the City's SMP (see Exhibit 1 attached to this application form — Tukwila South Shoreline Master Program Amendment), after this portion of the City's planned annexation area is annexed (see Exhibit 1 attached to this application form — Tukwila South Overlay District). The Growth Management Act encourages annexation of unincorporated land in the UGA, and the scale and complexity of the Tukwila South Master Plan is more sensibly managed by containing it within, and regulating it by, the City of Tukwila. The City of Tukwila will pre- designate the annexed shoreline of the Green River as Urban Environment under its SMP. Zoning within the annexed area and shoreline, and of adjacent areas, is shown in Exhibit 1- Tukwila South Overlay District. B.2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change. The proposed SMP annexation is contiguous with the southern half of the approximately 500 -acre Tukwila South Master Plan area, which includes lands south of the existing city limits between the Green River and the SeaTac/Tukwila boundary, south to South 204 Street. A petition to annex has been presented to Segale Properties Tukwila South Project Page 2 City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment Application May 23, 2005 the City and the annexation and incorporation of the area into the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is expected to occur in the Fall of 2005. Annexation and incorporation of the annexed Green River shoreline into the City's SMP are actions intended to enable and encourage future growth within the UGA of the City of Tukwila; specifically growth within the Tukwila South Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Without the major infrastructure improvements enabled by the SAMP, the action alternatives described in the Tukwila South Draft EIS (April 2004) would not be feasible. One aspect of the proposed master plan is a net increase in wetland functions and values for the site. The City's Urban SMP designation allows uses that are no more intensive than those allowed by the King County SMP Rural /Industrial provisions now applicable to these shorelines, and the City's SMP regulations are at least as environmentally protective as King County's SMP provisions. The entire shoreline affected by the proposed SMP minor amendment includes a levee separating most natural environmental functions of the Green River and its riparian zone from the upland area to be annexed. The proposed Urban Environment shoreline designation within the City of Tukwila would allow the zoning applied to the annexed shoreline as shown in Exhibit 1, and consistent with the County's current Rural /Industrial provisions. The proposed Urban Environment designation and zoning overlays shown in Exhibit 1 are consistent with surrounding property zoning and the UGA designation for the property. B.3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations are met (cite policy numbers and code sections that apply). Annexation and incorporation of the annexed Green River shoreline into the City's SMP are actions intended to enable and encourage future growth within the UGA of the City of Tukwila; specifically growth within the Tukwila South Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Major portions of the Comprehensive Plan elements are summarized below; all other relevant elements are described in detail in the Draft EIS. • • Community Image Element: The proposed annexation to accommodate the Tukwila South Master Plan would promote community interaction by providing public and private amenities such as plazas, landscaped open space, and pedestrian bicycle pathways to link the campuses to adjacent areas. The communities' environmental heritage would be recognized through preservation of the western hillside, protection of open space, and a net gain in functions and values of fish and wetland habitat. Building design, construction and materials would be coordinated through comprehensive plan urban design principles. • Economic Development Element: The proposed annexation to accommodate the Tukwila South Master Plan would increase capital investments to encourage development that supports family -wage jobs, Segale Properties Tukwila South Project Page 3 City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment Application May 23, 2005 concurrent with substantial private actions, and provide capacity to meet Tukwila's employment targets. • Housing Element: The proposed annexation would accommodate creation of new housing within the Tukwila South area to help the City achieve its housing target. • Natural Environment Element: The proposed annexation would accommodate requirements of the Urban Environment designation under its SMP and be consistent with the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.160 (G)) as required to provide consistency with this element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. • Shoreline Element: Designation of the newly annexed Tukwila South shoreline as "Urban Environment" is consistent with the Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan. B.4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act. Consistent with the GMA (RCW 36.70A) and Countywide Planning Policies described in Section 3.7 of the Tukwila South Project Draft EIS (April 2005), the City's of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan (1995 and subsequently amended) guides future development to fulfill the City's responsibilities under GMA. Annexation and incorporation of the annexed Green River shoreline into the City's SMP are actions intended to enable and encourage future growth within the UGA of the City of Tukwila; specifically growth within the Tukwila South Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. B. 6. A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in functional plans (i.e., the City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is adopted; The Shoreline Master Program Map Amendment implements the vision of the Tukwila South Master Plan, which outlines phased infrastructure improvements for the Overlay District. Major utility infrastructure would be extended through the site within the Southcenter Parkway right -of -way such as such as stormwater conveyance pipe, water transmission line, sewer trunk line, electricity, gas, and telecommunications. The Tukwila South Project Draft EIS (April 2005), Section 3.16 analyzes the proposed infrastructure improvements associated with the Tukwila South Master Plan including the extension of Southcenter Parkway right - of -way through the site, consistent with the Land Use policies for the Tukwila South Master Plan Area. Installation of utilities would be coordinated with the City of Tukwila, Highline Water District and Puget Sound Energy. Extensions to these major utility lines within Southcenter Parkway would be constructed as future development occurs. Segale Properties Tukwila South Project Page 4 City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment Application May 23, 2005 The SMP map amendment area is not currently included in any municipal wastewater service area. It is assumed that the City would extend the boundary of its sewer service area to include the site, and that future wastewater service to the site would be provided by the City. This may require amendments to the City's 1991 Comprehensive Sewer System Plan and 1999 Addendum, which is currently being updated. The comprehensive, permanent stormwater control system proposed as part of the Tukwila South Project would meet the requirements of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, adopted by the City of Tukwila, and would include a conveyance system of two major water quality treatment and runoff control facilities. Discharge of stormwater during construction would require a National Pollutant Discharge elimination system permit and an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification issued by the Department of Ecology. These permits will require a variety of measure for construction stormwater discharge that are intended to result in no adverse impacts to receiving waters. B.7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, would be needed to support the proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the capital facilities plans of the City; See item B.6 B.8. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. Following annexation, the City's SMP would be extended to include the annexed area under an Urban Environment designation. Segale Properties Page 5 Tukwila South Project , • .c . li. : .1 r . ___ / __11 :1__P .. ii= a, I - • 3 1 7 - - , r - : - - L. . _--;_;_ / i I 1--: ---. I ! ; • ! --- \ \ _. . -- I • , I ' II•17--I''''H ! - 7.:7 ti 1 7 771- ! ' . 77111-77 - 7 7 7 - 71, ---- .,-, -_H h • V ',/---' .. tr--. ! : ■ J—...j., 1-..--- I i ! i ! .7' i :-.1. __', _I .,..,J, I !LI...4 ' =;\ , . ;I ' : • T Z71 -: . 1._,_.7. ' ' NKLER BLVD . , ' i I II I — L, I ' MI , , , • , r 1 — : . " ; n , r- \ , ..= - 7 - ! : ' : i ; 1 1 . 2..'„,'• , i I /1 , 1 c . • • • .. • . . im- ' 7 r --j 1 1--- ! .. ..., ! • _ .....\\,;_ i' . ;- , - . ,\-_Js■ t ,-_-..- .: • • 1 H—_,., r--- :.--::- ,_:-- —.- N . ' ''"-, 1 .---'. ' \ L=L j • i --- : -.7 1 ' ' H I - i r _ / / \ tp =:—!..:_:..: , _:•••4 • ! ! ' _LL: • : , ! I — --!. • • --'—' L !- -k t— '-,":'.— ;: ( i• • • . 1 --4 "--• • I • . : . • 11 : ' • • 1—L—L !: • , ' • , — "—• ‘;•\ \ • ,4----3— .— --- 7Th --"— '''''" 1--- : ) • : . , . ,----' ' ---' e ' o , • • , : ,.,. --; ... f C , -- ---,,-- ; , • 7 •--,--! .._: ...\..., • :_— ,. , --- , '.--- 77 ■ - -... L,-: , ,..._ \ ,=,-,... t-- a--1:--i : t■ , : ■ ,--..}.-- : :- • ' r•-: ! cz-J 4L...T.! ._...._. . . - • ,--■ .77n1 d ' I ' 1 ' I ' . 7- i. - TI ' I L--' 1.-4 '--'-- :_-/I ' .-- I ! LL- P ;' —L---' L--! • ...., ! ..3.! zz ANGLE LAKE /* \11 `C I _7\ 7 / ■,. CT 0, 11 7 • ; . I , ; . ! ---;; , ! t • • i , • , 1!7\ ' RRENT if 7UKWI / 1 LEGEND: . • • , r --- 7 --, i i ■ • t ,' ••---...,1 1/ :---- : -:; ; ' 1 .7 , i ■ ' I ' •,:• t• .11 ! ' ), .1 I TUKWILA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY AFTER LA PIANTA ANNEXATION EXISTING TUKWILA / KING COUNTY UNE EXISTING TUKWILA SHOREUNE JURISDICTION AREA PROPOSED TUKWILA SHORELINE JURISDICTION AREA ACTUAL ADDITIONAL SHORELINE AREA WITHIN MANAGEMENT ZONE • • 0 'GOLDSMITH ASSC■CIATES1 TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT TUKWILA SOUTH SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AMENDMENT - EXHIBIT 1 TUKWILA. KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Shoreline 54 ,r* — Veto • i •c • •i ► 4.4 • � • MANUFACTURING /INDUSTRIAL CENTER ENVIRONMENT upstream from north City limits to SR 599 bridge • r • % ,0„1)",z' , !' 1 Figure 7 - Shoreline environment designations (map) URBAN -OPEN SPACE ENVIRONMENT upstream from SR99 bridge to S. 204 St. November 22, 2004 EXHIBIT 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON 55 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665. E -mail: tukplan(a,ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: I. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its, employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at Tukwila South Project for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. The City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days. 7. Non - responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at Tukwila (city), WA (state), on May 6 My Commission expires on 2005 Mark A. Segale (Print Name) 5811 Segale Park Dr C. Tukwila, WA (Address) 98188 206 - 575 -2000 (Phone Number On this day personally appeared before me executed the foregoing instrument and acknowled.ed that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. me known to be the individual who LIC nd r of Washington Aft I__ 04. Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I , 0)42_ HEREBY DECLARE THAT: •-: - � Project Number: L Dc - A ��5''�'a� T„S: :.0307 LL^' �'- v Notice of Public Hearing Person requesting mailing: I ,S/" VeA1'l -e_A • .. Determination of Non - Significance j: Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - ' ", Significance •.. 6 Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping , •; Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action -' (›C Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice •p Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application �• Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline MgmQ' Permit ` YSa t __ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other . '�'. ' • is '. 5 4 • P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM 0 Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on th i s 23day of in the year 2005 • • • Project Name: -UA t ct)t,t4tA Project Number: L Dc - A ��5''�'a� T„S: :.0307 LL^' �'- v i Mailer's Signature: � L.)e)E14.. ..... Person requesting mailing: I ,S/" VeA1'l -e_A • .. 4 • P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM 0 Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on th i s 23day of in the year 2005 • • • " - . a g'" , ..i;,4,4 .....— ___r_. __,...1_ .....s: - • • Waterproofing our WorU, from NASA to your Neighborhood. Gaco Western has you Covered with Innovative Solutions. ., garklEllibtt Chief Financial Officer Office 206-357-2727 Fax 206-575-0587 melliott@gaco.com 0- • • wmgaco.com ID• l usa verner - ma. i uicwna outn running Commission Public Hearing From: "Bleifuhs, Steve" <Steve.Bleifuhs @METROKC.GOV> To: 'Lisa Verner' <Iverner @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, Ryan Larson <rlarson @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 9/20/05 4:49PM Subject: RE: Tukwila South Planning Commission Public Hearing Hi Lisa, If it's possible to send the material to me digitally on Friday, that would be preferable. Otherwise, please sent it to me, as follows: 201 South Jackson St., Ste. 600 Seattle, WA 98104 With respect to the question about an agreement between King County and Segale for trails and easements, the short answer is no. Rather, the easement requirements need to be a requirement of the City's developers agreement with Segale. And so, the long answer to your question is, as follows, excerpted from the County's May 5, 2005 DEIS response letter: Levee Design and Construction Standards King County is party to several signed interlocal agreements with the City of Tukwila and other municipal jurisdictions within the lower Green River Valley, establishing construction and maintenance standards for flood containment levees along the banks of the Green River. Under the terms of these agreements, King County has agreed to use funding secured by the GRFCZD to maintain and repair levees within easements granted to the GRFCZD, and to King County, for this purpose. This King County maintenance role is conditional on levees being brought into compliance with current design and construction standards by each affected jurisdiction. According to Section 4.2.4 of the July 2002 Interlocal Agreement for the Administration of the GRFCZD, "Local land use actions shall also provide for the obtaining of any additional easement areas or tracts of land reasonably necessary to accommodate levee structural integrity and slope stability needs. Such needs shall be determined in a manner consistent with applicable federal levee engineering guidelines, and with any additional engineering or geotechnical studies prepared for this purpose." King County, Tukwila, and Kent are all signatory parties to this Interlocal Agreement. (koc__ ISO Page 1 6 I Wks/ td /4Y paJ ✓Id Planning Commission TVS Public Hearing Agenda Packet (binder) Agenda Minutes? e e fConrtents Tukwila South Master Plan (Green tabs) i , DA\ ® Staff Report Attachments A. A4ciaer--Plan) Application materials --c am (41 f 9 Shoreline Master Program Amendments (Blue tabs) 0 9 Staff Report © 0. Application Materials 9 9 Addendum to Final EIS for Tukwila South Project (Red tab) S Tukwila South Master Plan 9 Zoning Code Amendments (Yellow tabs) p Staff Report C. Stiff-recommended Zoning C mendments DaApplication materials 9 Subdivision Code. Amendments (Orange tabs) Q Staff Report Attachments E. Staff -reco mended Subdivision Code Amendments pplication materials •Q: \PAA \TVS StaffRpts PC\PC TVS PH binder.doc -sjl- Created on 09/20/2005 11:03 AM Page l of l Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila ..�.} •e • AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION . �:,` I , , 3t4,4)VAL, \ DECLARE THAT: . Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance 9?: t'. ■ Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - - Significance _ T Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scopi } Notice • ,.: A >..r`.1 Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice ;,.' s : Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application`'r 7 Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline. `,. . ., •: Permit _ . FAX To Seattle Times Other e ` 1 Classifieds WF. V" Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds ° k K '�r`< PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 .� { Project Name: 14401 (41( swr.)boti - = " Project Number: L_D -0 i 1 ? L_o -Q,4 j L " a? _ ..0 ,. ',o e Mailer's Signature: . 0 ■ :' .'�' Person requesting mailing: L4 Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this f day of in the year 20 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: 14401 (41( swr.)boti - = " Project Number: L_D -0 i 1 ? L_o -Q,4 j L " a? _ ..0 ,. ',o e Mailer's Signature: . 0 ■ :' .'�' Person requesting mailing: L4 Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this f day of in the year 20 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this f day of in the year 20 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT INFORMATION The City has received the following four applications from La Pianta LLC (Segale Properties) in conjunction with the Tukwila South Project: 1. Tukwila South Master Plan; File L05 -041 2. Zoning Code changes, including a new Tukwila South Overlay District zone; File L05 -029A 3. Subdivision Code changes, including changes to Binding Site Plan; File L05- 029B 4. Shoreline Master Program map amendment to apply "Urban" shoreline environment designation; File L05 -030 The proposed Zoning Code and Subdivision Code changes may apply citywide. The Shoreline Master Program map amendment is proposed to apply to property proposed for annexation into the City located south of the City limits along the west side of the Green River to S 204 Street and inward from the water 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The Tukwila South Master Plan will apply to property generally south of S 178 /S 180 Street, west of the Green River, north of S 204 Street, and east of Orillia Road S /I -5. You are invited to comment on the applications by attending a public hearing scheduled for 7:00 PM on September 29, 2005 before the Planning Commission or by writing a statement which is received in the Department of Community Development by 5:00 PM on the date of the hearing. The public hearing will take place at City Hall in City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Blvd. To confirm the time and date before the hearing, call the Department of Community Development at 206 - 431 -3670. For further information on these proposals, contact Lisa Verner at 206 - 431 -3662 or lverner @ci.tukwila.wa.us or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100. Public hearing notice mailed September 16, 2005. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 311 111 II i i ; 11 :1i11 ::: o1 ,i1 1 r �. ■. ..ter ■�� 1 i au � : . :11.11111 �I 1 ! I I�I 11 a iui 1.:::I A IE S P •'1'C :1 = : i I " - - ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a ■■.L - mu IF ":e�11:'1 r -!ili:l:ilillllIIIII ; LLia worry ` 111 . 111 -r�Ill111I1111 / r� 1 11■ ■ olluulonl 1 1111111 on'�' 'g 1 uis G� C 111111�mU111111 r • alCailllllllf. A�: mom aim Ay i � Ml °IIIIRIII:i1`r 1 �• 111rR111=111,tra c1i�� X111111: ! o Ig11111111111111111C� :A 1111'1111' r� c 11111111 1111111/11111 0 1111 111 GG :01 - -i 11 1. � iii 7 I � 111111 S� 111 111111 1111n1 11.111 131111rn -�= x"11/ �it �1`IIJL' Ire ��� 1 - - :::i1_I1 1:1r:�1 =� 1 1 ;g 1 11 ;� + : 1 1 I ■1u ♦ � • mum .11_ C ♦O ♦ ♦ � : :�: 1 1 11111 � ���r. ... r am Imo' ♦ r. .� s ♦ ♦ 11/11■ . IIU= , .- �Em1111111111EI 1 tot tea �G 1111 r- i� 1111/ Eli _Cli �= - ♦ mourn. mat. ENE :: :1111641. 11 C=1.7ea`Iul NM/ OHM 'IL ua �m "► 1 111 CO - I prru �1 10�r WA - =limn mum • I WI 4V4 MI ` \- �•: ♦� ♦::� r a NUN Mai OE wawa r�-rrr- 11111111111.111 11111111 Is =a ANGLE LAKE 1 II 11 IINtI ■ MAI !GOLDSMITH t& SSOCI TESI 0 LEGEND: TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT TUKWILA SOUTH MASTER PLAN - EXHIBIT 1 TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TUKWILA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY AFTER LA PIANTA ANNEXATION MASTER PLAN BOUNDARY TUKWILA SOUTH MASTER PLAN AREA MCOMY O.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( ) DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( ) DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. ( ) DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE. DISTRICT #11 () FIRE DISTRICT #2 () K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC () K.C. ASSESSORS OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON LIBRARY () KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( ) QWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT gP UGET SOUND ENERGY IGHLINE WATER DISTRICT ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 'MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM () FISHERIES PROGRAM () WILDLIFE PROGRAM SEATTLE TIMES (SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P: ADMINISTRATIVE \FORMSICHKLIST.DOC CHE(T: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PEIS MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES () DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. bEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV -13 () DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION' S �� ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL • SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES PC- AK* OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES CITY AGENCIES KENT PLANNING DEPT C-A-r'P--- Ste I r \ RENTON PLANNING DEPT ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) PUBLIC WORKS () FIRE ( ) POLICE () FINANCE ( ) PLANNING () BUILDING ( ) PARKS & REC. () MAYOR () CITY CLERK MEDIA > ).S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. ( ) NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE () HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE () K.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES-SEPA INFO CNTR () K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL vx.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES () FOSTER LIBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY () HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT () RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT () WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 () CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS () BRYN MAWR- IAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT ITY OF SEA -TAC K (3 ^ - ' ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE* • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. () DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY ( ) SOUND TRANSIT ( ) DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION 'SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPLICATIONS ON OUWAMISH RIVER `4q HIGHUNE TIMES I.TUKWILA.WA.US.WWW �s Z Tog r� ".,. "'""71d -r 5 5 5 E — )10151 S 00, j"el f""5- - 009 at +5 ,,,° "C `1V-05 1oz ca 'rah ingesM5 jr--"; r' -rap r k 5, ; ., 21 .,(Itn.,G 1 C S9 1)9 \ Lr2Q 5 -- 9 00,34 � M � n a �� uV 44 OS‘S 1^°1%'�1 S'1.24 5 LA- "A / a• l xr) 14Q-A .P7Dvk \o,rd - 7,d Parties of Record 8 -4 -05 1. Arthur H. McKean Aiken, St. Louis, & Siljeg, PS V 801 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 2. David Benoliel M &P Partnership 14100 SE 36 Street, Suite 20(/ Bellevue, WA 98006 3. M &P Company E. Mitchell PO Box 1083 Edmonds, WA 98020 7. Rich Buck Lease Return Center 19607 Orillia Road S Kent, WA 98032 8. L. Jonientz 5565 S. 178 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 4. Peter Davis Gaco Western Inc PO Box 88698 / Seattle, WA 98138 v 5. Andrew S. Lane Cairncross & Hempelmann 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 V Seattle, WA 98104 6. Roger McCracken McCracken Properties LLC 19604 International Blvd, Suite 200 Sea -Tac, WA 98188 9. Richard Aramburu, Attorney 505 Madison Street Seattle, WA 98104 10. Bob Scofield 4212 Hunts Point Road Bellevue, WA 98004 11. Steve Butler City of SeaTac 4800 South 188 Street SeaTac, Washington 98188 -8605 17. James Adsley 19805 Orillia Road S Kent, WA 98032 19. Thomas D. Keown, PE Highline Water District PO Box 3867 Kent, WA 98032 12. Dale Schroeder City of SeaTac 4800 South 188 Street SeaTac, Washington 98188 -8605 13. Bob Meyer City of SeaTac 4800 South 188 Street SeaTac, Washington 98188 -86 14. James Grief �1Z 4, ,So 3titac 1 WA gislgg 15. Lori Jenkins Des Moines, WA 16. Tony Zgraggen 43014 212` Ave SE Enumclaw, WA 98022 18. Chris Bauer King County Fire District #24 1 19805 Orillia Road S Kent, WA 98032 20. Kim Marousek City of Kent 220 Fourth Ave S Kent, WA 98032 -5895 21. King County Department of Transportation, Road Services Division 201 S Jackson Seattle, WA 98104 22. Dale Myers V • 0 Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160 _ ••.. - • ■•■• •• tra • Kir Tukwila RE: 262304 9079 17300 Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila WA 98188 King County RE: 352304 9037 500 KC Admin Bldg. Seattle WA 98104 Southcenter Properties RE: 352304 9101 601 SW 2n Ave #2100 Portland OR 97204 Tukwila Historical Society RE: 022204 9036 14475 59 Ave S Tukwila WA 98168 Drainage District 1 RE: 102204 9045 PO BOX 297 Kent WA 98035 Jo Etal & Larry Gallagher RE: 032204 9053 PO Box 1099 Bandon OR 97411 Armando Scoccolo RE: 032204 9025 6821 112' Ave SE Renton WA 98056 Armando Scoc RE: 10 68 9007 12` Ave SE nton WA 98056 Armando occolo RE: 204 9044 6 1 112' Ave SE Renton WA 98056 A83AV 1- 800 -GO -AVERY 0 al, MVCltYt 5160 CLPF- TUKWILA RE: 262304 9067 350 S Grand Ave #25 Los Angeles CA 90071 Mario Segale RE: 352304 9032 PO Box 88046 Tukwila WA 98138 Vien Bui & Thanhthien Tonnu RE: 352304 9039 12613 38 Ave SE Everett WA 98208 Armondo Scocc RE: 102 9186 682 2 Ave SE castle WA 98056 Larry Gallagher RE: 032204 9103 PO Box 1099 Bandon OR 97411 Union Pacific Railroad Co. RE: 032204 9027 1700 Farnam St Ohama NE 68102 Armando Scoccolo RE: 102204 9 5 6821 1 ve SE Re n WA 98056 Armando Scoccolo RE: 1022 40 682 2"' Ave SE enton WA 98056 ®09LS 31V1dW31 40/JaAy asn Darn rree rnnung Use,Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® Armondo Scoc RE: 10220 185 6821 11 Ave SE Renton A 98056 • Armondo Scocc RE: 10220 '184 6821 1 Ave SE Ren • n WA 98056 Fred Pittenger RE: 032204 9072 4301 S 200' St Kent WA 98032 La Pianta RE: 022204 9047 PO Box 88050 Tukwila WA 98138 Schoenbachler Enterprises LLC RE: 352304 9034 9253 E Sands Dr Scottsdale AZ 85255 Kwan Patrick /Rosalyn RE: 788880 0160 5862 S 194 St Kent WA 98032 St. Demetrios RE: 102 9001 2100 over Ave S Se tle WA 98112 First Union National Bank RE: 022204 9052 745 Atlantic Ave Boston MA 02111 Shasta Beverages RE: 352304 9072 1 N University Dr Plantation FL 33324 Houghton Harbor RE: 352304 9084 1233 Andover Park E Tukwila WA 98188 Kir Tukwila RE: 352304 9005 17600 Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila WA 98188 A$3AV www.avery.wm 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Vince Coluccio RE: 023900 310 210 SW 194` PL Normandy Park WA 98166 Assoc Catholic Cemeteries RE: 032204 9021 205 NE 205 St Seattle WA 98155 Gregory Real Estate Two LLC RE: 788880 0180 1216 6 Ave N Kent WA 98032 Schoenbachler Enterprises LLC RE: 352304 9015 106 110' Place SE Bellevue WA 98004 King County RE: 032 049 500 Ave ttle WA 98104 City of Kent RE: 0222• •061 220 ` Ave S K : t WA 98032 U AVERY® 5160® Union Pacific Railroad RE: 352304 9108 1416 Dodge St #325 Omaha NE 68179 Southcenter Partners LLC RE: 352304 9095 601 SW 2"d Ave #2100 Portland OR 97204 Houghton Harbor RE: 352304 9122 1233 Andover Park E Tukwila WA 98188 Two Nine Three & Four LTD RE: 352304 9110 1325 4` Ave #1940 Seattle WA 98101 w09L5 31V1d1N314 MaAV 9511 Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® Bellwether Properties RE: 788890 0111 18435 Olympic Ave S Tukwila WA 98188 Sound Floor Covering RE: 788890 0130 18375 Olympic Ave S Tukwila WA 98188 Campbell James E ate RE: 788890 0 •2 1001 Ka • • ila Blvd. Kapo HI 96707 Doug Thompson RE: 032204 9097 4417 S 200 ' St Kent WA 98032 Tri -Land Corporation RE: 352304 9103 1325 4 Ave #1940 Seattle WA 98101 Gray Cat Collective LLC RE: 352304 9069 5430 45 Ave W Seattle WA 98199 City of - t RE: 7 ::880 0111 22 ' 4 Ave S Kent WA 98032 Bruce C. & Elizabeth S. Mitchell RE: 352304 9082 19000 57 PL NE Kenmore, WA 98028 QM www.avery.com • ammo= 1- 800 -GO -AVERY James Camp RE: 78 1001 0 0120 amokila Blvd K olei HI 96707 Pacific Metal RE: 788890 0140 3400 SW Bond Ave Portland OR 97239 Ty & Van Ly Lam RE: 184030 0185 17804 51" Ave S Seatac WA 98188 Waco Enterprises RE: 352304 9092 1205 Andover Park W Tukwila WA 98188 KMBR RE: 352304 9074 1232 Andover Park W Tukwila WA 98188 City of Tukwila RE: 352304 9 6200 So center Blvd Tuk . WA 98188 O Connell Heritage LLC RE: 022204 9017 20431 Frager Rd S. Kent WA 98032 Roberto Ordonio & Virg Warren RE: 032204 9023 20811 100' Ave SE Kent WA 98031 King County RE: 03 4 9049 500 Ave ttle WA 98104 St. Demetrios RE: 102204 9003 2100 Boyer Ave E Seattle WA 98112 U7 AM- AL1 -nno -I V AVERY® 5160® Campbell Real Estate LLC RE: 788890 0121 18435 Olympic Ave S Tukwila WA 98188 Campbell James Es RE: 788890 1001 K . • ila Blvd. Ka . - i HI 96707 LA PIANTA LLC RE: 35230 090 PO BO 8028 Tu ila WA 98138 Boeing Oregon Masabi Trust RE: 352304 9105 1325 4 Ave #1940 Seattle WA 98101 GCC LLC RE: 352304 9085 1 180 Andover Park W Tukwila WA 98188 City of Tukwila RE: 352304 9003 6200 South ter Blvd Tukwil A 98188 t. Demetrios RE: 032204 24 2100 B r Ave E Seat WA 98112 St. Demetrio RE: 10 210 4 9175 oyer Ave E S — the WA 98112 City of Ke RE: 11 04 9008 220 , Ave S K = t WA 98032 James Adsley RE: 032204 9104 3280 Saratoga Rd Langley WA 98260 �naLc a nndiwat ,JJaAV asn •mn U J ca 1 Use,Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® Johnson Property Holdings RE: 660021 0230 20205 59 PI SE Kent WA 98032 La Terra RE: 66002 '260 PO Box .028 Tuk. a WA 98138 Bakery Chef Inc. RE: 788880 0050 999 Oakmont Plaza Dr. #610 Westmont IL 60559 PCS Properties LLC RE: 788880 0080 PO Box 700 Mercer Island WA 98040 Market Contractors LTD RE: 788880 0130 10250 NE Marx St Portland OR 97220 Stress -Tek Inc. RE: 788880 0140 5920 S 194 St Kent WA 98032 Mark & Kay Hockman RE: 788880 0170 19400 58 Ave NE Kenmore WA 98028 Streng Heinz & Renate RE: 788880 0200 19311 Richmond Beach Dr NW Shoreline WA 98177 Thomas Herche RE: 78880 0510 PO Box 3837 Seattle WA 98124 Green Garden Food Products RE: 788880 0550 5851 S 194 St Kent WA 98032 • Johnson Property Holdings RE: 660021 0 20205 5 • `h ' SE Kent A 98032 La Terra RE: • . 1021 0270 • Box 88028 Tukwila WA 98138 TBI Building RE: 788880 0060 6412 S 190 St Kent WA 98032 PCS Properties LLC RE: 788880 • • 0 PO Box 7 Merc sland WA 98040 Market Contracto LTD RE: 78888 31 1025 Marx St Po and OR 97220 Robbins Holdings RE: 788880 0150 5866 S 194 St Kent WA 98032 196' Corridor LLC RE: 788880 0210 PO Box 120 Renton WA 98057 Dahava Financial LP RE: 788880 0535 10777 Main St #300 Kent WA 98032 AHand- nn -nn9 -L vv vv vv.a v v, y..uI 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Gregory Real Estate Two LLC RE: 788880 0180 1216 6 Ave N Kent WA 98032 S King County Activity Center RE: 788880 0560 19731 Russell Rd Kent WA 98032 La Terra RE: 660021 0250 PO Box 88028 Tukwila WA 98138 City of Kent RE: 660021 0360 220 4 Ave S Kent WA 98032 TBI Building RE: 788880 0070 6412 S 190 St Kent WA 98032 B &B Holdings LLC RE: 788880 0190 3371 46th Ave NE Seattle WA 98032 U AVERY® 5160® River's Edge Business Park RE: 788880 0100 10900 NE 8` St #900 Bellevue WA 98004 Market Contractors LTD RE: 788880 • 2 1025 ' Marx St rtland OR 97220 Robert & Phyllis Slayton RE: 788880 0155 14900 Interurban Ave S #21 Tukwila WA 98168 Aldarra LLC RE: 788880 0400 1717 Main Street #3700 Dallas TX 75201 Green Garden Food Products RE: 788880 0540 5851 S 194 St Kent WA 98032 Campbell James Estate RE: 788890 0110 1001 Kamokila Blvd Kapolei HI 96707 .onQEc a ItnawaI ,,Mann asn Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® CASTELLO LAND CO INC RE:262304 9096 PO Box 40629 Bellevue WA 98015 N B Kaiser RE:352304 9010 5126 S 178th St Seatac WA 98188 Gaco Western Inc. RE: 352304 9014 PO Box 88698 Seattle, WA 98138 ALLIED DISTRICT PROPERTIES RE:352304 9087 33 W Monroe St #21 Chicago IL 60603 Gaco Western In . RE: 352 017 PO 88698 attle, WA 98138 Gaco Western Inc. RE: 352304 9081 PO Box 88698 Seattle, WA 98138 King County RE: 022204 9015 500 4 Ave #500A Seattle WA 98104 First Union Nat ank RE: 02204 • 52 745 AtI. is Ave Bost • MA 02111 Ivan..Ospina RE::;;184030.0210 1 2828 :51 g`. Ave S Seatac •WA : ; .98..188 • mMO= RAMOS PROPERTIES LLC RE:262304 9134 133 SW 158th St Burien WA 98166 LA PIANTA LLC RE:35230 ' ' 9 PO 88028 kwila WA 98138 MILLER LAKE RANCHES LLC RE:352304 9061 17800 Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila WA 98188 ALLIED DISTRICT P RTIES RE:352304 9 33 W i : roe St #21 C - . go IL 60603 Rohrbach Southcenter RE:352304 9107 PO Box 58408 Seattle WA 98138 City of Kent RE: 000020 0043 220 4 Ave S Kent WA 98032 City of Kent RE: 0 •4 9042 22 • ih Ave S nt WA 98032 Marilyn Robinson RE: 184030 0181 5129 S 178 St Seattle WA 98188 r� AlllnV-O9 -0oR - L Den : &;;Linda 'Landowski RE ;184030 +.0220. 17900, 51St Ave: S Seatac :'981'88 www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY U AVERY® 5160® KIR4Tukwila: L;P' RE:2623 9110 ,�. - 30.;1 M nk1er.; BJ d Tukwila IVQ�- 81;88. CLPF - Tukwila RE:262304 9136 17555 Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila WA 98188 Franmo Holdings L L C RE:352304 9031 3300 Douglas Blvd #440 Roseville CA 95661 William M & Susan J Starr RE:352304 9076 PO Box 98134 Des Moines WA 98198 Melinda; D ollison RE =35230{4;9090 5563 - S 5 178th St s Ai g 9$ �8�8 MILLER LAKE RANCHES LLC RE:352304 9123 17850 Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila WA 98188 City of Kent RE: 00 0044 22 Ave S Kent WA 98032 La Pianta LLC RE: 02204 9047 PO BO =;. 8 T ila WA 98138 Orville Geving RE: 184030 0200 17820 51" Ave S Seattle WA 98188 Dickson Brothers RE: 660021 0220 2011959` Kent WA 98032 6b 09LS 31V1dW31 many asn Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® Charles A Bauer RE:023900 198 rillia Rd S nt WA 98032 Douglas D & Clare • mpson RE:023900 15018 S 24th St Kent A 98042 Richard L & Elizabeth P ck RE:032204 24 E 220th St aple Valley WA 98038 OCONNELL HERITAGE LLC RE:032204 9022 20431 Frager Rd S Kent WA 98032 Patricia Kiwa Lynch RE:032204 9060 4411 S 200th St Kent WA 98032 New Testament Church RE: 032204 9058 PO Box 6493 Kent WA 98064 LA PIANTA RE:O 4 9092 P Box 88028 Tukwila WA 98138 LA PIAN C RE 204 9100 0 Box 88028 Tukwila WA 98138 Jas'oris& ;Melissa C Alexand RE:184030 0190 17812 st Ave:.S SeaTac; WA:98188 eons ®A2l3AV 1411 • - Charles A Bauer RE:023900 0246 19805 Orillia Rd S Kent WA 98032 Patricia Kiwa Lynch RE:023900 0300 4411 S 200th St Kent WA 98032 LA PIANTA LLC RE:023900 0 PO B 028 wila WA 98138 Mary K Arnold RE:032204 9052 20016 Orillia Rd S Kent WA 98032 Sara L Stuth RE:032204 9061 22232 196th Ave SE Renton WA 98058 LA PIANTA LLC RE:03220 3 PO 88028 ukwila WA 98138 CASTELLO LAND CO INC RE:262304 9013 PO Box 40629 Bellevue WA 98015 Ald3AV 111/WA 12AP•AAAAAA 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Douglas D & Clare I Thompson RE:023900 0247 15018 SE 224th St Kent WA 98042 Vincent Coluccio RE:O ' • 20 SW 194th PI Normandy Park WA 98166 Vincent Coluccio RE:02390 5 210 194th PI ormandy Park WA 98166 Anton Zgraggen RE:032204 9020 4503 S 204th St Kent WA 98032 LA PIANTA LLC RE:032204 906 PO Box 88 Tuk A 98138 LA PIANTA LLC RE:032 S ' s 6 ox 88028 Tukwila WA 98138 Richard L & Elizabeth P Buck RE:032204 9067 24601 SE 220th St Maple Valley WA 98038 Robert N & Myrna L Bauer RE:032204 9097 15045 SE 296th St Kent WA 98042 Ty & Van Ly Lam RE:184030 0185 9221 14th Ave SW Seattle WA 98106 LA PIANTA LLC RE:262304 9065 PO Box 88028 Tukwila WA 98138 ®091.S 31V1dW31®AJSAV asfl 6unuua eaad wet Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® Consolidated Container Company RE: 7888900110 6545 So. Glacier St. Tukwila, WA 98188 Bakery Chef RE: 7888800050 6320 So. 190` St. Kent, WA 98188 Tally Genicom RE: 7888800080 6020 S. 190 St. Kent, WA 98032 Clarke American RE: 7888800510 5869 So. 194 St. Kent, WA 98032 MC, Ltd RE: 7888800130 6040 So. 194 St., Suite 101 Kent, WA 98032 • Paragon Pacific Insulation RE: 7888800550 19710 58 Place South Kent, WA 98032 The Boxmaker Inc. RE: 7888800070 6230 S. 190 St. Kent, WA 98032 ESP Printing RE: 7888800100 19201 62 " Ave So. Kent, WA 98032 Alaska Airlines RE: 7888800400 P.O. Box 68900 Seattle, WA 98168 -0900 United Warehouses RE: 7888800510 6013 So. 194 St. Kent, WA 98032 Plastic Dynamics, Inc. RE: 7888800130 6040 So. 194 St., Suite 102 Kent, WA 98032 Great American Gaming Corp RE: 7888800155 5872 So. 194 Street Kent, WA 98032 www.avcI r.wun 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Paragon Pacific In ion RE: 78888 19710 Place South K t, WA 98032 Crate Tech Inc. RE: 7888800070 6206 S. 190` St. Kent, WA 98032 Raleigh America, Inc. RE: 7888800090 6020 S. 190 St., Suite 101 Kent, WA 98032 Teel Rule Concepts RE: 7888800131 19221 62 " Ave So. Kent, WA 98032 Kraft Foods RE: 7888800400 19032 62 " Ave So. Kent, WA 98032 Green Garden, Inc. RE: 7888800540 5851 So. 194 Way Kent, WA 98032 Stress -Tek, Inc. RE: 7888800140 5920 So. 194 St. Kent, WA 98032 ApPlus RE: 7888800155 5868 So. 194 Street Kent, WA 98032 AVERY 5160® —no LC a nnaw11,4,A4aAV esfl Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® Shasta Beverages RE: 352309072 1227 Andover Park East Tukwila, WA 98188 Claim Jumper Restaurant RE: 3523049031 5901 S 180 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 Larkin Precision RE: 788880190 5810 So. 194 Way Kent, WA 98032 Wireless Technologies, Inc. RE: 788880210 19823 58 Place South Kent, WA 98032 Evergreen Pet Supply RE: 7888900162 18200 Olympic Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 Hellmann RE: 788900152 18289 Olympic Ave S Tukwila, WA 98188 Pacific Metal RE: 7888900140 18325 Olympic Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 Sound Floor Coverings RE: 7888900130 18375 Olympic Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle Bindery RE: 7888900120 6540 So. Glacier St., Suite 120 Tukwila, WA 98188 ne� e .t.1 w 106/1 • Apollo Spas RE: 3523049084 1233 Andover Park East Tukwila, WA 98188 Thomasville Furniture RE: 3523049031 5951 S 180 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 HS Machine Works RE: 788880200 19713 58 Place South Kent, WA 98032 Selway Machine Tool, Inc. RE: 7888800180 5844 So. 194 Way Kent, WA 98032 Mult Alloy RE: 7888900152 18201 Olympic Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 SKCAC Industries RE: 7888800560 19731 58 Place South Kent, WA 98032 The Source RE: 7888900130 18365 Olympic Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 AH3AV-O9-008- L 1- 800 -GO -AVERY • Rainier Industries RE: 7888900111 18435 &18475 Olympic Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 Ventree RE: 7888900120 6540 So. Glacier St., Suite 140 Tukwila, WA 98188 s Cort Furniture RE: 3523049069 1230 Andover Park East Tukwila, WA 98188 Bassett Furniture RE: 3523049031 5951 S 180 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 The Robbins Company RE: 7888800150 5866 So. 194 St. Kent, WA 98032 Acoustical Design RE: 7888800190 5820 So. 194 Way Kent, WA 98032 Perfect Fit — McDonald RE: 7888900152 18249 Olympic Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 Iron Mountain RE: 0222049052 19826 Russell. Road Kent, WA 98032 Smooth Corporation RE: 7888900130 18375 Olympic Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 IU AVERY® 5160® Rainier Industries RE: 7888900121 18435 &18475 Olympic Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 MicroSery RE: 7888900120 6540 So. Glacier St., Suite 160 Tukwila, WA 98188 m091S 31V1d1N31 many asn Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® Levitz Furniture RE: 3523049087 17601 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Banfield Pet Hospital RE: 2623049067 17585 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Joanne's RE: 26230409067 17501 Southcenter Pkwy #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Applebee's Restaurant RE: 3523049005 17790 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Macy's Furniture Gallery RE: 3523049005 17750 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Regal Cinemas RE: 3523049061 5910 S 180 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 Aptex, Inc. RE: 3523049092 1205 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Mitchell Moving & Storage RE: 3523049082 .18800 Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila, WA 98188 Vico Furniture RE: 3523049074 1230 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 rl • Levitz Furniture RE: 3523049088 17601 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Linens N Things RE: 2623049067 17501 Southcenter Pkwy #400 Tukwila, WA 98188 Azteca Restaurant RE: 2623049134 17555 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 David's Bridal RE: 3523049005 17740 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Newport Restaurant RE: 3523049123 17920 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Sansaco RE: 3523049105 5950 S 180` Street Tukwila, WA 98188 Vina Sewing, Inc. RE: 3523049092 1207 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Home Innovations RE: 3523049085 1180 Andover Pk West Tukwila, WA 98188 Cascade Container RE: 3523049074 1232 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 1 X17 A14-/1 [1 -AAO -1 www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY © AVERY® 5160® Home Furniture RE: 3523049107 17855 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Petsmart RE: 2623049067 17585 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Borders Books RE: 2623049067 17501 Southcenter Pkwy #200 Tukwila, WA 98188 K & G Fashion Superstore RE: 2623049067 17501 Southcenter Pkwy #300 Tukwila, WA 98188 Shoe Pavilion RE: 3523049005 17720 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Shane Company RE: 3523049123 17950 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Dania RE: 3523049103 1251 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Home Innovations RE: 3523049092 1180 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Goodwill Industries RE: 3523049085 1174 Andover Pk West Tukwila, WA 98188 Electrical Distributing RE: 3523049095 6750 S 180 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 _no e ] 1M1J1N71 —Liam/ asn Use Avery; TEMPLATE 5160® Pizza Schmizza RE: 17784 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Occupant RE: 3523049010 5126 S 178` Street Tukwila, WA 98031 Occupant RE: 1840300185 17804 — 51 Ave So. Tukwila, WA 98188 Occupant RE: 5870 So. 194 Street Kent, WA 98032 • Occupant RE: sleinomm 5862 So. 194 Street Kent, WA 98032 Occupant RE: 1840300181 5129 So. 178 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 Occupant RE: 7888800100 19017 62 " Ave So. Kent, WA 98032 A83AV-09 -_'.. ktpj MVGIZY® 5160® 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Bell Electronics RE: 19725 Russell Road Kent WA 98032 Occupant RE: 3523049021 5118 S 178 Street Tukwila, WA 98031. Occupant RE: 1840300200 17820 — 51 Ave So. Tukwila, WA 98188 Occupant RE: 7888800131 19219 62 " Ave. So. Kent, WA 98032 ®091S "Meal est Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® United Stationers 18264 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila WA 98188 Continental Mills 18000 Andover Park West Tukwila WA 98188 Barnes & Noble 300 Andover Park West #200 Tukwila WA 98188 The Good Gu 300 A er Park West #500 T ila WA 98188 Southcenter Golf 18791 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila WA 98188 Seagle Properties 581 1 Segale Park Dr "C" Tukwila WA 98188 • Qwest Communications 6101 South 180th Street Tukwila WA 98188 Continental Mills 6155 Segale Park Dr "C" Tukwila WA 98188 U7I AM_I t%_Ano_ I www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO- AVER` United Stationers 18300 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila WA 98188 Starbucks Coffee 300 Andover Park West #300 Tukwila WA 98188 Seattle Lighting 300 Andover Park West #600 Tukwila WA 98188 Seattle Tractor Parts & Eqp 18801 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila WA 98188 C\ AVERY® 5160® RTS Packaging 18340 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila WA 98188 GameStop 300 Andover Park West #100 Tukwila WA 98188 Office Depot 300 Andover Park West #400 Tukwila WA 98188 300 Andover Park West #800 Tukwila WA 98188 Kent Landsberg 5835 Segale Park Dr "C" Tukwila WA 98188 _ nn. r ....s u.... L t■w OQn Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® www.avery.cvm • •s° 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Talmadge & Stockmeyer Enterprise Enterprise 18010 Southcenter Parkway 18500 Southcenter Parkway 18400 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila Wa 98188 Tukwila WA 98188 Tukwila WA 98188 Johnstone Supply 18205 Andover Park West Tukwila WA 98188 18285 Andover Park West Tukwila WA 98188 Cascade Controls 18338 Andover Park West Tukwila Wa 98188 18290B Andover Park West Tukwila WA 98188 Allegis Corp 18296 Andover Park West Tukwila, Wa 98188 Continental Mills 18125 Andover Park West Tukwila WA 98188 Hung San Foods, Inc. 18161 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila WA 98188 H & W Distributors 18221 Andover Park West Tukwila WA 98188 Hung San Foods, Inc. 18301 Andover Park West Tukwila WA 98188 Grating Pacific 18340 Andover Park West Tukwila WA 98188 GE Polymershapes, Inc. 18292 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Alpak Food Equipment 18298 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 High Five Sportwear 18200 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila WA 98188 18270 Segale Park Dr "B" 18300 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila WA 98188 Tukwila WA 98188 Daniel Smith, Inc. 18191 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila WA 98188 V AVERY® 5160® Engineered Products 18271 Andover Park West Tukwila WA 98188 Keyston Bros. 18303 Andover Park West Tukwila WA 98188 Universal Freight 18290A Andover Park West Tukwila WA 98188 GE Polymershapes, Inc. 18294 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Surface Art Inc. 18323 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Commercial Office Interiors 18260 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila WA 98188 Crown Cork 18340 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila WA 98188 A.America 18255 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila WA 98188 A.America . A.America Cenveo 18287 Segale Park Dr "B" 18325 Segale Park Dr "B" 6233 Segale Park Dr "D" Tukwila WA 98188 Tukwila WA 98188 Tukwila WA 98188 A>aand n� - nnA - 6,091S 3/V10131 J31 abkaAV asf1 Jam tree rrunung Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® Fernando Raguinaga RE: 3523049046 17825 54 PI. So. SeaTac WA 98188 -4617 Barry Bennet RE: 3523049118 18010 Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila WA 98188 Nicolas Garcia /Maria Simental/ Ester Zapara RE: 18803 C Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila WA 98188 Sara Lynne Stuth RE: 0322049062 4330 So. 204 Street Kent WA 98032 • Phouma & Novan Onesyla RE: 0222049037 19212 Frager Rd So. Kent WA 98032 _ �l A2l3AV-A9-OOR -L Caeser Baldera RE: 18803 A Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila WA 98188 Rina Segale c/o M.A. Segale RE: 3523049032 18038 Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila WA 98188 Paul & A. Lorraine Jonientz RE: 3523049019 5565 So. 178` Street Tukwila WA 98188 www.avery.wm 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Jack & Stella Stevens RE: 0322049092 4655 So. 200` Street Kent WA 98032 U AVERY® 5160® Juan Casillas RE: 18803 B Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila WA 98188 Simaile Vaega & Teu Taulapapapa Vaega RE: 3523049090 • 5563 So. 178` Street Tukwila WA 98188 61,09LS 31V1dW31 s e Man , asn Use Avery TEMPLATE 5160® ®0915 ®AHJ9AV 1`�Tlll Aa3AV-OD II ia,•t.s.e•V AA All 1- 800-GO -AVERY Bob Scofield 4212 Hunts Point Road Bellevue, WA 98004 ®0915 3.LV 14W31®ti es11 A...,.... I !S a h110/ Andrew S. Lane Cairncross & Hem elmann, P.S. 524 Second Ave., uite 500 Seattle, WA 98 4 -2323 Andrew S. L ne Cairncross Hemp mann, P.S. 524 Second Ave., S ite 500 Seattle, WA 981 -2323 Andrew S. Lane Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S. 524 Second Ave., Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 -2323 Andrew S. ane Cairncros & Hempelmann, P.S. 524 Sec d Ave., Suite 500 Seattl , WA .98104 -2323 Andrew S. Lane Cairncross & Hemp mann, P.S. 524 Second Ave., S Ile 500 Seattle, WA 981 -2323 Aaane -nci -flog -L Andrew S. Lane Cairncross & empelmann, P.S. 524 Second ve., Suite 500 Seattle, A 98104 -2323 Andrew S. Lane Cairncross & mpelmann, P.S. 524 Second e., Suite 500 Seattle, W 98104 -2323 "0915 311fidW31 jJaAv esn Jam ii r tu19 Use TEMPLA .i 0® M & P Compa Attn: E. M ell PO Box . 83 Edmo s, WA 98020 M & P Company Attn: E. Mitchell' PO Box 1083 Edmonds,, A 98020 -, e". cal/ I M & P Company Attn: E. Mitchell PO Box 1083 Edmonds, WA 98020 M &PCora Attn: E itchell PO x 1083 monds, WA 98020 M & P Company Attn: E. M 'ell PO B s 083 Ed onds, WA 98020 M & P Company Attn: E. Mitch PO Box -Ed s, WA 98020 AZI3AV-O9-008-L www.avery.wm 1- 800 -GO -AVERY �qei ssaipp ® b „ ••. M & P Comp Attn: E. M c • l PO Box 10 Edmon WA 98020 M &PComs. y Attn: E. itchell PO . x 1083 Edmonds, WA 98020 M & P Company Attn: E. Mite PO Box Edme1ds, WA 98020 M & P Company Attn: E. . • chell PO Bo 083 E : onds, WA 98020 609LS 31V1dW31®I(JeAV esn Arthur H. McKean Aiken, St. Louis & iljeg, P.S. 801 Second Ave. 1200 Seattle, WA 9 04 -1571 Arthur H. Aiken, St / Louis Siljeg, P.S. 801 Second Av ., #1200 Seattle, WA 8104 -1571 Peter Davis Gaco Western, Inc. PO Box 88698 Seattle, WA 98138 Peter Davis Gaco Wes rn, Inc. PO Box 698 Seattle A 98138 Peter Davi Gaco Wes ern, Inc. PO Box 698 Seattle A 98138 Da 4d Benoliel M & P Partnership 14100 SE 36 St., Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98006 -1334 David Benoliel M & P Partnership 14100 SE 36 St., Site 200 Bellevue, WA 98 6 -1334 Bob Scofield 4212 Hunts Poi Road Bellevue, WA 8004 Arthur cKean Aiken :t. Louis & Siljeg, P.S. 801 econd Ave., #1200 attle, WA 98104 -1571 Arthur H. Mc an Aiken, St. Lo is & Siljeg, P.S. 801 Secon Ave., #1200 Seattle, A 98104 -1571 Peter Davi Gaco stern, Inc. PO x 88698 S ttle, WA 98138 Peter Day s Gaco We tern, Inc. PO. Box 8698 Seattle WA 98138 David Beno 'el M & P P tnership 14100 S . 36` St., Suite 200 Bellev e, WA 98006 -1334 David Benoliel M & P Partne ship 14100 SE 36` St., Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98006 -1334 Bob Scofield 4212 Hunts P int Road Bellevue, W 98004 Bob Scofield 4212 Hunts oin.t Road Bellevue, A 98004 Arthur H. McKean Aiken, St. Louis & Siljeg, P.S. 801 Second Ave., #1200 Seattle, WA 98104 -1571 Arthur H. McKean Aiken, St. Lo & Siljeg, P.S. 801 Secon Ave., #1200 Seattle ' A 98104 -1571 Peter Day' Gaco W stern, Inc. PO B x 88698 Sea le, WA 98138 David B oliel M & artnership 141,0 SE 36 St., Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98006 -1334 David Be oliel M & P artnership 1410 E 36 St., Suite 200 Bell ue, WA 98006 -1334 Bob Scofie 4212 Hu s Point Road Bellev e, WA 98004 Bob S ofield 4212 unts Point Road Be evue, WA 98004 Jam Free Printirr. Use Avery® TErIATE 5160® James Greif 21231 4nd Ave. So. SeaTac, WA 98188 Dale Myers 17101 - 156 Ave. SE Renton, WA 98058 Dale Myers 17101 - 156 Av Renton, W- 8058 - • =II ■-• vvvvvv.avery.win • 1-800-GO-AVERY 0 Dale M Dale M 1711 6 Ave. SE 171 - 156 Ave. SE WA 98058 R nton, WA 98058 Dale Mye 1710 156 Ave. SE ton, WA 98058 AV3AV it&„1 AVERY® 5160® 0091S 31V1013/ GLIaAV esti Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I h 0 i HEREBY DECLARE THAT: : X; ;X: Notice of Public Hearing Determination•of Non - Significance: : :_�' . Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of:Non - . Significance- Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination;.;of Signi fi cance &:.Scoping. Notice' � Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of : Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice ( Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application „ Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice ofApplication' for Shorel•,i;ne Mgmt: Permit FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other • _... ```. <:. Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this':- year 2005" P:GINAWYNETFA /FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: f c(,)k Pc Project Number: L05 7 1 C;as' D3 Mailer's Signature: Person requesting mailing: Us �� - Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila . • AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION`, • I , l/ LAS-114A- ' & DECLARE THAT Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Novi- Sign..ficance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determiriatfom.of Significance :•K4 • „ s: , „ Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance•:& Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action '• -' L-D 5 - OW Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice &t Short Subdivision Agenda Person requesting mailing: Q 9 9� Notice of Application :. I / U Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Appl i catiori:..-for i ne Mgmt • Permit �` `. v.:. n;,. __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 Seattle WA 98111 Other = •' CrIefl, 7 ,}2,t `" ' ;; ' ~ $ - - C �� l.,-L i ; % 5. 178'x`' /�p��icfir� t`{ -', ;_r„. ; . Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: I (4,gjf (a S D , Project Number: L-V 5 7 QA '7 1 0*- 4 9 4 1Y56 1-10 = 3 j L-D 5 - OW Mailer's Signature: �. J.9, &t • Person requesting mailing: Q 9 9� ( ( i�� I / U Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM l • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lisa Verner, Tukwila South Project Coordinator DATE: June 28, 2005 RE: June 30 Joint Council/Commission Work Session On Tukwila South Project CC: Mayor Mullet Council President Linder Rhonda Berry Steve Lancaster CITY OF TUKWILA o DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT An issue has arisen concerning the Tukwila South Project which may, if unresolved, possibly affect the Planning Commission hearing schedule. I don't expect it will be discussed at the June 30 work session, but in case it is brought up, I would like to let you know about the issue. The issue is La Pianta's ability to dedicate right -of -way to the City for Southcenter Parkway Extension and for the possible S. 178`'' Street realignment in time to allow construction to occur in 2006. The Mayor has notified La Pianta the necessary right -of- way must be secured in July to avoid significant delay. If we determine this schedule will not be met, it is likely that Planning Commission and City Council consideration of other aspects of the project may also be delayed. Please call me at 431 -3662 or email me at lverner @ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have any questions. P:\Lisa \6 -30 CC -PC work session\Memo to PC on ROW issue.doc Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila . AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION , I, 2 )tiutxm HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non- Significance .. Notice of Public Meeting. • Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance ' .. ,.::, =-.'. ' •. Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Project Number: j `"O . I 1,D f'0/ Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice 031 Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Mailer's Signature: Notice of Action • Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 . Other � Q C ` �(. . , L �, Go 0 -> . .t.13 . 0105 . fit!tY • Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this ZTA3day.of iu' the year 20 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003 :31 PM • Project Name: (.,49)[c( So- Project Number: j `"O . I 1,D f'0/ L,(0 031 / LAX '0`i Mailer's Signature: '-4 Person requesting mailing: S v • Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this ZTA3day.of iu' the year 20 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003 :31 PM Rhonda Berry Steve Lancaster Jim Morrow Bruce Fletcher Nick Olivas Ryan Larson Derek Speck Kevin Fuhrer Lisa Verner Shelley Kerslake Dave Haynes Lucy Lauterbach Jane Cantu • 0 SENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ON 6/27/05 ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING ON 6/28/05: • I City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on July 14, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. (City Council Chambers) to discuss the following: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: Published: Distribution: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING L05 -029A La Pianta LLC (Segale Properties) Zoning Code changes, including a new Tukwila South Overlay District zone L05 -029B La Pianta LLC (Segale Properties) Subdivision Code changes, including changes to Binding Site Plan L05 -030 La Pianta LLC (Segale Properties) Shoreline Master Program map amendment South of the City limits along the west side of the Green River and inward from the water 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement received in the Department of Community Development by 5:00 PM on the date of the hearing or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Department of Community Development (206- 431 -3670 or 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100). The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. July 1, 2005, Seattle Times Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, Parties of Record and File. June 30, 2005 Ms. Lisa Verner City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98199 -2544 Dear Lisa: Memo to Lisa Verner from Sue Carlson STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY RE: Tukwila South /Segale SMP amendment RECEIVED JU! f t 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELQPMENJ Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Avenue SE • Bellevue, Washington 98008 -5452 • (42.5) 649 -7000 Thank you for the opportunity to review the materials provided to the City for this proposed Shoreline Master Program amendment. In keeping with our verbal agreement, I'm sending you Ecology's comments so that you can determine whether the amendment is on track prior to the City's formal review process. Generally, much of the information needed for Ecology's formal review of the proposed amendment is provided. However, additional information and clarification, and a revised map, must be provided when the formal application is submitted. These are called out in the following comments, which are organized by document. In addition, the City will need to provide the documentation regarding the local process, approval, and compliance with SEPA as outlined in my letter of March 28, 2005 in order for the application to be considered complete. Section 2, Paragraph 1. Please clarify which portion of the annexation area falls within shoreline jurisdiction, currently and under the proposal. Paragraph 2: Sentence 3 refers to the shoreline designation and zoning. The shoreline designation and zoning are not the same. Exhibit 1 does not show the zoning or shoreline designation that would be applied with the annexation and SMP amendment, as noted in this memo. Exhibit 1 does not show proposed Urban Environment designation and zoning overlays or surrounding property zoning. The reference to the consistency with the county's current Rural/Industrial provisions should be explained in detail. Ms. Lisa Verner June 30, 2005 Page 2 • 0 Exhibit 1 — Tukwila South Shoreline Master Program Amendment This map does not meet the requirements of WAC 173 -26- 110(3). It does not show the existing and proposed shoreline environment designations for the annexation area. Corresponding boundaries should be described in text. The map also must use distinct reproducible noncolor patterns. The map shows the entire project area as being within the shoreline jurisdiction area. This is incorrect. The cross -hatch pattern is for "actual additional shoreline area within management zone." What is this? Please enlarge the scale font so that it is readable. Under the proposal, the shoreline jurisdiction will change with the addition of the off - channel fish habitat restoration project. The map should indicate this change. Attachment A — Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Items Shoreline and Adjacent Land use Pattern, Shoreline: Most of this discussion is not about the shoreline land use pattern. Instead, it focuses on what the City is expected to do when the property is annexed. This section should be an inventory and characterization of existing conditions. What are the current uses of the area within shoreline jurisdiction in the proposed annexation area? Discussion about future zoning and environment designations, regulations that apply, and similarities between the current King County SMP and proposed Tukwila designations should be included in a separate section. In addition, the discussion of no net loss of shoreline ecological functions should be in a separate section and compare existing conditions with future conditions under the proposed SMP amendment, not potential future conditions under King County's regulations with proposed future conditions. Land Use: What is the existing land use north of the flood protection dike? This is not discussed. Is the area south of the dike in active agricultural use? What is the current land use of the area adjacent to the area within shoreline jurisdiction? What regulations apply to the area within shoreline jurisdiction and how are they applied? Attachments C and D These attachments adequately discuss the proposed restoration projects — creating an off - channel fish habitat area and restoring Johnson Ditch. These projects are proposed as part of the Tukwila South project, funded by the applicant. (Attachment C notes that the Johnson Creek mitigation project will create a meandering stream channel to provide good quality fish habitat. This restored stream will then pass through a 200 - foot -long by 48- inch - diameter culvert to its confluence with the Green River. The need for such a long culvert, which diminishes the value of the restored habitat, is not explained.) Ms. Lisa Verner June 30, 2005 Page 3 BR:cu Are there other restoration opportunities along the Green River in the project area that have been identified, even if they are not part of the proposal? For example, are there restoration projects identified in watershed plans? Are there public agencies or private organizations that may initiate restoration projects in the Tukwila South project area? What are the funding sources? Exhibit 150 — Comparison between... This figure indicates the King County 20 -foot, 50 -foot and 75 -foot setbacks from the assumed OHWM and the Tukwila 40 -foot setback from the MHW. How were OHWM and MHW determined? Is MHW based on the 2 -year storm flow, or something else? Was OHWM checked in the field? Which King County setback would apply? Are there other Tukwila SMP regulations that would apply to the development site? Responses to the 13 Items... Sincerely, r�- cc: Jeannie Summerhays, Ecology Peter Skowlund, Ecology • 0 Item 5: Why is discussion of how the preferred uses are unique to or dependent upon a shoreline location not applicable to this amendment? The Shoreline Management Act gives preference to uses that are unique to or dependent upon a shoreline location, including public access. Item 10: This discussion includes the applicant's purpose and need for the project. However, it does not include "written justification for such based on existing development patterns, the biophysical capabilities and limitations of the shoreline being considered, and the goals and aspirations of the local citizenry as reflected in the locally adopted comprehensive land use plan" as required by WAC 173 -26- 110(3). This discussion should provide the justification for the requested change in the shoreline environment. We discussed this requirement at our meeting on February 22. Ecology expects to receive the formal SMP amendment proposal on August 22. I'll be contacting you within the next few weeks to discuss the amendment process. If you have any questions, please call me at (425) 649 -4260. i r � l Betty R / or, Shorelands Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program ARTHUR H. MCKEAN • • AIKEN, ST. LOUIS & SILJEG, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1200 NORTON BUILDING 801 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 FACSIMILE: 206 -623 -5764 TELEPHONE: 206 -624 -2650 June 16, 2005 E C ,,. n coMMuN.. r DE VELOPMENT' DIRECT LINE: (206) 654 -1682 E -MAIL: MCKEAN@AIKEN.COM Department of Community Development Sent Via Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Proposed Re- Alignment of S. 178 St at Southcenter Parkway Dear Department of Community Development: We have received your notice of public meeting scheduled for June 23, 2005 at 3:30 p.m. Our office represents Mr. Herman Schoenbachler who has resided in and has owned real property in what is now the City of Tukwila since before incorporation of the City. Mr. Schoenbachler first resided in what is now Tukwila in 1933 and purchased his first parcel of real property there in 1938. Mr. Schoenbachler now resides in his residence located at 18115 - 57 Ave. S. (Southcenter Parkway) in the City of Tukwila. He built the residence at this address and has resided there since 1964. I have attached a copy of the legal description of Mr. Schoenbachler's property for your information. In 1995, Mr. Schoenbachler conveyed the property to Schoenbachler Enterprises LLC, a Washington limited liability company created by Mr. Schoenbachler to retain title in some of his assets and to assist in his estate planning. The limited liability company is owned by Mr. Schoenbachler and other members of his immediate family. Mr. Schoenbachler retains the right to reside in the residence on the property indefinitely. I am writing on behalf of Mr. Schoenbachler in response to your recent notice. The diagram on the back of the notice appears to indicate that the proposed re- alignment of S. 178 Street would run the re- aligned street through Mr. Schoenbachler's property and possibly through the present location of his residence. Mr. Schoenbachler has asked that I write to express his strong objection to this proposed re- alignment which would result in removing Mr. Schoenbachler from the family home he has occupied for over 40 years. We hope that the City will recognize the rights and interests of one of its original citizens and respectfully request that the Department of Community Development and the City not take any steps which would impact Mr. Schoenbachler's residence. r Department of Community Development June 16, 2005 Page 2 • • If you have any questions about Mr. Schoenbachler's position, please feel free to contact me. I will attend your meeting on June 23 at 3:30 p.m. to answer any questions and provide whatever input you may request. AHM:bjd Attachment cc: Mr. Robert Schoenbachler 1:\schobo \1 \0616 city.doc schobo.004 (4962 -1 -E) Very truly yours, Arthur H. McKean • 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcels 1 and 2 of City of Tukwila Boundary Line Adjustment or Lot Consolidation No. L96 -0032, according to the survey recorded under King County Recording No. 9701160096, being a portion of the West 1/2 of Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; Situate in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington Parties of Record 6 -23 -05 1. Arthur H. McKean Aiken, St. Louis, & Siljeg, PS 801 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 2. David Benoliel M &P Partnership 14100 SE 36 Street, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98006 3. M &P Company E. Mitchell PO Box 1083 Edmonds, WA 98020 4. Peter Davis Gaco Western Inc PO Box 88698 Seattle, WA 98138 5. Andrew S. Lane Cairncross & Hempelmann 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 6. Roger McCracken McCracken Properties LLC 19604 International Blvd, Suite 200 Sea -Tac, WA 98188 7. Rich Buck Lease Return Center 19607 Orillia Road S Kent, WA 98032 8. L. Jonientz 5565 S. 178 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 9. Rick Aramburu 505 Madison Street Seattle, WA 98104 10. Bob Scofield 4212 Hunts Point Road Bellevue, WA 98004 11. • 06 -15 -05 PUBLIC MEETING TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT Talking notes (sjl) Four types of actions: o Changes to Shoreline Plan o Changes to TMC o Zoning change o Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay designation. Basic process: All of these decisions require a public hearing before the City Council (tentatively August 8). Two of these types of decisions also require a Public Hearing and recommendation to the Council by the Tukwila Planning Commission (tentatively July 14) Changes to the Shoreline Master Plan Proposal is to pre- designate annexation area as "Urban." Process (Shoreline Master Plan): 1. Planning Commission Public Hearing and recommendation to City Council 2. City Council Public Hearing and decision Criteria (TMC 18.80.050): 1. Is the issue already adequately addressed by City plans? 2. Is there a public need for the change? 3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified need? 4. Will the change result in a net benefit to the community? Changes to the Tukwila Municipal Code Proposal is to amend the Tukwila Zoning Code (create a "Tukwila South Overlay District ") and Tukwila Subdivision Code (modify "binding site plan" provisions). Process (not specified) 1. Planning Commission Public Hearing and recommendation to City Council 2. City Council Public Hearing and decision Criteria (RCW 36.70A.130(1)(b)): 1. Shall be consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Change Proposal is to apply a new Tukwila South Overlay District designation to the Tukwila South area. f Process (TMC 18.84.010): 1. City Council Public Hearing and decision. Criteria (TMC 18.84.030): 1. Shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code and the public interest. 2. Shall be supported by plans showing the relationship between the proposal and its surroundings. Designation of Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay District Proposal is to designate an area as a Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay District. This provides an alternative to the standard "cookbook" approach to managing environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and streams. Process (TMC 18.45.160) 1. City Council Public Hearing and decision. Criteria (TMC 18.45.160) 1. The Overlay area must be at least 10 acres. 2. City Council must find that it is "likely to result in net improvements to sensitive area functions and values." Opportunities for public input/involvement. 1. Written comments to the Department of Community Development. Any written comments delivered to our offices or postmarked by June 21 will be considered by the Department in developing our recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. Planning Commission Public Hearing. Oral or Written comments submitted to the Planning Commission at its public hearing will be considered by the Commission in making its recommendations to the City Council. 3. City Council Public Hearing Oral or Written comments submitted to the Planning Commission at its public hearing will be considered by the Commission in making its recommendations to the City Council. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS? TO: Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Steve Lancaster DATE: June 9, 2005 SUBJECT: Request for Shoreline Management Plan Amendment L05 -030 Tukwila South (Segale Properties) ISSUE CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Annexation of the Tukwila South area will require that the City amend its Shoreline Management Plan to provide the appropriate designation to the newly annexed shoreline. BACKGROUND The Washington State Shoreline Management Act requires that Cities designate newly annexed shoreline areas Urban, Rural, Conservancy or Natural within one year of annexation. Cities may also "pre- designate: areas such that the new designation will become effective immediately upon annexation. Segale Properties has requested that the City pre- designate the Tukwila South shoreline area "Urban." Tukwila's Shoreline Management Plan specifies that shoreline amendments be processed under the requirements of Chapter 18.80 TMC. As required by TMC 18.80.040, staff distributed a Staff Report on the proposal to Council on June 6, 2005, two weeks prior to the scheduled June 20 Public Meeting at which Council will consider how to proceed with the request. ALTERNATIVES After its June 20 Public Meeting the City Council will have the following alternatives: o Refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation; o Defer the proposed amendment for one or more years to allow further evaluation; or o Reject the proposed amendment. RECOMMENDATION City Council to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Q: \PAA \TVS Segale \Code Amendments \CAPSMAmemo.doc Sjl 06/09/2005 Page I of I TO: FROM: RE: MEMORANDUM Mayor's Office, City Council Evie Boykan, Human Services Change in Interlocal Agreement re CDBG funds The combination of declining federal funds and increasing federal requirements has raised administrative costs for the Community Development Block Grant program. The need to save administrative dollars and subsequently return more money to the community has resulted in a new interlocal cooperative agreement that streamlines and simplifies the King County CDBG program. Interjurisdictional staff met for many hours to recommend a process that keeps the same proportion of federal funds available to South King County, while simplifying the administrative overhead. In short, Tukwila, as well as other South King County cities that are part of the Consortium, will not receive a "pass- through" allocation of its own, but may apply, like other non - profit agencies, to a South King County sub - regional pot. The attached interlocal agreement highlights how this will work. Features include, a setaside of 5% of fund for housing stability (homeless prevention) and 25% of funds for housing repair. Tukwila residents will still have access to these resources for home repair. Any Tukwila identified projects, such as Minor Home Repair, may be requested by application to the sub - regional pot. To ensure that all participating jurisdictions benefit fairly, an advisory board of interjurisdictional members will be developed. Each city will have a voice in a sub - regional advisory group as to how CDBG funds should be spent in that subregion. The Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC), which makes recommendations for expenditures to the County Executive and County Council will be charged with ensuring geographic fairness in distribution of funds. The South King County sub - regional advisory group will make recommendations to the JRC. Overall, this system will treat Consortium cities fairly and while cities may not receive funds for infrastructure or other capital projects every year, the checks and balances will likely assure that cities will be able to take turns receiving funding for their projects. In order to continue participating in the CDBG consortium the Council must authorize the Mayor's signature for the new agreement, which will cover 2006 -2008. I am available to answer questions. interlocal agreement.doc . 3 RECOMMENDATION Recommend Council authorization to sign the attached agreement. attachments: INFORMATION MEMO Proposed agreement. Memo from staff, letter from Ron Sims ph,o2 To: Mayor Mulled From: Evie Boykan&1• Date: 6/09/05 Subject: Interlocal Agreement between the City and King County regarding Community Development Block Grant funds. ISSUE Declining funds and increasing federal requirements has raised administrative costs for the CDBG funds. An attached new interlocal agreement addresses administrative savings and spells out how administration will work. The City must sign the agreement in order to have a say in the new administration plan. BACKGROUND Historically, suburban cities have received their own "pass- through" once they qualified for a certain threshold based on population. In this new agreement, Tukwila will no longer receive a pass - through amount. Instead, funds will be allocated on a sub - regional basis and Tukwila will participate at that level. The Joint Recommendations Committee will still make final recommendations to the County Executive and County Council. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS /ALTERNATIVES The attached memo describes the change. Tukwila will still have access to housing stability and major home repair funds, equal to those of other participating jurisdictions. Tukwila may apply to the sub - regional pot for City based projects. The Honorable Larry Phillips, Chair Metropolitan -King County Council Room 1200 COURTHOUSE Dear Councilmember Phillips: May 26, 2005 I am pleased to transmit for King County Council consideration and approval an ordinance authorizing the King County Executive to sign a new interlocal cooperation agreement regarding the federally- funded Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. King County receives an annual CDBG entitlement grant of $5 to $7 million per year, along with related federal housing and community development funds of about $4 million per year, from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Federal regulations allow suburban cities which do not qualify for their own CDBG entitlement funds to participate with the county in an urban county consortium. This increases the amount of federal funds flowing into our region, and allows the participating cities access to these federal funds in an efficient manner. In order for the cities to participate, HUD first requires them to enter into renewable three -year cooperation agreements with the county. Most suburban cities have entered into such cooperation agreements with King County in the past, many of which have participated since 1976, when King County first began receiving CDBG funds. This new CDBG interlocal cooperation agreement has been recommended by the inter - jurisdictional Joint Recommendations Committee (JRC) that guides King County's urban county consortium. The JRC is chaired by Mayor Ava Frisinger of Issaquah. The new CDBG interlocal cooperation agreement forges new working relationships between the county and the participating suburban cities regarding the CDBG program. Specifically, the cities and the county will be agreeing to pool the CDBG Consortium's funds and allocate them on the basis of two sub - regions (the north/east sub - region, and the south sub - region) rather than to continue the old system of allocating the dwindling amount of funds on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. This is a remarkable pioneering and collaborative step for all our jurisdictions, and a significant change from the past. Under the past interlocal agreement, the CDBG funds were considered more like local funds, where the larger suburban cities in the Consortium had local discretion S The Honorable Larry Phillips May 26, 2005 Page 2 over a specific share of the funds to serve their own residents, and the county had discretion over another share of the funds to serve residents of unincorporated communities and the smaller suburban cities. For jurisdictions to agree to come together and replace that system with sub - regional pools has taken vision, courage, and trust: • Vision —to see beyond jurisdictional lines at what could be accomplished by working together; • Courage —to give up a small annual share that is certain for the opportunity to apply for a more significant amount; and • Trust —to have confidence that the pooled funds will be allocated fairly and that the residents of all jurisdictions will be served. This new system also will save on administrative costs, and help ensure that as many of the CDBG dollars as possible are spent on projects out in the community rather than on administration. This is important because annual CDBG entitlement funds have not kept up with inflation over the years. It is doubly important in the current federal budget climate where CDBG and other housing and community development programs face additional cuts in Washington, DC. The new sub - regional pools will require less in administrative costs by the cities and the county than required by the old pass - through system. We estimate a savings of over $320,000 in administrative costs per year. The need to reduce administrative costs was what first prompted the JRC to re- examine the Consortium's structure. The JRC recognized that the old structure added both complexity and duplication to a federal program that was shrinking and already very complex to administer. It concluded the status quo could not be sustained. In 2004, the JRC initiated the re- examination of the Consortium structure by appointing a small inter jurisdictional staff group to explore alternatives that would reduce administrative costs. This staff group had representatives from Shoreline, Redmond, Burien, and SeaTac, as well as King County. The staff group began their task by meeting with other CDBG urban counties, and learned how those counties and the cities within them shared the funds. They heard from the Snohomish County, Pierce County, and Clark County CDBG programs, and also learned about CDBG programs in other states, including Washington County, OR; Shelby County, TN; and Anoka County, MN. At the same time, Mayor Frisinger wrote to the Suburban Cities Association to inform them of the JRC's initiative, and to let them know that changes might be coming for the CDBG Consortium. The staff group utilized some of the ideas learned from the other counties, and developed several alternative models for the King County Consortium, which they presented to the JRC. These alternative models ranged from a Consortium -wide pool of funds, to two sub - regional pools, to a variation on the existing pass - through system. Another slightly different variation on the The Honorable Larry Phillips May 26, 2005 Page 3 existing pass - through system was considered again later in the process; this variation on the existing system was eventually dismissed for not providing enough administrative savings. After the initial presentation to the JRC, the staff group made presentations to four main stakeholder groups to solicit feedback. These four stakeholder groups were non - profit social service providers, non - profit housing providers, CDBG coordinators from Consortium cities, and Suburban City Managers and Administrators. There was little or no support for the model of a Consortium -wide pool of funds at any of the four meetings. The different areas of the Consortium are too varied and the decision - making seemed too far removed from the local level. There was more support for the sub - regional model. However, there was also significant and understandable concern about moving away from the old pass - through system where funds were guaranteed. Some of the twelve cities which have been receiving a pass - through feared —and may still fear —that their residents would not benefit to the same extent if the cities had to compete in a sub - regional pool. They understand that they will be giving up the certainty of receiving a small share of the funds each year, but that in return they will be gaining the opportunity to receive a much larger amount every few years. They also understand that this may allow them to receive enough funding to complete an entire project at once, rather than having to phase it over several years. Still, the idea of giving up that certainty and pooling these funds, which some cities have come to view as local funds, was difficult for some cities to accept. These concerns were very understandable, and caused long discussions at subsequent JRC meetings. In response to those concerns, the JRC modified the initial sub - regional model to place greater emphasis on participation of all jurisdictions in the project selection process. They stipulated the formation of sub - regional advisory groups where all participating jurisdictions have a seat at the table to advise the JRC on the selection of CDBG projects each year. In addition, the JRC stipulated that the interlocal cooperation agreement would specifically charge them with the responsibility of ensuring that residents of all geographic areas benefit fairly from the Consortium's CDBG- funded projects and programs. In sum, I believe that the inter jurisdictional JRC is to be commended. They were faced with a very difficult situation, and they have made the best possible recommendation. The sub - regional Consortium structure proposed by the JRC in this interlocal cooperation agreement will save administration costs, allow more of the CDBG dollars to be made available for community projects, and ensure that every participating city has a seat at the table during the project selection process. Please be aware that there is a HUD deadline of August 5 for cities to sign and return the interlocal agreements. Any city that does not sign by that time will be excluded from the King County CDBG Consortium, and these cities are too small to qualify for their own CDBG The Honorable Larry Phillips May 26, 2005 Page 4 entitlements from HUD. Therefore, I ask that you consider this agreement promptly, to give the various city councils adequate time for their review and consideration. There is no fiscal note accompanying this ordinance because no additional expenditure authority is being requested, only authorization to enter into the interlocal cooperation agreements. If you have any questions about this agreement, please contact Jackie MacLean, who serves as the King County representative on the Joint Recommendation Committee, at 296 -7689. Sincerely Ron Sims King County Executive cc: King County Councilmembers ATTN: Scott White, Chief of Staff Shelley Sutton, Policy Staff Director Rebecha Cusack, Lead Staff, BFM Committee Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council Ava Frisinger, Mayor, City of Issaquah Terry Anderson, Councilmember, City of SeaTac Howard Botts, Mayor, City of Black Diamond Jeanne Burbidge, Councilmember, City of Federal Way Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator, City of Renton Dan Stroh, Planning Director, City of Bellevue Maura Brueger, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of King County Executive Stephanie Warden, Director, Department of Development and Environmental Services Jackie MacLean, Director, Department of Community and Human Services • WITNESSETH: INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT REGARDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between King County (hereinafter the "County ") and the City of , (hereinafter the "City ") said parties to this Agreement each being a unit of general local government in the State of Washington. WHEREAS, the federal government, through adoption and administration of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the "Act "), as amended, will make available to King County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, for expenditure during the 2006 -2008 funding years; and WHEREAS, the area encompassed by unincorporated King County and all participating cities, has been designated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ( "HUD "), as an urban county for the purpose of receiving CDBG funds; and WHEREAS, the Act directs HUD to distribute to each urban county a share of the annual appropriation of CDBG funds based on formula, taking into consideration the social and economic characteristics of the urban county; and WHEREAS, the Act allows participation of units of general government within an urban county in undertaking activities that further the goals of the CDBG program within the urban county; and WHEREAS, the CDBG Regulations require the acceptance of the consolidated housing and community development plan ( "Consolidated Plan ") by participating jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, King County shall undertake CDBG- funded activities in participating incorporated jurisdictions as specified in the Consolidated Plan by granting funds to those jurisdictions and to other qualifying entities to carry out such activities; and WHEREAS, King County is responsible to the federal government for all activities undertaken with CDBG funds and shall ensure that all CDBG assurances and certifications King County is required to submit to HUD with the Annual Action Plan are met; and WHEREAS, King County and the participating jurisdictions are committed to targeting CDBG funds to ensure benefit to low- and moderate - income persons as defined by HUD; and WHEREAS, King County and the participating jurisdictions recognize that needs of low- and moderate - income persons may cross jurisdictional boundaries and therefore can be considered regional and sub - regional needs as well as local needs; and WHEREAS, King County, in conjunction with the participating jurisdictions, must submit an Annual Action Plan to HUD, which is a requirement to receive CDBG funds; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement, entered into pursuant to and in accordance with the State Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW Chap. 39.34, is to form an urban county CDBG / o consortium, ( "Consortium "), for planning the distribution and administration of CDBG, HOME Investment Partnership, and other federal funds received on behalf of the Consortium from HUD, and for execution of activities in accordance with and under authority of the Act: NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES CONTAINED HEREIN, IT IS AGREED THAT: I. GENERAL AGREEMENT King County and participating jurisdictions agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, activities which further the development of viable urban communities, including the provision of decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low- and moderate income, through community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities, funded from annual CDBG funds from federal Fiscal Years 2006, 2007, and 2008 appropriations, from recaptured funds allocated in those years, and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds. II. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS The annual distribution of CDBG funds for the King County urban county Consortium shall be governed by the following provisions: A. The amount needed for administration of the Consortium's CDBG and related federal programs that benefit the Consortium shall be reserved by the County. This amount (hereinafter referred to as the "Administrative Setaside ") is contingent upon review by the Joint Recommendations Committee ( "JRC "), as provided in Section IV, and approval by the Metropolitan King County Council, as provided by Section V. To the extent that is reasonable and feasible, the County and the Committee shall strive to ensure that some portion of the allowable 20 percent for planning and administration remains available for the purposes outlined in II. D. below. B. Five percent of the funds available from the entitlement and program income shall be reserved for the Housing Stability Program, a public service activity in support of homeless prevention and in support of the affordable housing requirements under the implementation of the state Growth Management Act (RCW Chapter 36.70A), C. Twenty -five percent of the funds available from the entitlement and program income shall be reserved for the Consortium -wide Housing Repair program. The JRC may periodically review and recommend increases or decreases to this percentage if, in its judgment, there has been a substantial change in the Consortium's overall funding or in the need for housing repair that justifies an increase or decrease. D. The remaining entitlement and program income funds, including any remaining balance of the 20 percent allowable for planning and administration, as well as any recaptured or prior year funds, shall be divided between two sub - regions of the county —the north/east sub- region and the south sub - region. These funds shall be made available on a competitive basis for a variety of eligible activities consistent with the Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan. CDBG 1. The north/east sub - region shall include those cities in the north and east and those portions of unincorporated King County that lie north of Interstate 90. The cities of Mercer Island, Newcastle, Issaquah, and North Bend, which are at or near the Interstate 90 border, along with their designated potential annexation areas, also shall be included in the north/east sub - region. 2. The south sub - region shall include those cities south of Interstate 90 and those portions of unincorporated King County that lie south of Interstate 90, except for the cities of Mercer Island, Newcastle, Issaquah, and North Bend and their potential annexation areas, which are part of the north/east sub - region. 3. The formula for dividing the funds between the two sub - regions shall be based on each sub - region's share of the Consortium's low -and moderate - income population. III. USE OF FUNDS: GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Funds shall be used to support the goals and objectives of the Consolidated Plan. B. Funds shall be used in accordance with the CDBG regulations at 24 CFR 570 and all other applicable federal regulations. IV. JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS COMMITTEE An inter jurisdictional Joint Recommendations Committee ( "JRC ") shall be established. A. Composition —The JRC shall be composed of three county representatives and eight cities representatives. 1. The three county representatives shall be King County Executive staff with broad policy responsibilities and/or department directors. County representatives shall be specified in writing and, where possible, shall be consistently the same persons from meeting to meeting. 2. Four of the cities representatives shall be from those cities signing this interlocal cooperation agreement, two from each sub - region. 3. The remaining four cities representatives shall be from cities that qualify to receive CDBG entitlement funds directly from HUD and that are not signing this agreement, but are signing either Joint agreements or HOME -only agreements. These latter four representatives shall have no vote on matters specific to the jurisdictions that are parties to this agreement. 4. The chairperson and vice - chairperson of the JRC shall be chosen from among the members of the JRC by a majority vote of the members for a term of one year beginning with the first meeting of the calendar year. Attendance of five members shall constitute a quorum. CDBG / 1 B. Appointments —The King County Executive shall appoint the three county representatives. The participating cities shall provide for the appointment of their shared representatives in a manner to be determined by those cities through the Suburban Cities Association or other agreed -upon mechanism for the execution of shared appointing authority. The Suburban Cities Association or other agreed mechanism will select four jurisdictions of varying size from among those signing this agreement, two from the north/east sub - region and two from the south sub - region. The cities representatives shall be elected officials, chief administrative officers, or persons who report directly to the chief administrative officer and who have broad policy responsibilities; e.g., planning directors, department directors, etc. Members of the JRC shall serve for two years, or at the pleasure of their respective appointing authorities. C. Powers and Duties —The JRC shall be empowered to: 1. Review and recommend to the King County Executive all policy matters concerning the Consortium CDBG and HOME Program, including but not limited to the Consolidated Plan and related plans and policies, 2. Review and recommend to the King County Executive the projects and programs to be undertaken with CDBG funds and HOME funds, including the Administrative Setaside. 3. Monitor and ensure that all geographic areas and participating jurisdictions benefit fairly from CDBG- and HOME - funded activities over the three -year agreement period, so far as is feasible and within the goals and objectives of the Consolidated Plan. D. Advisory Committees to JRC —In fulfilling its duty to review and recommend projects and programs to be undertaken with the CDBG and HOME funds, the JRC shall consider the advice of inter jurisdictional advisory committees. Sub - regional advisory committees, made up of one representative from each participating jurisdiction in a sub - region that wishes to participate, shall be convened to assist in the review and recommendation of projects and programs to be undertaken in that sub - region. The JRC may also solicit recommendations from other inter jurisdictional housing and community development committee V. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS OF KING COUNTY A. Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Agreement, the County as the applicant and grantee for CDBG funds has responsibility for and assumes all obligations in the execution of this CDBG Program, including final responsibility for selecting and executing activities and submitting to HUD the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, and related plans. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as an abdication of those responsibilities and obligations. B. The Metropolitan King County Council shall have authority and responsibility for all policy matters, including the Consolidated Plan, upon review and recommendation by the JRC. CDBG C. The Metropolitan King County Council shall have authority and responsibility for all fund allocation matters, including approval of the annual CDBG Administrative Setaside and appropriation of all CDBG funds. D. The King County Executive, as administrator of this CDBG Program, shall have authority and responsibility for all administrative requirements for which the County is responsible to the federal government. E. The King County Executive shall have authority and responsibility for all fund control and disbursements. F. The King County Executive shall have the authority and responsibility to staff the JRC and provide liaison between HUD and the urban county Consortium. County Executive staff shall prepare and present to the JRC evaluation reports or recommendations concerning specific proposals or policies, and any other material deemed necessary by the JRC to help it fulfill its powers and duties in IV. C., above. G. King County Executive staff shall have the authority and responsibility to communicate and consult with participating jurisdictions on CDBG policy and program matters in a timely manner. H. King County Executive staff shall have the authority and responsibility to convene sub - regional advisory committees made up of representatives from participating jurisdictions in the sub - region, to advise the JRC on the allocation of the sub - regional funds. I. King County Executive staff shall provide periodic reports on clients served by jurisdictions in the Housing Stability and Housing Repair programs and on the status of CDBG- funded projects and make them available to all participating jurisdictions and the JRC. J. King County Executive staff shall solicit proposals, administer contracts, and provide for technical assistance, both in the development of viable CDBG proposals and in complying with CDBG contractual requirements. K. King County shall have environmental review responsibility for purposes of fulfilling requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, under which King County may require the local incorporated jurisdiction or contractor to furnish data, information, and assistance for King County's review and assessment in determining whether King County must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. VI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTICIPATING CITIES A. All participating cities shall cooperate in development of the CDBG Plan and related plans. B. All participating cities shall assign a staff person to be the primary contact for the County on CDBG /HOME issues. The assigned CDBG/HOME contact person is responsible for communicating relevant information to others at the participating city, including any CDBG /3 representative the city may choose to send to the sub - regional advisory committee, if that representative is not the CDBG/HOME contact person. C. At its discretion, a participating city may assign a representative to attend meetings of the sub - regional advisory committee. This representative may or may not be the City's CDBG/HOME contact person. It may be the CDBG/HOME contact person, a different staff member, an elected official, or a citizen. D. If and when a participating city deems necessary or advisable, it may prepare applications for CDBG funds to address the needs of its residents, consistent with the Consolidated Plan. E. Each participating city shall obtain its council's authorization for any CDBG application submitted. F. All participating cities shall carry out CDBG - funded projects in a manner that is timely and consistent with contractual requirements. G. All participating cities owning community facilities or other real property acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds shall comply with use restrictions as required by HUD and as required by any relevant policies adopted by the JRC. 1. During the period of the use restriction, the participating cities shall notify King County prior to any modification or change in the use of real property acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds. This includes any modification or change in use from that planned at the time of the acquisition or improvement, including disposition. 2. During the period of the use restriction, if the property acquired or improved with CDBG funds is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations, the participating city shall reimburse King County in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds). VII. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALL PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS A. All participating jurisdictions shall be considered to be those jurisdictions that have signed this Agreement. B. All participating jurisdiction shall fulfill to the County's reasonable satisfaction all relevant requirements of federal laws and regulations that apply to King County as applicant, including assurances and certifications described in Section VIII below. C. Each participating jurisdiction or cooperating unit of general local government certifies that it has adopted and is enforcing: 1. a policy that prohibits the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non - violent civil rights demonstrations; and CDBG D. Pursuant to 24 CFR 570.501(b), all participating units of local governments are subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients when they receive CDBG funds to implement an activity. The applicable requirements include, but are not limited to, a written agreement with the County that complies with 24 CFR 570.503 and includes provisions pertaining to: statement of work; records and reports; program income; uniform administrative items; other program requirements; conditions for religious organizations; suspension and termination; and reversion of assets. E. All participating units of local government understand that they may not apply for grants under the federal Small Cities or State CDBG Programs that receive separate entitlements from HUD during the period of participation in this Agreement. F. All units of local government participating in the CDBG urban county consortium through this interlocal cooperation agreement understand that they are also part of the urban county for the HOME program and may participate in a HOME program only through the CDBG urban county. G. Jurisdictions undertaking activities and/or projects with CDBG funds distributed under this Agreement shall retain full civil and criminal liability as though these funds were locally generated. H. Jurisdictions retain responsibility in fulfilling the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act under which King County has review responsibility only. VIII. GENERAL TERMS 2. a policy that enforces applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of non - violent civil rights demonstrations within jurisdiction. A. This Agreement shall extend through the 2006, 2007, and 2008 program years, and shall remain in effect until the CDBG funds and program income received with respect to activities carried out during the three -year qualification period are expended and the funded activities completed. This Agreement shall be automatically renewed for participation in successive three -year qualification periods, unless the County or the City provides written notice that it wishes to amend this agreement or elects not to participate in the new qualification period by the date set forth by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in subsequent Urban County Qualification Notices. King County, as the official applicant, shall have the authority and responsibility to ensure that any property acquired or assisted with CDBG funds is disposed of or used in accordance with federal regulations. B. Pursuant to 24 CFR Part 570.307(d)(2), during the period of qualification no included unit of general local government may terminate or withdraw from the cooperation agreement while it remains in effect. C. It is understood that by signing this Agreement, the City shall agree to comply with the policies and implementation of the Consolidated Plan. CDBG /J D. Parties to this Agreement must take all required actions necessary to assure compliance with King County's certification required by Section 104(b) of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (Title III of the Civil Rights Act), the Fair Housing Act as amended, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other applicable laws. E. o CDBG funds shall be expended for activities in or in support of any participating city th n t does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes the , ounty's actions to comply with its fair housing certification. F. It is re .gnized that amendment to the provisions of this Agreement may be appropriate, and such • endment shall take place when the parties to this Agreement have executed a written ;ldment to this Agreement. The City and the County also agree to adopt any amendment to the Agreement incorporating changes necessary to meet the requirements for coopera o • agreements set forth in an Urban County Qualification Notice applicable for a subse uen three -year qualification period, and to submit such amendment to the United Stat-s De.. ment of Housing and Urban Development. Failure to adopt such required ame dime all void the automatic renewal of the Agreement for the subsequent qualification period. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CITY OF for King County Executive By: Signature Jackie MacLean Printed Name P` 'nted Name Director, Department of Community and Human Services Title Date Approved as to Form: OFFICE OF THE KING COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY I io Ti e Date Michael Sinsky, King County Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney CDBG • Cizy of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: City Council FROM: Steve Lancaster DATE: June 6, 2005 SUBJECT: Request for Shoreline Management Plan Amendment L05 -030 Tukwila South (SegaleProperties) Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Attached for your information is the Staff Report and application for an amendment to the Tukwila Shoreline Management Plan. Such amendments are considered under the procedures for Comprehensive Plan amendments provided by Chapter 18.80 TMC. TMC 18.80.040 requires that the Staff Report for proposed amendments be transmitted to the City Council at least two weeks prior to the Public Meeting at which the request will be considered. The Public Meeting for this request has been scheduled for your June 20 regular City Council meeting. This item will also be on the Community Affairs and Parks Committee agenda at its June 14 meeting. After the June 20 Public Meeting, you have the option of: o referring the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation; o deferring the proposed amendment for one or more years to allow further evaluation; or o rejecting the proposed amendment. As indicated by the Report, staff is recommending that you refer this proposal to the Planning Commission for review and a recommendation. If that is your decision, the Planning Commission's recommendation will be brought back to the City Council, along with Planning Commission and staff recommendations on other aspects of the Tukwila South proposal (Tukwila South Master Plan approval, zoning and subdivision code amendments, Sensitive Area Master Plan designation and a development agreement). We continue to work toward having these items come before the City Council for public hearing and deliberation in August. Please contact Lisa Verner or me at 206/431 -3670 if you require additional information or clarification. Cc: Mayor Mullet Rhonda Berry Jane Cantu Lisa Verner Sue Carlson re? #eL05_, 0301 Q: \PAA \TVS Segale \Code Amendments \SMPthresholdMemo.doc -sjl- Created on 06/06/2005 4:15 PM Page 1 of l 6.300 .Snuthcenter Boulevard. Suite #100 • Tukwila. Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplanRci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) I Dny\ \ (')MaSD (PRINT NAME) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on ° I t °t 1()5 the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and the other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at 5, 7c-5L, M 9- 5 l $b r Sy L, P`1 so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the property for application file number Lt S - a 1 . Lu5 - 02. 3 LOS 02 - c \ A L_ (S -- 0 3 ° I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remove and immediately dispose of the sign at the property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a Notice letter. r)St11 C■.l YNA Arl AL a to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. On this day personally appeared before me CT) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of NOT RY 'U:L C in and r. residing at My commission expires on 4 May 27, 2005 Dear Sue: Cizy of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Sue Carlson Segale Properties/La Pianta LLC PO Box 88028 Tukwila, Washington 98138 -2028 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION RE: Tukwila South Project L05 -029 Zoning Code Change /Subdivision Code Change L05 -030 SMP Amendment L05 -031 Sensitive Area Overlay District and SAMP Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Your applications for Tukwila South Project listed above and located at approximately 5811 Segale Park Drive C have been found to be complete on May 27, 2005 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The project has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on July 14, 2005. The next step is for you to install the notice boards on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. Please check to make sure the notice boards installed for the EIS process are still onsite. Once you have notified me that the notice boards are still installed, I will send you two (2) laminated copies of the Notice of Application for you to post on the notice boards and the 21 -day comment period will start. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to our office; the Affidavit of Posting was included with your application materials. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. You should contact other agencies directly to find out what their application requirements are. \ \TUK2 \VOL2\ PLANNING \Lisa\Applications \NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION.doc Page 1 05/27/05 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 I will be contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at (206) 431 -3662. Sincerely, 'VV Lisa Verner Tukwila South Project Coordinator cc: Engineer, Public Works Fire Prevention, Fire Department P: \Lisa\Applications \NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION.doc Page 2 05/27/05 185933 City of Tukwila PN:CITY COUNCIL MEETING was published on 05/23/05 has been paid in full. STATE OF WASHINGTON — KING COUNTY 05/23/ - -SS. No. Affidavit of Publication The undersigned, on oath states that he is an authorized representative of The Daily Journal of Commerce, a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in Seattle, King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of this newspaper. The Daily Journal of Commerce was on the 12 day of June, 1941, approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court of King County. The notice in the exact form annexed, was published in regular issues of The Daily Journal of Commerce, which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a The amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ 101.75, which amount Subscrib : and s • to bef * 66 .2/ Notary publ the State of Washington, rest s gin Seattle re me on • • State of Washington, King County City of Tukwila PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila City Council will be holding a public meeting on June 20, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to dis- cuss the following: CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING CASE NUMBER: L05 -028 APPLICANT: La Pianta, LLC (Segale Properties) REQUEST: Shoreline Master Plan Map Amendment LOCATION: West side of Green River from existing City limits (approximately 18700 Southcenter Parkway) south to S 204th Street Applicant proposes to annex 281 acres into the City of Tukwila. Applicant requests the City to pre- determine the shoreline designa- tion which will apply to the prop- erty upon annexation to the City of Tukwila and to expand the map in the City's Shoreline Master Program to include its proper- ty. All shoreline within the City limits is currently designated as "Urban" and Applicant requests an "Urban" designation for its property as well. Persons wishing to comment on the above case may do so by appearing at the public meet- ing or calling or sending a writ- ten statement to Lisa Verner, Project Coordinator, 206 -431- 3662 or lverner@ci.tukwila. wa.us. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, and File. Date of publication in the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce, May 23, 2005. 5/23(1859331 Page 2 of affidavit PROJECT INFORMATION Segale Properties/La Pianta LLC (Sue Carlson) has filed applications for development of the Tukwila South Project to be located on 498 acres generally located south of S 180 Street, west of the Green River, north of S 204 Street and east of Orillia Road S/I -5 with a general address of 5811 Segale Park Drive C. These applications are for 1) zoning code changes and subdivision codes changes proposed to apply to the Tukwila South Project, 2) a map amendment to the City's Shoreline Master Program to include land La Pianta will annex into the City to have a shoreline designation of "Urban" as does the rest of shoreline land within the City, and 3) a request to designate the La Pianta property as a Sensitive Areas Overlay District which would require the approval of a Sensitive Areas Master Plan addressing wetlands, fish habitat, hillsides, and other sensitive areas. Permits applied for include: L05 -029 Zoning Code Change/Subdivision Code Change; L05 -030 Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Map Amendment; L05 -031 Sensitive Area Overlay District and Sensitive Area Master Plan Other known required permits include: Annexation; Master Plan approval; Grading permit; Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; Development Agreement between Applicant and City; US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit; NOAA and US Fish and Wildlife Service ESA compliance and consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; FEMA approval offloodplain change; FHA approval for Southcenter Parkway; State DOE Section 401 and Section 402 permits, dam safety approval and possible MTCA compliance; State DFW Hydraulic Project Approval; and State DOT and DNR possible approvals. Studies required with the applications include: Environmental Impact Statement with Technical Appendices on Geology, Soils and Groundwater; Preliminary Master Drainage Plan; Water Quality Technical Report; Plants and Animals Technical Report; Fisheries Technical Report; Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan; Hazardous Materials Technical Report; Archaeological and Historical Resources Report; Transportation Study; Air Quality Technical Report; Noise Technical Report; and Sensitive Areas Master Plan. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been submitted with the studies identified above. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Project Files include: L05 -029 Zoning Code changes /Subdivision Code changes L05 -030 Shoreline Master Plan Map Amendment L05 -031 Sensitive Area Overlay District and Sensitive Area Master Plan OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., June 21, 2005. A public meeting to provide you with information on the project has been scheduled for June 15 at 6:30 PM at the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Opportunity for additional oral and written public comments on the zoning code, subdivision code and Shoreline Master Program map amendment will be provided at a public hearing before the Planning Commission, tentatively scheduled for July 14, 2005. Opportunity for additional oral and written public comments on these plus designation of the Sensitive Areas Overlay District will be provided at a public hearing before the City Council, tentatively scheduled for August 8, 2005. To confirm these dates call the Department of Community Development at (206) 431 -3670. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431 -3670. L05 -029 Zoning /Subdivision Code changes: appealable to Superior Court L05 -030 SMP Map Amendment: appealable to Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board L05 -031 Sensitive Area Overlay District: appealable to Superior Court For further information on this proposal, contact Lisa Verner at (206) 431 -3662 or lvetner @ci.tukwila.wa.us or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Applications Filed: May 6, 2005 Notice of Completeness Issued: May 27, 2005 Notice of Application Issued: May R. 2005 i� 1. -1800 ■.1\ MN • Ill LIE kvtk a7 KWILA TUC t ot Mat 1 II 1 11■ ■a�1111111111111111■ ■1111 :.�I�:pe z '111OIIIUIII■ ■1111 udll■'l1Mil n VORM21 111 II:Ii•IIL�llU ``► 7200 il■:i11i1 IER a ;!! 111111: gionill soi." • n ■ ■�� 11' Mun II Pre �■7 // l i p Mr*. �. ■■ O 111.1 .- i9 = •I ■� I•• ■■ 1111 ■IIIII I . � ■11111 11■■ ■� _ 111■ ■ I IN » .1 ' :11111: r NEW u11p� �■ ■ I!111L I■ S ■ � - 1 1 111 11b■■■1a �.i11111 uo!h„"I::Ni1111;ii; !=III r =��;;I:;I;IIIIILI!� tLmas I"IIIIIIii.ii �IiiIImI111I111111 I� ' Rim .1 T ���� um .r. :;1 111111 111111 I::::: • ►111111 Warn 111 ■1111 ii liii 11111111111111111: 1111�11111`tI ; ::111m IUI j: !;'�i h i • 't 4 4 OI C = 1 i1IIIN y ...k�..in= : �1 I • r II ■ . Zr 0 �J � SC ig IBM ms . �ra� . 4 d i i :: sk A uII/lu :►� •Q � i�i i svi t 11.... I� � r �I 1111 . al . 1111111111 . A. v . 1, . • ■III :: LS 1111 IIn ! y: I =O. I20 l'A Mu me Mum. 11 az�pl �111i wild mop ■eng. E"' E9 EI I I = Nan -C aril = 111111 Ira -Ii r mom • 1111111►\ ANGLE LAKE NIT i 'L 0 !GOLDSMITH �1 I a ASSOCIATESY KENT INDUST KENT SINGLE- FAMILY (SR -I IAL PARK LEGEND: m .. o TUKWILA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT TUKWILA SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT- EXHIBIT 1 TUKWILA. KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON VICIMITY AFTER LA PIANTA ANNEXATION ZONING BOUNDARY TUKWILA SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT A AREA WHERE APPUCATIONS APPLY i Dear Lisa, May 6, 2005 SEGALE PROP A L A P I A N T A L L C TRADE NAME INDUSTRIAL • COMMERCIAL • AGRICULTURAL • N Ms. Lisa Verner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98199 -2544 RE: Shoreline Master Program Amendment Submittal Package Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Amendment Package ERTI ES ATURAL RESOURCES The enclosed package of materials contains Segale Properties, LLC's contribution to the City of Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Amendment submittal to the Washington Department of Ecology for the purpose of including newly annexed Green River Shoreline into the City's existing SMP. In a March 28, 2005 letter to you from Betty Renkor with Ecology's Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Ecology listed 13 items the City must provide to Ecology for the amendment submittal to be considered complete. We consulted with Ecology to obtain clarification for some requested items. We understand it is Ecology's position and practice that completion of relevant items of a SEPA Checklist is required for all SMP amendments. However, Ecology also understands that this is a minor amendment and that major portions of the SEPA Checklist may not be applicable. Segale Properties agreed we would identify and respond to the Checklist items applicable to the proposed SMP Amendment/Predesignation. To the extent information called for by some parts of the SEPA Checklist are in existing documents, we determined with Ecology it is appropriate to reference and attach them. It had been suggested by Ecology that because the proposed map amendment to the SMP was "project- driven," checklist responses should be oriented to this project rather than all of the conceivable development that might occur on the predesignated shorelines under the City's SMP policies and regulations. We confirmed with Ecology that the City and Segale Properties should (1) briefly explain that the purpose and need for the SMP Amendment is to accommodate the proposed Master Plan development in the City and (2) respond to the applicable Checklist items in the context of the general, not detailed, features of the proposed Master Plan development and how the existing SMP regulations generally would be applied to avoid net loss of ecological functions and how restoration P O B O X 88028 • T U K W I L A . W A 9 8 1 3 8 • 5 8 1 1 S E G A L E P A R K D R I V E C • T U K W I L A , W A 9 8 1 8 8 P 2 0 6 5 7 5 2 0 0 0 • F 2 0 6 5 7 5 1 8 3 7 • w w w s e g a l e p r o p e r t i e s. c o m Ms. Lisa Verner May 6, 2005 Page 2 of degraded functions would voluntarily be provided by the proposed development. Ecology agrees that there is no SMA statutory provision or regulation which characterizes SMP amendments as project- driven or imposes any special showing for "project— driven" SMP amendments. Moreover, the City's urban designation allows uses that are no more intensive than those allowed by the King County SMP provisions applicable to these shorelines, and the City's SMP regulations are at least as environmentally protective as King County's SMP provisions. However, because Ecology explained to us that project- oriented general information would be most useful to its review of the SMP Amendment/Predesignation, we have taken that approach in preparing the enclosed package of materials. As the City and Ecology recognize, the proposed SMP Amendment/Predesignation and Annexation will merely bring shorelines in King County's Urban Growth Area, mainly zoned for industrial development, into the City. The GMA encourages the annexation of land in the UGAs. For a Master Plan development of this scale and complexity it makes much more sense to have it contained in and regulated by the City. To move forward efficiently during this period after the adoption of the 2003 Guidelines, but before the City's Comprehensive SMP review and revisions to comply with the 2003 Guidelines in 2009, Segale Properties' contribution to the City's submittal package for the SMP Amendment/Predesignation includes the following: SMP Amendment Application. As you know, the City does not have a specific application form for SMP amendment applications. The City indicated four questions from its Comprehensive Zoning Code and Amendment Criteria application will constitute a SMP Amendment Application. Those responses are included. The SMP Submittal Checklist (WAC 173- 26- 201(3)(h), filled out as described above (item 1 listed in Betty Renkor's March 28, 2005 letter to Lisa Verner); and Responses to the remaining 12 items listed in Betty Renkor's letter. Please note that some elements of the Checklist and the remaining 12 items will require completion by the City, prior to submitting the SMP application to Ecology. Sincerely, ./4C(Zi9 Susan Carlson Director of Development Segale Properties Enclosures City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment Application May 6, 2005 May 6, 2005 City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment Application To: Ms. Lisa Verner, City of Tukwila From: Sue Carlson, Director of Development, Segale Properties LLC RE: Proposed Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment/Predesignation to Accommodate the Proposed Tukwila South Master Plan Development in the City. 1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why. The purpose and need for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) minor amendment/ predesignation is to accommodate the proposed Tukwila South Master Plan Development in the City of Tukwila. The proposed SMP minor amendment will bring shorelines now in King County's Urban Growth Area (UGA), mainly zoned for industrial development, into the City of Tukwila to be regulated under the City's SMP (see Exhibit 1 attached to this application form — Tukwila South Shoreline Master Program Amendment), after this portion of the City's planned annexation area is annexed (see Exhibit 1 attached to this application form — Tukwila South Overlay District). The Growth Management Act encourages annexation of unincorporated land in the UGA, and the scale and complexity of the Tukwila South Master Plan is more sensibly managed by containing it within, and regulating it by, the City of Tukwila. The City of Tukwila will predesignate the annexed shoreline of the Green River as Urban Environment under its SMP. Zoning within the annexed area and shoreline, and of adjacent areas, is shown in Exhibit 1- Tukwila South Overlay District. 2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change. The proposed SMP annexation is contiguous with the southern half of the approximately 500 -acre Tukwila South Master Plan area, which includes lands south of the existing city limits between the Green River and the SeaTac /Tukwila boundary, south to South 204 Street. A petition to annex has been presented to the City and the annexation and incorporation of the area into the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is expected to occur in the Fall of 2005. Annexation and incorporation of the annexed Green River shoreline into the City's SMP are actions intended to enable and encourage future growth within the UGA of the City of Tukwila; specifically growth within the Tukwila South Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Without the major infrastructure improvements enabled by the SAMP, the action alternatives described in the Tukwila South Draft EIS (April 2004) would not be feasible. One aspect of the proposed master plan is a net increase in wetland functions and values for the site. The City's Urban SMP designation allows uses that are no more intensive than those allowed by the King County SMP Rural/Industrial provisions now applicable to these Segale Properties, LLC Tukwila South Master Plan Page 1 City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment Application May 6, 2005 shorelines, and the City's SMP regulations are at least as environmentally protective as King County's SMP provisions. The entire shoreline affected by the proposed SMP minor amendment includes a levee separating most natural environmental functions of the Green River and its riparian zone from the upland area to be annexed. The proposed Urban Environment shoreline designation within the City of Tukwila would allow the zoning applied to the annexed shoreline as shown in Exhibit 1, and consistent with the County's current Rural/Industrial provisions. The proposed Urban Environment designation and zoning overlays shown in Exhibit 1 are consistent with surrounding property zoning and the UGA designation for the property. 3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations are met (cite policy numbers and code sections that apply). Annexation and incorporation of the annexed Green River shoreline into the City's SMP are actions intended to enable and encourage future growth within the UGA of the City of Tukwila; specifically growth within the Tukwila South Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Major portions of the Comprehensive Plan elements are summarized below; all other relevant elements are described in detail in the Draft EIS. • Community Image Element: The proposed annexation to accommodate the Tukwila South Master Plan would promote community interaction by providing public and private amenities such as plazas, landscaped open space, and pedestrian bicycle pathways to link the campuses to adjacent areas. The communities' environmental heritage would be recognized through preservation of the western hillside, protection of open space, and a net gain in functions and values of fish and wetland habitat. Building design, construction and materials would be coordinated through comprehensive plan urban design principles. • Economic Development Element: The proposed annexation to accommodate the Tukwila South Master Plan would increase capital investments to encourage development that supports family -wage jobs, concurrent with substantial private actions, and provide capacity to meet Tukwila's employment targets. • Housing Element: The proposed annexation would accommodate creation of new housing within the Tukwila South area to help the City achieve its housing target. • Natural Environment Element: The proposed annexation would accommodate requirements of the Urban Environment designation under its SMP and be consistent with the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.160 (G)) as required to provide consistency with this element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. • Shoreline Element: Designation of the newly annexed Tukwila South shoreline as "Urban Environment" is consistent with the Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act. Consistent with the GMA (RCW 36.70A) and Countywide Planning Policies described in Section 3.7 of the Tukwila South Project Draft EIS (April 2005), the City's of Tukwila's Segale Properties, LLC Page 2 Tukwila South Master Plan City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment Application May 6, 2005 Comprehensive Plan (1995 and subsequently amended) guides future development to fulfill the City's responsibilities under GMA. Annexation and incorporation of the annexed Green River shoreline into the City's SMP are actions intended to enable and encourage future growth within the UGA of the City of Tukwila; specifically growth within the Tukwila South Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. Following annexation, the City's SMP would be extended to include the annexed area under an Urban Environment designation. Segale Properties, LLC Page 3 Tukwila South Master Plan CITY OF. TUKWILA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM MINOR AMENDMENT APPLICATION -i C cn 0 C 2 2 0 m I m � D � $fib m z v m z b: \AC AD \ PLAN \03 \03102 \03102408 ay J1 1'�jT,y. 1111 t 'r �� :UM '11. 2�II'■ - I �s � �� X111■ 1111-- — -- 17111401111" == 1111. ==° — � /� �— •�. . � � �� . ■..- .x. .1 . p. � � X 11 1 111! -- � ■.� rirl;A: Wm. is Num � � — � � �.1 111 11�p111111 • �- 11111111yi I� / i�� ! • �� �11�1�111 ►� 1 � � 1r L �lr �� � p LIE {1111■ �� �� 1�- �, �_ _ _ - 11111■ 11111►ii � i1t , �i - L � ∎ 1_ 1111 ear - • uninfi n 1111111i1 .. 9 PRINN Stu - .-- 0 z 111 a. 11 111IIi Mem "MUM 1111111 - uMUM .MUM M '. •I li .rif���Vo sai /11111111 i ' � 11111t X1111 1 1 1111. -- MINIM 1� r �:■1i biro.: ■11 �MP � 1 111'11 • •• Cr. 11 . 11 NNE 117 =NM M•111111111 -- �- -1111■ M.M =M. swag= mom .. - -- -- - ■ ■.... — � _ _�� .... Em - � - CCII� _I... e . �uI /Tu 111 1 1 1.J I IIE H o pm ®1E, ° vB E /•. ® e! gra: ©11 ®1111 ®1 ®1111111 S•'�t:� �'!�.° ,. P2gt : it F 143. .1111■..✓ ■1 - . • 1 E CA D O m � 1E � DS m 03102.08 A.5 1_666.5 05/03/05 16 24 - -- -a -- J... ■1•111. OIIIP SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST, INCLUDING ATTACHMENTS This checklist is for use by local governments to satisfy the requirements of WAC 173- 26- 201(3)(a), relating to submittal of Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) for review by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) under Chapter 173 -26 WAC. The checklist does not create new or additional requirements beyond the provisions of that chapter. DOCUMENTATION OF SMP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, COMMUNICATION, AND COORDINATION 2 SHORELINE INVENTORY 2 SHORELINE ANALYSIS 3 SMP CONTENTS8 ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS 8 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(A) 8 RURAL CONSERVANCY. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(B) 9 AQUATIC. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(C) 10 HIGH - INTENSITY. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(D) 11 URBAN CONSERVANCY. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(E) 11 SHORELINE RESIDENTIAL. WAC 173-26-211(5)(F) 13 GENERAL POLICIES AND REGULATIONS 13 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES. WAC 173 -26- 221(1) 13 CRITICAL AREAS. WAC 173 -26- 221(2) 14 WETLANDS. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(C)(I) 15 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(C)(II) 16 CRITICAL SALTWATER HABITATS. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(C)(III) 17 CRITICAL FRESHWATER HABITATS. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(C)(IV) 17 FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION. WAC 173 -26- 221(3) 18 PUBLIC ACCESS. WAC 173 -26- 221(4) 19 VEGETATION CONSERVATION (CLEARING AND GRADING). WAC 173 -26- 221(5) 19 WATER QUALITY. WAC 173 -26- 221(6) 19 SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS 20 SHORELINE STABILIZATION. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(A) 20 PIERS AND DOCKS. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(B) 21 FILL. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(c) 21 BREAKWATERS, JETTIES, AND WEIRS. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(D) 22 DUNES MANAGEMENT. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(E) 22 DREDGING AND DREDGE MATERIAL DISPOSAL. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(F) 22 SHORELINE HABITAT AND NATURAL SYSTEMS ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(G) 23 SPECIFIC SHORELINE USES 23 AGRICULTURE. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(A) 23 AQUACULTURE. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(B) 24 BOATING FACILITIES. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(C) 24 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(D) 24 FOREST PRACTICES. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(E) 25 INDUSTRY. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(F) 25 IN- STREAM STRUCTURES. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(G) 25 MINING. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(H) 26 RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(I) 26 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. WAC 173 -26- 241(3)(1) 27 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(K) 27 UTILITIES. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(L) 29 SMP ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 29 Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Page 1 of 31 STATE RULE (WA C) REQUIREMENTS Public inv L�_w; Documentation of public involvement throughout SMP development process. WAC 173- 26- 201(3)(b)(i) and WAC 173- 26 -090 and 100. For SSWS, see WAC 173- 26- 251(3)(a) Documentation of communication with state agencies and affected Indian tribes throughout SMP development. WAC 173 - 26- 201(3)(b)(ii) and (iii), WAC 173 -26- 100(3). For saltwater shorelines, see WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(c)(iii)(B). For SSWS, see WAC 173- 26- 251(3)(a). Demonstration that critical areas regulations for shorelines are based on the SMA and the guidelines, and are at least equal to the current level of protection provided by the currently adopted critical areas ordinance. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(b)(ii),(iii) and (c). Documentation of process to assure that proposed regulatory or administrative actions do not unconstitutionally infringe upon private property rights. See "State of Washington, Attorney General's Recommended Process for Evaluation of Proposed Regulatory or Administrative Actions to Avoid Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property." WAC 173 -26- 186(5). Final submittal includes: • evidence of local government approval (or a locally approved "statement of intent to adopt "); • new and /or amendatory text, • environment designation maps (with boundary descriptions and justification for changes based on existing development patterns, biophysical capabilities and limitations, and the goals and aspirations of the local citizenry); • a summary of the proposal together with staff reports and supporting materials; • evidence of SEPA compliance; • copies of all comments received with names and addresses. WAC 173 -26 -110 Submittal must include clear identification and transmittal of all provisions that make up the SMP. This checklist, if complete, meets this requirement. WAC 173- 26- 210(3)(a) and (h). Inventory of existing data and materials. WAC 173-26 - 201(3)(c)(i) through (x). For jurisdictions with critical saltwater habitats, see WAC 173-26 - 221(2)(c)(iii)(A) &(B). LOCATION See Attachments A and B. COMMENTS City City Muckleshoots Indian Tribe, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Department of Ecology, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE), and the City of Tukwila generally involved with initial consultation, field visits, pre - application meeting at ACOE and is on- going. N/A City site policies here.. City Shi no Invent S vide Is in td a rig Tu uth Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 2 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS S horeline Ana lysis Characterization of shoreline ecosystems and their associated ecological functions that: • identifies ecosystem -wide processes and ecological functions; See Attachment C • assesses ecosystem -wide processes to determine their relationship to ecological functions; See Attachment C • identifies specific measures necessary to protect and /or restore the ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. WAC 173- 26- 201(3)(d)(i)(A). See Attachment D Demonstration of how characterization was used to prepare See Tukwila South Project master program policies and regulations that achieve no net loss Draft Environmental of ecological functions necessary to support shoreline resources and to plan for restoration of impaired functions. WAC 173 -26- Impact Statement (DEIS), including Land and 201(3)(d)(i)(E). Shoreline Use Section 3.6. See Sensitive Area Master Plan (SAMP) under provisions of the Tukwila Master Code (TMC) 18.45. See Wetland and Fisheries Mitigation Plans (Attachment E). For vegetation, see WAC 173 -26- 221(5). For jurisdictions with critical saltwater habitats, see WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(c)(iii)(B). See Attachment B. Description of data gaps, assumptions made and risks to See DEIS and Fisheries No gaps or risks to functions and ecological functions associated with SMP provisions. WAC 173- and Wetland Mitigation values are anticipated due to current 26- 201(2)(a). Plans (Attachment E). degraded conditions and high probability of mitigation plan success for fisheries and wetlands plans for the project proposed to occupy the annexation area. Characterization includes maps of inventory information at Figures 1, 2, and 3 in Larger scale maps available upon appropriate scale. WAC 173- 26- 201(3)(c) Attachment A. request. Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 3 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Use analysis estimating future demand for shoreline space and potential use conflicts based on characterization of current shoreline use patterns and projected trends. Evidence that SMP ensures adequate shoreline space for projected shoreline preferred uses. Public access needs and opportunities within the jurisdiction are identified. Projections of regional economic need guide the designation of "high- intensity" shoreline. WAC 173-26 - 201(3)(d)(ii) & (v); WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(d)(ii)(B) For SMPs that allow mining, demonstration that siting of mines is consistent with requirements of WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(h)(i). For SSWS: • evidence that SMP preserves adequate shorelands and See Attachment C (a) and The Green River is constrained within submerged lands to accommodate current and projected DEIS, Appendix C (Water a levee along the entire shoreline. demand for economic resources of statewide Quality Technical Report). importance (e.g., commercial shellfish beds and Water Quality assessment concludes navigable harbors) based on statewide or regional no adverse change in water quality analyses, requirements for essential public facilities, and delivered to the Green River or comment from related industry associations, affected downstream to Elliott Bay. Indian tribes, and state agencies. • Evidence that public access and recreation requirements are based on demand projections that take into account activities of state agencies and interests of TMC 18.42.020, 18.44.130(A)(8) and (B)(1 and 2). TMC SMP codes identify standards and permitted uses for public recreation and public access such as the citizens to visit public shorelines with special scenic qualities or cultural or recreational opportunities. WAC 173 -26 251(3)(c)(ii) & (iii) plaza connectors and access roads, parking and other development features within 3 management environment designations: River Environment (closest), Low- Impact Environment, and High- Impact Environment. • Optimum implementation directives incorporated into comp plan and development regulations. WAC 173 -26- N/A 251(2) & (3)(e) For GMA jurisdictions, SMP recreational provisions are consistent with growth projections and level -of- service standards TMC 18.42.020, 18.44.130(A)(8) and (B)(1 TMC SMP codes identify standards and permitted uses for public contained in comp plan. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(i) and 2) recreation and public access such as plaza connectors and access roads, parking and other development features within 3 management environment designations: River Environment (closest), Low - Impact Environment, and High - Impact Environment. Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 4 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Restoration plan that: • identifies degraded areas, impaired ecological functions, and potential restoration sites; • Establishes restoration goals and priorities, including See Attachment D (a -f) SMP goals and policies that provide for restoration of impaired ecological functions; • Identifies existing restoration projects and programs; • Identifies additional projects and programs needed to achieve local restoration goals, and implementation strategies including identifying prospective funding sources • sets timelines and benchmarks for implementing restoration projects and programs; • provides mechanisms or strategies to ensure that See Attachment E for restoration projects and programs will be implemented Wetland and Fisheries according to plans and to appropriately review the effectiveness of the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals. WAC 173- 26- 186(8)(c); Mitigation Monitoring. 201(2)(c) &(f) For critical freshwater habitats: incentives to restore water See Attachment E for Hydrology would be rehabilitated in connections impeded by previous development. WAC 173 -26- Wetland and Fisheries most of Wetlands 10 and 11 by 221(2)(c)(iv)(C)(III). Mitigation Monitoring. breaking all drainage tiles and /or either plugging and dispersing drainage ditch water through the rehabilitated wetland areas, or excavation into a (largely) offsite drainage ditch at the point where it enters the property to allow drainage flow to disperse through a rehabilitated wetland area. The Johnson Ditch mitigation project will create a meandering stream channel designed to provide good quality summer rearing and winter refuge habitats. Approximately 1,350 feet of the current ditch will be abandoned in favor of a newly constructed channel and associated floodplain. A new 200 -foot long by 48 -inch culvert will be located at a flat grade through the Green River levee at an elevation of 13 -feet. A fish - passable flood gate will be installed at the confluence to the Green River to allow fish to migrate through the culvert and into the tributary under most flow conditions. For SSWS, identification of where natural resources of statewide Addressed in the restoration importance are being diminished over time, and master programs opportunities and degraded areas provisions that contribute to the restoration of those resources. section of this checklist. WAC 173- 26- 251(3)(b) Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 5 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Evidence that each environment designation is consistent with TMC 18.44 No change to Shoreline Master guidelines criteria (WAC 173 -26- 211(5)], as well as existing use pattern, the biological and physical character of the shoreline and the goals and aspirations of the community. WAC 173-26 - Program (SMP) proposed. 211(2)(a). WAC 173 -26- 110(3) Lands designated as "forest lands of long -term significance" under RCW 36.70A.170 are designated either natural or rural conservancy shoreline environment designations. WAC 173-26 - N/A 241(3)(e). For SSWS, demonstration that environment designation policies, boundaries, and use provisions implement SMA preferred use Urban Environment designation under the City of Tukwila would not policies of RCW 90.58.020(1) through (7). WAC 173- 26- 251(3)(c) specifically require any change to the existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. However, the proposed project would increase net functions and values by having a greater environmental benefit under a Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay than could be achieved under standard TMC 18.45 Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) provisions. Assessment of how proposed policies and regulations cause, avoid, minimize and mitigate cumulative impacts to achieve no See Table 1 in Attachment C and Table 2 Urban Environment designation under the City of Tukwila would not net loss policy. in Attachment D. specifically require any change to the existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. However, the proposed project would increase net functions and values by having a greater environmental benefit under a Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay than could be achieved under standard TMC 18.45 SAO provisions. The Tukwila South Project site is uniquely suited to provide substantial local and regional habitat benefits. The site contains Johnson Ditch, a degraded and ditched tributary to the Green River that could be restored to functioning fish habitat. Johnson Ditch is adjacent to over 30 acres of poor quality wetlands now in cropland production that could be rehabilitated as habitat. The project is adjacent to the Green River where it is confined within levees that have eliminated most off - channel habitat necessary for anadromous salmon, affording an opportunity to create this type of habitat which regional Green River studies have identified as a high priority for salmon population restoration. The purpose of the Tukwila SAO under TMC 18.45.010 is to protect the environment, human life, and property; designate and classify ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas and to protect these areas and their functions and values; and allow for reasonable use of public and Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 6 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS private property. By using the Master Plan provisions of the SAO, the Tukwila South Project developed a proposal consistent with project function and needs, substantially enhancing regional fisheries and wetland functions, and preserving water quality. The net gain in environmental benefits using the Master Plan is far greater for both within -site and regional habitat benefits than could be achieved using standard TMC SAO provisions. Include policies and regulations that address platting or See Exhibit 150 Attached. N/A Outside of shoreline setbacks. subdividing of property, laying of utilities, and mapping of streets Under the King County Code (KCC) that establish a pattern for future development. Evaluation (Title 25, Shoreline Management) the addresses: setback from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) starts approximately 10 to 12 feet closer to the river than the City of Tukwila setback, which is defined by the 9,000 cfs flow water elevation. The City's setback of 40 feet affords greater protection than the King County setback of 50 feet with limited public access, since the King County setback starts closer to the river (See Exhibit 150 attached). The project will provide limited public access, which King County defines as 1) actual physical access from land to the OHWM being limited to specific groups of people or certain regularly prescribed times, or 2) visual access available to the general public to the shoreline and adjacent waterbody, such as access being specifically provided for in the development of the site (KCC25.08.020). (i) current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant See shoreline natural processes; modifications in Attachment B. (ii) reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the See the DEIS and SAMP shoreline (including impacts from unregulated activities, exempt development, and other incremental impacts); and (iii) beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws. WAC 173-26 - (Appendix L to the DEIS). N/A 201(3)(d)(iii) and WAC 173- 26- 186(8)(d) For jurisdictions with critical saltwater habitats, identification of methods for monitoring conditions and adapting management practices to new information. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(c)(iii)(B). N /A. For SSWS, evidence that standards ensuring protection of N/A to an individual site, but rather to ecological resources of statewide importance consider the overall SMP. Urban Environment cumulative impacts of permitted development. WAC 173 -26- designation under the City of Tukwila 251(3)(d)(i) would not specifically require any change to the existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. However, the proposed project would increase net Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 7 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS SMP CONTENTS Any goals adopted as part of the SMP are consistent with the SMA. (Note: Goal statements are not required.) functions and values by having a greater environmental benefit under a Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay than could be achieved under standard TMC 18.45 SAO provisions. No changes to SMP goals. Policies (A) are consistent with guidelines and policies of the SMA; (B) address elements of RCW 90.58.100; and (C) include policies for environment designations, accompanied by a map or physical description of designation boundaries in sufficient detail to compare with comprehensive plan land use designations. (D) are consistent with constitutional and other legal limitations on regulation of private property. WAC 173- 26- 191(2)(a)(i) SMP implements preferred use policies of the SMA. WAC 173 - 26- 201(2)(d) No changes to SMP policies. Regulations: (A) are sufficient in scope and detail to ensure the implementation of SMA, SMP guidelines, and SMP policies; (B) include environment designation regulations; (C) include general regulations, use regulations that address issues of concern in regard to specific uses, and shoreline modification regulations; and, (D) are consistent with constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. WAC 173-26 - 191(2)(a)(ii) No changes to SMP regulations. ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS . j ti " Each environment designation includes: Purpose statements, classification criteria, management policies, and regulations (types of shoreline uses permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited; building or structure height and bulk limits, setbacks, maximum density or minimum frontage requirements, and site development standards). WAC 173 -26- 211(2)(4). No changes to existing SMP criteria, policies, or regulations. An up -to -date map accurately depicting environment designation boundaries on a map. If necessary, include common boundary descriptions. WAC 173- 26- 211(2)(b); WAC 173 -26- 110(3); See Exhibit 1, Site Plan Attached. Entire annexation area will have "urban" shoreline designation. Statement that undesignated shorelines are automatically assigned a conservancy environment designation. WAC 173 - 26- 211(2)(e). N/A . 1 - TR . s. n " ..r +' . , •. >'.'i.1�y't :{t' } - 61 - '17! . :1 . ".r • :1 pGf 1 1 ht''S .1 1la+Y t. '1 iT•q 1 . }:1*r"` ■ 7 f k . r � . 4 �' r�y Na tu r al enYironment: W "1:. x73 2 6 �211 ( :5)(a } - :: 4 ,� +�... 'e;.. `.. 1 1 . 1 :1 1 L N . -, : =�` - r; 1 .�N `- Designation criteria: Shorelines that are ecologically intact and performing functions that could be damaged by human activity, of particular scientific or educational interest, or unable to support human development without posing a safety threat. WAC 173-26 - 211(5)(a)(iii) N/A Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 8 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Prohibition on new: • uses that would substantially degrade ecological functions or natural character of shoreline. WAC 173-26 - 211(5)(a)(ii)(A) • Commercial uses; industrial uses; nonwater oriented recreation; roads, utility corridors, and parking areas. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(a)(ii)(B) • development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the capability of vegetation to perform normal ecological functions. WAC 173-26 - 211(5)(a)(ii)(G) • subdivision of property in a configuration that will require significant vegetation removal or shoreline modification that adversely impacts ecological functions. WAC 173 - 26- 211(5)(a)(ii)(G) N/A For single family residential development: limits on density and intensity to protect ecological functions, and requirement for CUP. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(a)(ii)(C) N/A For commercial forestry: requirement for CUP, requirement to follow conditions of the State Forest Practices Act. WAC 173-26 - 211(5)(a)(ii)(D) N/A For agriculture: low intensity use allowed if subject to appropriate limits or conditions to assure that the use does not expand or practices don't conflict with purpose of the designation. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(a)(ii)(E) N/A Low intensity public uses such as scientific, historical, cultural, educational research uses, and water - oriented recreational access allowed if ecological impacts are avoided. WAC 173-26 - 211(5)(a)(ii)(F) N/A Rural conser l ncy. AA 173• 1't Xb Designation criteria: areas outside municipalities or UGAs with: (A) low- intensity, resource -based uses, (B) low- intensity residential uses, (C) environmental limitations such as steep banks or floodplains, (D) high recreational or cultural value, or (E) low- intensity water - dependent uses. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(b)(iii) N/A Restrictions on use and development that would degrade or permanently deplete resources. Water- dependent and water - enjoyment recreation facilities are preferred uses. Low intensity, water - oriented commercial and industrial uses limited to areas where those uses have located in the past or at sites that possess conditions and services to support the development. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(b)(ii)(A) and (B) For SMPs that allow mining, see WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(h). N/A Prohibition on new structural shoreline stabilization and flood control works except where there is documented need to protect an existing primary structure (provided mitigation is applied) or to protect ecological functions. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(b)(ii)(C). N/A Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 9 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Development standards for residential use that preserve existing character of the shoreline. Density, lot coverage, vegetation conservation and other provisions that ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Density or lot coverage limited to a maximum of ten percent total impervious surface area within the lot or parcel, or alternative standard that maintains the existing hydrologic character of the shoreline. (May include provisions allowing greater lot coverage for lots legally created prior to the adoption of a master program prepared under these guidelines, if lot coverage is minimized and vegetation is conserved.) WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(b)(ii)(D). N/A Aa ttii S AC 73 -2 .2 Designation criteria: Areas waterward of the ordinary high -water mark (OHWM). WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(c)(iii) N/A New over -water structures: • allowed only for water - dependent uses, public access, or ecological restoration. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(c)(ii)(A) • limited to the minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(c)(ii)(B) N/A Multiple use of over -water facilities encouraged. WAC 173 -26- 211(5)(c)(ii)(C) N/A Location and design of all developments and uses required to: • minimize interference with surface navigation, to consider impacts to public views, and to allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife, particularly those species dependent on migration. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(c)(ii)(D) • prevent water quality degradation and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions. WAC 173 -26- 211(5)(c)(ii)(F) See DEIS, Appendix C (Water Quality Technical Report) and Appendix E (Fisheries Technical Report). N/A None. Water quality assessment concludes no adverse change in water quality delivered to the Green River or downstream to Elliott Bay. Uses that adversely impact ecological functions of critical saltwater and freshwater habitats limited (except where necessary for other SMA objectives, and then only when their impacts are mitigated). WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(c)(ii)(E) See DEIS, Appendix C (Water Quality Technical Report) and Appendix E (Fisheries Technical Report). Urban Environment designation under the City of Tukwila would not specifically require any change to the existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. However, the proposed project would increase net functions and values by having a greater environmental benefit under a Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay than could be achieved under standard TMC 18.45 SAO provisions. Development is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to fisheries habitat or water quality. Filling of approximately 7,127 feet of stream channel is not considered a significant adverse impact with the implementation of the mitigation plan, including the two major habitat enhancement projects: the Green River Off - Channel Habitat Restoration Area and the New Johnson Creek stream channel. Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 10 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS Designation criteria: Areas within incorporated municipalities, "UGAs," and "rural areas of more intense development" (see RCW 36.70A.070) that currently support or are planned for high - intensity water - dependent uses. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(d)(iii) Priority given first to water - dependent uses, then to water - related and water - enjoyment uses. New non -water oriented uses prohibited except as part of mixed use developments, or where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water oriented uses or where there is no direct access to the shoreline. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(d)(ii)(A) Full use of existing urban areas required before expansion of intensive development allowed. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(d)(ii)(B) New development does not cause net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline to comply with relevant state and federal laws assured. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(d)(ii)(C) Visual and physical public access required where feasible. Sign control regulations, appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers to achieve aesthetic objectives. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(d)(ii)(D) and (E) Designation criteria: Areas within incorporated municipalities, UGAs, and rural areas of more intense development that are not suitable for water - dependent uses and that are either suitable for water - related or water - enjoyment uses, are flood plains, have potential for ecological restoration, retain ecological functions, or have potential for development that incorporates ecological restoration. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(e)(iii) LOCATION See DEIS, Chapter 2 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives. COMMENTS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Urban Environment designation under the City of Tukwila would not specifically require any change to the existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. However, the proposed project would increase net functions and values by having a greater environmental benefit under a Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay than could be achieved under standard TMC 18.45 SAO provisions. The Tukwila South Project proposal calls for the long -term development of a campus setting on a 498 -acre contiguous site. The site is located within the City of Tukwila's south planning area, which extends from South 180 Street in the City of Tukwila to South 204 Street in King County, and includes the City's Annexation Area. Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 11 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Allowed uses are primarily those that preserve natural character See Fisheries and Urban Environment designation of area, promote preservation of open space, floodplain or Wetland Mitigation Plans under the City of Tukwila would not sensitive lands, or appropriate restoration. WAC 173 -26- (Attachment E). specifically require any change to the 211(5)(e)(ii)(A) existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. However, the proposed project would increase net functions and values by having a greater environmental benefit under a Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay than could be achieved under standard TMC 18.45 SAO provisions. The Green River Off - Channel Habitat Restoration Area and the New Johnson Creek stream channel will be created as part of the project. About 7.0 acres of land will be reconfigured to create 4.5 acres of new open water habitat and 2.5 acres of riparian buffer. Another 0.34 acres of new Johnson Creek stream channel will be created to replace the existing Johnson Ditch alignment. The conceptual designs were based on a regional salmonid habitat study known as The Green /Duwamish River Ecosystem Restoration Study, together with the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis for the Cedar River (WRIA 9). Priority given to water - oriented uses over non -water oriented uses. For shoreline areas adjacent to commercially navigable waters, water- dependent uses given highest priority. WAC 173 - N/A 26- 211(5)(e)(ii)(D) For SMPs that allow mining, see WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(h). N/A Standards for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation See Fisheries and Urban Environment designation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications that Wetland Mitigation Plans under the City of Tukwila would not ensure new development does not result in a net loss of shoreline (Attachment E). specifically require any change to the ecological functions or degrade other shoreline values. WAC existing wetland and fish habitat 173- 26- 211(5)(e)(ii)(B) functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. However, the proposed project would increase net functions and values by having a greater environmental benefit under a Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay than could be achieved under standard TMC 18.45 SAO provisions. A levee along the bank of the Green River separates the annexation area from the river in terms of ecological functions and values. Fish habitat and wetland functions and values will be increased as a result of the Fisheries and Wetland Mitigation Plans. Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 12 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS Public access and recreation required where feasible and ecological impacts are mitigated. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(e)(ii)(C) Designation criteria: Areas within incorporated municipalities, Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), "rural areas of more intense development," and "master planned resorts" (see RCW 36.70A.360) that are predominantly residential development or planned and platted for residential development. WAC 173-26 - 211(5)(f)(iii) Standards for density or minimum frontage width, setbacks, buffers, shoreline stabilization, critical areas protection, and water quality protection assure no net loss of ecological function. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(f)(ii)(A) Multifamily and multi -lot residential and recreational developments provide public access and joint use for community recreational facilities. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(f)(ii) (B) Access, utilities, and public services required to be available and adequate to serve existing needs and /or planned future development. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(f)(ii)(C) Commercial development limited to water - oriented uses. WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(t)(ii)(D) Developers and property owners required to stop work and notify the local government, state office of archaeology and historic preservation and affected Indian tribes if archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation. WAC 173-26 - 221(1)(c)(i) Permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources require site inspection or evaluation by a professional archaeologist in coordination with affected Indian tribes WAC 173- 26- 221(1)(c)(ii) LOCATION TMC 18.42.020, 18.44.130(A)(8) and (B)(1 and 2) See mitigation (Section 7) in Appendix H (Archaeological and Historical Report) to the DEIS. See mitigation (Section 7) in Appendix H (Archaeological and Historical Report) to the DEIS. COMMENTS TMC SMP codes identify standards and permitted uses for public recreation and public access such as plaza connectors and access roads, parking and other development features within 3 management environment designations: River Environment (closest), Low - Impact Environment, and High - Impact Environment. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Most of the site will be filled as a result of the project; surveys were performed for archaeological and historical resources wherever excavation would occur, as described in the DEIS. No archaeological sites were discovered during the surveys. The DEIS concluded the project will have no adverse effect on any known archaeological or historical resources. Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 13 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Critical areas WAC = _ g � i .. , m,RaaY Policies and regulations for critical areas (designated under TMC 18.45.010 The City's urban designation allows GMA) located within shorelines of the state: (i) are consistent with uses that are no more intensive than SMP guidelines, and (ii) provide a level of protection to critical those allowed by King County's SMP areas within the shoreline area that is at least equal to that provisions applicable to these provided by the local government's existing critical area shorelines. The City's SMP regulations adopted pursuant to the GMA for comparable areas regulations are as environmentally other than shorelines. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(a) and (c) protective as King County's SMP provisions. TMC 18.45.010 is the City's sensitive areas ordinance to protect shorelines, environment, human life, and property; designate and classify ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas and to protect these areas and their functions and values; and allow for reasonable use of public and private property. Actions proposed under the Master Plan provide a net overall benefit to fisheries and wetland habitat, water quality, and hydrology functions and values. Planning objectives are for protection and restoration of See Fisheries and Urban Environment designation degraded ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. Wetland Mitigation Plans under the City of Tukwila would not (Attachment E). specifically require any change to the existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. However, the proposed project would increase net functions and values by having a greater environmental benefit under a Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay ' than could be achieved under standard TMC 18.45 SAO provisions such as the Green River Off - Channel Habitat Restoration Area and the New Johnson Creek stream channel created as part of the project (See Appendix E, Fisheries Technical Report). The need for this type of mitigation at this location was based on a regional salmonid habitat study conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers; King County; local, state, federal, and tribal agencies; and various private organizations. The Green /Duwamish River Ecosystem Restoration Study, together with the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis for the Cedar River (WRIA 9) identified two key recommendations during the study that provided the basis for the proposed mitigation (1) Fish passage and habitat values along the leveed portion of the Green River (between Auburn and Tukwila) should be improved consistent with flood protection goals in this reach. A program to revegetate and add woody debris in this reach is recommended in this study, and (2) Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 14 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Regulatory provisions protect existing ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(b)(iv) Critical area provisions promote human uses and values, such as public access and aesthetic values, provided they do not significantly adversely impact ecological functions. WAC 173 -26- 221(2)(b)(v) I f SMP includes optional expansion of jurisdiction: Clear description of the inclusion of any land necessary for buffers of critical areas that occur within shorelines of the state, accurately depicting new SMP jurisdiction consistent with RCW 90.58.030(2)(f)(ii) and WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(a). See Fisheries and Wetland Mitigation Plan (Attachment E). TMC 18.42.020, 18.44.130(A)(8) and (B)(1 and 2) Productive tributaries should be protected through acquisition and land use regulations, and disturbed habitats along these tributaries should be restored for salmon spawning and rearing and other fish and wildlife use. The mitigation plan was designed to improve the functions and values of fish habitat in this section of the Green River system. TMC SMP codes identify standards and permitted uses for public recreation and public access such as plaza connectors and access roads, parking and other development features within 3 management environment designations: River Environment (closest), Low - Impact Environment, and High - Impact Environment. Urban Environment designation under the City of Tukwila would not specifically require any change to the existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. However, the proposed project would increase net functions and values by having a greater environmental benefit under a Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay than could be achieved under standard TMC 18.45 SAO provisions. The Green River levee acts as a natural barrier separating the site from the River under both the urban designation and King County's rural industrial designation. Green River and Johnson Creek setbacks and buffers required under the SMP and TMC SAO are included in the annexation area. y - o . .. �. ., - n .. . . , ..• j ' ` ) x < .. ? 1 , W etlands WAC �; y 1�73- 26- 22t(2)(C)U) A :3 . ,� .. ' * I �•�.1.+�. 2a.: ....o-•4i °svA ... .......� . :� - ..r :..:�+:.�d: t3;�'..� .• �•_�� .r "�'M n�._.. ^a.77H ::ew "7a.1.... '. .n lir e. .� k C ..•:ice, .. .��: ,. � .,: :. ;... �t ,s ,�' . xs « ........... ..c- ..w.:r.•.:54;,:i:i :55..` • _. .. Wetlands definition are consistent with WAC 173 -22. N /A. There are no wetlands located within the annexation area. Provisions requiring wetlands delineation method are consistent with WAC 173 -22 -035. N /A. Some wetlands will be created in conjunction with the fish and wetland mitigation plans. Regulations address all uses and activities listed in WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(c)(i)(A) to achieve no net loss of wetland area and functions including lost time when the wetland does not perform the function. [WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(c)(i)(A) + (C)] See Fisheries and Wetland Mitigation Plans (Attachment E). Wetland creation is proposed within the shoreline, but no impacts to wetlands would occur within the shoreline. Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 15 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Wetlands rating or categorization system is based on rarity, irreplaceability, or sensitivity to disturbance of a wetland and the functions the wetland provides. Use Ecology Rating system or regionally specific, scientifically based method. WAC 173 -26- 221(2)(c)(i)(B)] TMC 18.45 SAO provisions. There are no wetlands within the Green River shoreline. Wetland creation is proposed within the Green River Off - Channel Habitat Restoration Area and as part of the Johnson Creek channel restoration. Buffer requirements are adequate to ensure wetland functions are protected and maintained in the long -term, taking into account ecological functions of the wetland, characteristics of the buffer, and potential impacts associated with adjacent land uses. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(c)(i)(B) TMC 18.45 SAO provisions. There are no wetlands within the Green River shoreline. Wetland creation is proposed within the Green River Off - Channel Habitat Restoration Area and as part of the Johnson Creek channel restoration. Wetland mitigation requirements are consistent with WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(e) and which are based on the wetland rating. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(c)(i)(E) and (F) TMC 18.45 SAO provisions. There are no wetlands within the Green River shoreline. Wetland creation is proposed within the Green River Off- Channel Habitat Restoration Area and as part of the Johnson Creek channel restoration. Compensatory mitigation allowed only after mitigation sequencing is applied and higher priority means of mitigation are determined to be infeasible. Compensatory mitigation requirements include (I) replacement ratios; (II) Performance standards for evaluating success; (Ill) long -term monitoring and reporting procedures; and (IV) long- term protection and management of compensatory mitigation sites. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(c)(i)(F). Compensatory mitigation requirements are consistent with preference for "in -kind and nearby" replacement, and include requirement for watershed plan if off -site mitigation is proposed. WAC 173 - 173- 26- 201(2)(e)(B). TMC 18.45 SAO provisions. See Wetland Mitigation Plans (Attachment E). Wetlands will be created along the Green River within an Off - Channel Habitat Restoration Area by relocation of the Green River levee and excavation on the river side of the relocated levee. Wetlands will also be created in association with the Johnson Creek channel restoration. Geol � iC f Hazardous A . VAC 173.26- 221(2 Prohibition on new development (or creation of new lots) that would: • cause foreseeable risk from geological conditions during the life of the development prohibited. WAC 173-26 - 221(2)(c)(ii)(B) • require structural shoreline stabilization over the life of the development. (Exceptions allowed where stabilization needed to protect allowed uses where no alternative locations are available and no net loss of ecological functions will result.) WAC 173-26 - 221(2)(c)(ii)(C) N/A New stabilization structures for existing primary residential structures allowed only where no alternatives (including relocation or reconstruction of existing structures), are feasible, and less expensive than the proposed stabilization measure, and then only if no net loss of ecological functions will result. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(c)(ii)(D) N/A Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 16 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Critical Saltwater Habitats. V AC 173 -2$ *' 1(2)(c Prohibition on new docks, bulkheads, bridges, fill, floats, jetties, utility crossings and other human -made structures that intrude into or over critical saltwater habitats, except where: • public need is clearly demonstrated; • avoidance of impacts is not feasible or would result in unreasonable cost; • the project include appropriate mitigation; and • the project is consistent with resource protection and species recovery. Private, non - commercial docks for individual residential or community use allowed if it is infeasible to avoid impacts by alternative alignment or location and the project results in no net loss of ecological functions. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(c)(iii)(C) N/A Where inventory of critical saltwater habitat has not been done, all over water and near -shore developments in marine and estuarine waters require habitat assessment of site and adjacent beach sections. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(c)(iii)(C) N/A Crib a l I~reshwatsr Habitats. WAG 1' 3 -22- i c i ' Requirements that ensure new development within stream channel, channel migration zone, wetlands, floodplain, hyporheic zone, does not cause a net loss of ecological functions. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(c)(iv)(C)(I) and WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(c)(iv)(B)(II) N/A Authorization of appropriate restoration projects is facilitated. WAC 173- 26- 221(2)(c)(iv)(C)(III) See Fisheries and Wetland Mitigation Plans (Attachment E) Urban Environment designation under the City of Tukwila would not specifically require any change to the existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. However, the proposed project would increase net functions and values by having a greater environmental benefit under a Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay than could be achieved under standard TMC 18.45 SAO provisions. The mitigation plans were designed to improve the functions and values of fish and wetland habitat in this section of the Green River system. Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 17 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Regulations protect hydrologic connections between water bodies, water courses, and associated wetlands. WAC 173 -26- 221 2 iv C I ( )( c )( )( )(� See Fisheries and Wetland Mitigation Plans (Attachment E). Urban Environment designation under the City of Tukwila would not specifically require any change to the existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. However, the proposed project would increase net functions and values by having a greater environmental benefit under a Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay than could be achieved under standard TMC 18.45 SAO provisions. The Johnson Ditch mitigation project will create a meandering stream channel with associated wetlands designed to provide good quality summer rearing and winter refuge habitats. Approximately 1,350 feet of the current ditch will be abandoned in favor of a newly constructed channel and associated floodplain. A new 200 -foot long by 48 -inch culvert will be located at a flat grade through the Green River levee. A fish- passable flood gate will be installed at the confluence to the Green River to allow fish to migrate through the culvert and into the tributary under most flow conditions. Wetlands will be created along the Green River within an Off - Channel Habitat Restoration Area by excavation of existing uplands in order to establish wetland hydrologic conditions and planting with wetland vegetation species. Flood Hazard Reduction. WAC 1 -28- 221( New development within the channel migration zone or floodway limited to uses and activities listed in WAC 173 -26- 221(3)(b) and (3)(c)(i) N /A. Flooding constrained within the levees. New structural flood hazard reduction measures allowed only: • where demonstrated to be necessary, and when non- structural methods are infeasible and mitigation is accomplished. • landward of associated wetlands and buffer areas except where no alternative exists as documented in a qeotechnical analysis. WAC 173- 26- 221(3)(c)(ii) & (iii) N/A New publicly funded dikes or levees required to dedicate and improve public access (see exceptions). WAC 173-26 - 221(3)(c)(iv) N/A Removal of gravel for flood control allowed only if biological and geomorphological study demonstrates a long -term benefit to flood hazard reduction, no net loss of ecological functions, and extraction is part of a comprehensive flood management solution. WAC 173- 26- 221(3)(c)(v) N/A Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 18 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Public Access WAC i7 - 6- 221.4) Policies and regulations protect and enhance both physical and visual access. WAC 173- 26- 221(4)(d)(i) TMC 18.42.020, 18.44.130(A)(8) and (B)(1 and 2) TMC SMP codes identify standards and permitted uses for public recreation and public access such as plaza connectors and access roads, parking and other development features within 3 management environment designations: River Environment (closest), Low - Impact Environment, and High - Impact Environment. Public entities are required to incorporate public access measures as part of each development project, unless access is incompatible with safety, security, or environmental protection. WAC 173- 26- 221(4)(d)(ii) N/A Non - water - dependent uses (including water- enjoyment, water - related uses) and subdivisions of land into more than four parcels include standards for dedication and improvement of public access. WAC 173- 26- 221(4)(d)(iii) N/A Maximum height limits, setbacks, and view corridors minimize impacts to existing views from public property or substantial numbers of residences. WAC 173- 26- 221(4)(d)(iv); RCW 90.58.320 N/A Ve Cati Conservation (G earing and G re lirrl }.;WAC 173 -26 1 5) Vegetation standards implement the principles in WAC 173 -26- 221(5)(b). Methods to do this may include setback or buffer requirements, clearing and grading standards, regulatory incentives, environment designation standards, or other master program provisions. WAC 173- 26- 221(5)(c) N /A. No changes to SMP proposed. Selective pruning of trees for safety and view protection is allowed and removal of noxious weeds is authorized. WAC 173 - 26- 221(5)(c) N /A. No changes to SMP proposed. Wate Quality. WAC 173 -2 i 221(ir) Provisions protect against adverse impacts to water quality and storm water quantity and ensure mutual consistency between SMP and other regulations addressing water quality. WAC 173- 26- 221(6) See DEIS Appendix C (Water Quality Technical Report). TMC Stormwater Management 14.30. Any project under either the City of Tukwila or King County Rural industrial designation would require SEPA analysis to determine if water quality was adequately provided. The water quality analysis for stormwater discharge and baseflow conveyance concludes that the Tukwila South project as a whole would improve water quality. Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 19 of 31 STATE RULE (WA C) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS SMP: (a) allows structural shoreline modifications demonstrated to be necessary to support primary structure or a legally existing shoreline danger of loss or substantial damage or mitigation or enhancement; (b) limits shoreline modifications in number (c) allows only shoreline modifications that specific type of shoreline and environmental they are proposed; (d) gives preference to those types of shoreline have a lesser impact on ecological functions. "soft" over "hard" shoreline modification (f) incorporates all feasible measures to shoreline functions and ecosystem -wide modifications occur; (g) requires mitigation sequencing. WAC 173 -26- 231(2); WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(a)(ii) or protect are necessary and are conditions Policies measures protect processes only where an allowed use that is in for extent; appropriate to the for which modifications that promote ecological as and (iii); See Wetland (Attachment Fisheries Mitigation E). and Plans Urban Environment under the specifically existing functions County's designation. would have modifications area, but Green Restoration Creek stream would increase functions designation City of Tukwila would not require any change to the wetland and fish habitat and values, nor would King rural industrial shoreline The proposed project no shoreline within the ecological the project proposes the River Off - channel Habitat Area and the Johnson channel creation which the projects net and values. Sh or+ line Stabilization. WAC #' 3- Definition: structural and nonstructural methods to address erosion impacts to property and dwellings, businesses, or structures caused by natural processes, such as current, flood, tides, wind, or wave action. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(a)(i) Definition of new stabilization measures include enlargement of existing structures. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(a)(iii)(C), last bullet; WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(a)(iii)(B)(I), 5 bullet) See Fisheries and Wetland Mitigation Plans (Attachment E). The Green River levee acts as a natural barrier separating the site from the Green River. Shoreline modifications are only proposed for habitat restoration projects: The Green River Off - channel Habitat Restoration Area and the Johnson Creek stream channel. Standards setting forth circumstances under which shoreline alteration is permitted, and for the design and type of protective measures and devices. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(a)(ii) See Fisheries and Wetland Mitigation Plans (Attachment E). Shoreline modifications are only proposed for habitat restoration projects: The Green River Off - channel Habitat Restoration Area and the Johnson Creek stream channel. New development (including newly created parcels) required to be designed and located to prevent the need for future shoreline stabilization, based upon geotechnical analysis. New development on steep slopes and bluffs required to be set back to prevent need for future shoreline stabilization during life of the project, based upon geotechnical analysis. New development that would require shoreline stabilization which causes significant impacts to adjacent or down - current properties and shoreline areas is prohibited. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(a)(iii)(A) N/A New structural stabilization measures are not allowed except when necessity is demonstrated. Specific requirements for how to demonstrate need are established for: (I) existing primary structures; (II) new non - water- dependent development including Single Family Residences; (III) water - dependent development; and (IV) ecological restoration /toxic clean -up remediation projects. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(a)(iii)(B) N/A Replacement of existing stabilization structures is based on demonstrated need. Waterward encroachment of replacement structure only allowed for residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, or for soft shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of ecological functions. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(a)(iii)(C) N/A Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 20 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Geotechnical reports prepared to demonstrate need include estimates of rate of erosion and urgency (damage within 3 years) and evaluate alternative solutions. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(a)(iii)(D) N/A Shoreline stabilization structures are limited to the minimum size necessary. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(a)(iii)(E) N/A Public access required as part of publicly financed shoreline erosion control measures. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(a)(iii)(E) N/A Impacts to sediment transport required to be avoided or minimized. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(a)(iii)(E) .............................. N/A . Piece. and Dock a. WAC 173 - - 231rj3Xb New piers and docks: • allowed only for water - dependent uses or public access • restricted to the minimum size necessary to serve a proposed water- dependent use. • permitted only when specific need is demonstrated (except for docks accessory to single - family residences). Note: Docks associated with single family residences are defined as water dependent uses provided they are designed and intended as a facility for access to watercraft. WAC 173-26 - 231(3)(b) N/A . When permitted, new residential development of more than two dwellings required to provide joint use or community docks, rather than individual docks. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(b) N/A Design and construction of all piers and docks required to avoid, minimize and mitigate for impacts to ecological processes and functions and be constructed of approved materials. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(b) N/A Fill. WAC 1 3 -26- 3 1(3 c) Definition of "fill" consistent with WAC 173 -26- 020(14) N/A Location, design, and construction of all fills protect ecological processes and functions, including channel migration. WAC 173 - 26- 231(3)(c) N/A Fill waterward of the OHWM allowed only by shoreline conditional use permit, for: • water- dependent use; • public access; • cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an interagency environmental clean -up plan; • disposal of dredged material in accordance with DNR Dredged Material Management Program; • expansion or alteration of transportation facilities of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline (if alternatives to fill are shown not feasible); • mitigation action, environmental restoration, beach nourishment or enhancement project. WAC 173-26 - 231(3)(c) N/A Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 21 of 31 STATE RULE (WA C) REQUIREMENTS 73-26-231( Structures waterward of the ordinary high -water mark allowed only for water- dependent uses, public access, shoreline stabilization, or other specific public purpose. WAC 173-26 - 231(3)(d) Shoreline conditional use permit required for all structures except protection /restoration projects. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(d) Protection of critical areas and appropriate mitigation required. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(d) Dunes I g ®tlf WA,C'1 23 Development setbacks from dunes prevent impacts to the natural, functional, ecological, and aesthetic qualities of the dunes. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(e) Dune modifications allowed only when consistent with state and federal flood protection standards and result in no net loss of ecological processes and functions. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(e) Dune modification to protect views of the water shall be allowed only on properties subdivided and developed prior to the adoption of the master program and where the view is completely obstructed for residences or water- enjoyment uses and where it can be demonstrated that the dunes did not obstruct views at the time of original occupancy. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(e) Dredging and dredge material disposal avoids or minimizes significant ecological impacts. Impacts which cannot be avoided are mitigated. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(f) N/A N/A New development siting and design avoids the need for new and maintenance dredging. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(f) Dredging to establish, expand, relocate or reconfigure navigation channels allowed only where needed to accommodate existing navigational uses and then only when significant ecological impacts are minimized and when mitigation is provided. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(f) Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins restricted to maintaining previously dredged and /or existing authorized location, depth, and width. WAC 173-26 - 231(3)(f) Dredging for fill materials prohibited except for projects associated with MTCA or CERCLA habitat restoration, or any other significant restoration effort approved by a shoreline CUP. Placement of fill must be waterward of OHWM. WAC 173-26 - 231(3)(f) Uses of dredge material that benefits shoreline resources are addressed. If applicable, addressed through implementation of regional interagency dredge material management plans or watershed plan. WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(f) LOCATION N/A N/A COMMENTS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 22 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS Disposal within river channel migration zones discouraged, and in limited instances when allowed, require CUP. (Note: not intended to address discharge of dredge material into the flowing current of the river or in deep water within the channel where it does not substantially effect the geo- hydrologic character of the channel migration zone). WAC 173- 26- 231(3)(f) Provisions that foster habitat and natural system enhancement projects, provided the primary purpose is restoration of the natural character and functions of the shoreline, and only when consistent with implementation of the restoration plan developed pursuant to WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(f) Use of agriculture related terms is consistent with the specific meanings provided in WAC 173 -26 -020. WAC 173-26 - 241(3)(a)(ii) and (iv) Provisions address new agricultural activities, conversion of agricultural lands to other uses, and other development not meeting the definition of agricultural activities. Provisions assure that development in support of agricultural uses is: (A) consistent with the environment designation; and (B) located and designed to assure no net loss of ecological functions and not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline resources and values. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(a)(ii) & (v) LOCATION See Fisheries and Wetland Mitigation Plans (Attachment E). See also DEIS, Appendix E (Fisheries Technical Report). COMMENTS N/A Urban Environment designation under the City of Tukwila would not specifically require any change to the existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. However, the proposed project would increase net functions and values by having a greater environmental benefit under a Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay than could be achieved under standard TMC 18.45 SAO provisions. Two major habitat enhancement projects will be created as part of the project (See Appendix E, Fisheries Technical Report). The need for this type of off - channel habitat at this location was based on a regional salmonid habitat study conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers; King County; local, state, federal, and tribal agencies; and various private organizations. This study, known as The Green /Duwamish River Ecosystem Restoration Study, together with the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis for the Cedar River (WRIA 9) identified the two habitat enhancement project proposed by the project: Green River off - Channel Habitat Restoration Area and the new Johnson Creek channel restoration. N/A to "Urban" shoreline designation under Tukwila SMP or King County Rural Industrial shoreline designation under King County SMP. N/A to "Urban" shoreline designation under Tukwila SMP or King County Rural Industrial shoreline designation under King County SMP. Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 23 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Shoreline substantial development permit is required for all agricultural development not specifically exempted by the provisions of RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(iv) N/A to "Urban" shoreline designation under Tukwila SMP or King County Rural Industrial shoreline designation under King County SMP. Conversion of agricultural land to non - agricultural uses is consistent with the environment designation, and regulations applicable to the proposed use do not result in a net loss of ecological functions. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(a)(vi) Both City of Tukwila's urban shoreline designation and the King County Rural Industrial shoreline designation allow uses other than agriculture in this area. Aquaculture. WAC 177 - - 1 3 )(b) Location and design requirements for aquaculture facilities avoid: loss of ecological functions, impacts to eelgrass and macroalgae, significant conflict with navigation and water - dependent uses, the spreading of disease, introduction of non- native species, or impacts to shoreline aesthetic qualities. Impacts to functions are mitigated. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(b) N/A Boat Facilities. WAC 173 -2 1(3 Definition: Boating facility standards do not apply to docks serving four or fewer SFRs. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(c) N/A Boating facilities restricted to suitable locations. WAC 173 -26- 241(3)(c)(i) N/A Provisions ensuring health, safety, and welfare requirements are met. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(c)(ii) N/A Provisions to avoid or mitigate aesthetic impacts. See WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(c)(iii) N/A Public access required in new boating facilities. WAC 173 -26- 241(3)(c)(iv) N/A Impacts of live- aboard vessels are limited. WAC 173 -26- 241(3)(c)(v) N/A Provisions assuring no net loss of ecological functions as a result of development of boating facilities while providing public recreational opportunities. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(c)(vi) N/A Navigation rights are protected. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(c)(vii) N/A Extended moorage on waters of the state without a lease or permission is restricted, and mitigation of impacts to navigation and access is required. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(c)(viii) N/A Cots mercial vat »ent. WAC 73- # #"i(3 )( Preference given first to water - dependent uses, then to water- oriented commercial uses. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(d) N /A. Water - enjoyment and water - related commercial uses required to provide public access and ecological restoration where feasible and avoid impacts to existing navigation, recreation, and public access. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(d) N /A. The Green River is leveed along the entire eastern boundary of the Tukwila South Property including the portion of the property to be annexed by the City of Tukwila. The levee along the banks of the Green River separates the annexation area from the River in terms of most ecological functions and values. Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 24 of 31 Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 25 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS New non - water- oriented commercial uses prohibited unless they are part of a mixed -use project, navigation is severely limited, and the use provides a significant public benefit with respect to SMA objectives. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(d) Urban Environment designation under the City of Tukwila would not specifically require any change to the existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. However, the proposed project would increase net functions and values by having a greater environmental benefit under a Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay than could be achieved under standard TMC 18.45 SAO provisions. Proposed development is consistent with "Urban" designation under Tukwila SMP. Non - water- dependent commercial uses over water prohibited except in existing structures, and where necessary to support water - dependent uses. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(d) N/A Forest Practices. WAC 173 24 Forest practices not covered by the Forest Practices Act, especially Class IV- General forest practices involving conversions to non - forest use result in no net loss of ecological functions and avoid impacts to navigation, recreation and public access. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(e) N/A SMP limits removal of trees on shorelines of statewide significance (RCW 90.58.150). Exceptions to this standard require shorelines conditional use permit. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(e) N/A Industry. WAC 173 -2 -24 Preference given first to water - dependent uses, then to water- oriented industrial uses. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(f) N /A. Proposed development separated from the River by levees. Location, design, and construction of industrial uses and redevelopment required to assure no net loss of ecological functions. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(f) N/A Industrial uses and redevelopment encouraged to locate where environmental cleanup and restoration can be accomplished. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(f) N/A Public access required unless such a requirement would interfere with operations or create hazards to life or property. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(f) N/A New non - water - oriented industrial uses prohibited unless they are part of a mixed -use project, navigation is severely limited, and the use provides a significant public benefit with respect to SMA objectives. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(f) N/A In itr ►am Stru s. WAC f -26- 41( X :8) Definition: structure is waterward of the ordinary high water mark and either causes or has the potential to cause water impoundment or the diversion, obstruction, or modification of water flow. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(g) N/A Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 25 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS In- stream structures protect and preserve ecosystem -wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural resources, including, fish and fish passage, wildlife and water resources, shoreline critical areas, hydrogeological processes, and natural scenic vistas. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(g) See Fisheries and Wetland Mitigation Plans (Attachment E). Urban Environment designation under the City of Tukwila would not specifically require any change to the existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. The proposed project does not propose any changes to the existing code, but would increase net functions and values by creating the Johnson Creek stream channel with associated wetlands. Large woody debris would be added and excavation would be necessary for the creation of the Green River Off - Channel Habitat Restoration Area. Mi ning. WAC 1 '3- 26- 241 (3)(h) Policies and regulations for new mining projects: • require design and operation to avoid and mitigate for adverse impacts during the course of mining and reclamation • achieve no net loss of ecological functions based on required final reclamation • give preference to proposals that create, restore or enhance habitat for priority species • are coordinated with state Surface Mining Reclamation Act requirements. • assure subsequent use of reclaimed sites is consistent with environment designation and SMP standards. See WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(h)(ii)(A) — (C) N/A Mining waterward of OHWM is prohibited unless: (I) Removal of specified quantities of materials in specified locations will not adversely impact natural gravel transport; (II) The mining will not significantly impact priority species and the ecological functions upon which they depend; and (III) these determinations are integrated with relevant SEPA requirements. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(h)(ii)(D) N/A Renewal, extension, or reauthorization of in- stream and gravel bar mining activities require review for compliance with these new guidelines requirements. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(h)(ii)(D)(IV) N/A Mining within the Channel Migration Zone requires a shoreline conditional use permit. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(h)(ii)(E) N/A Recreational Development WAC 1 3H Definition includes both commercial and public recreation developments. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(i) N/A Priority given to recreational development for access to and use of the water. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(i) N/A Location, design and operation of facilities are consistent with purpose of environment designations in which they are allowed. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(i) N/A Recreational development achieves no net loss of ecological processes and functions. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(i) N/A Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 26 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Res idential Development. WAC 173.2 - X41(3 ) Definition includes single - family residences, multifamily development, and the creation of new residential lots through land division. WAC 173 -26- 241(3)0) N/A Single- family residences identified as a priority use only when developed in a manner consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment. WAC 173 -26- 241(3)0) N/A No net loss of ecological functions assured with specific standards for setback of structures sufficient to avoid future stabilization, buffers, density, shoreline stabilization, and on -site sewage disposal. WAC 173 -26- 241(3)0) N/A New over -water residences and floating homes prohibited. Appropriate accommodation for existing floating or over -water homes. WAC 173 -26- 241(3)0) N/A New multiunit residential development (including subdivision of land for more than four parcels) required to provide community and /or public access in conformance to local public access plans. WAC 173 -26- 241(3)0) N/A New (subdivided) lots required to be designed, configured and developed to: (i) Prevent the loss of ecological functions at full build -out; (ii) Prevent the need for new shoreline stabilization or flood hazard reduction measures; and (iii) Be consistent with applicable SMP environment designations and standards. WAC 173 -26- 241(3)0) N/A Transportation Facilities. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(k) Proposed transportation and parking facilities required to plan, locate, and design where routes will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features, will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned water dependent uses. WAC 173 -26- 241(3)(k) See DEIS (Appendix I) and the Fisheries and Wetland Mitigation Plans (Attachment E). Urban Environment designation under the City of Tukwila would not specifically require any change to the existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. The Green River levee acts as a natural barrier separating the site from the River under both the City of Tukwila and King County shoreline designation. Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 27 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Circulation system plans include systems for pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation where appropriate. WAC See DEIS (Appendix I) and Chapter 3.6 (Land Urban Environment designation under the City of Tukwila would not 173- 26- 241(3)(k) and Shoreline Use). specifically require any change to the existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. Urban designation under the City of Tukwila and Rural Industrial under King County shoreline designation would have similar requirements for public areas. The project would enhance pedestrian and bicycle pathways associated with campus style development to create connectivity between campus research and office uses and other on -site uses. The exact layout of the trail system would depend on specific needs of future developers/ businesses on -site and the site plan review process of individual development projects. Potential future transit markets and service levels are speculative in the DEIS given that no public agency plans have previously anticipated development at the magnitude assumed for the Tukwila South Project. Parking allowed only as necessary to support an authorized See DEIS (Appendix I). Urban Environment designation shoreline use and which minimize environmental and visual under the City of Tukwila would not impacts of parking facilities. WAC 173- 26- 241(3)(k) specifically require any change to the existing wetland and fish habitat functions and values, nor would King County's rural industrial shoreline designation. The Green River is leveed along the entire eastern boundary of the Tukwila South Property including the portion of the property to be annexed by the City of Tukwila. Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 28 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Utilities. WAC 173 -26 -241 } Design, location and maintenance of utilities required to assure no net loss of ecological functions. WAC 173 -26- 241(3)(1) See DEIS (Chapter 3.16) and Appendix C (Water Quality Technical Report). Both the City of Tukwila's Urban designation and King County's Rural Industrial designation are consistent with the proposed infrastructure improvements. The proposed project would have no net loss of functions and values as described in the Fish and Wetland Mitigation Plans (Attachment E). The following utilities would be constructed in the shoreline: The outfall from the existing S. 200 street stormwater pond would be removed. A stormwater pond south of S. 200 St. would be constructed within the annexation area and would add a new stormwater outfall to the Green River, including a floodgate. The flood protection barrier dike would be relocated from S. 196 street to the southern boundary of the site (north of S. 204 Street). Overhead power lines would be within 200 feet of the Green River. At full build -out water and sewer utilities would be located within 200 feet of the Green River. Utilities required to be located in existing rights -of -ways whenever possible. WAC 173 -26- 241(3)(1) N/A Utility production and processing facilities required to be located unless no other feasible option exists. facilities and transmission outside of SMA jurisdiction, WAC 173 -26- 241(3)(1) A / The change from King the City Environment change routing. in shoreline designation County Rural Industrial to of Tukwila's Urban designation would not the feasible options for power The statement: "All proposed uses and development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction must conform to chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act and this master program" whether or not a permit is required. WAC 173- 26- 191(2)(a)(iii)(A) No change to SMP is proposed. Administrative provisions ensure permit procedures and enforcement are conducted in a manner consistent with relevant constitutional limitations on regulation of private property. WAC 173 -26- 186(5) and WAC 191(2)(a)(iii)(A) No change to SMP is proposed. Identification of specific uses and development that require a shoreline conditional use permit (CUP). Standards for reviewing CUPs and variances conform to WAC 173 -27. WAC 191(2)(a)(iii)(B) and WAC 173- 26- 241(2)(b) No change to SMP is proposed. Administrative, enforcement, and permit review procedures conform to the SMA and state rules (see RCW 90.58.140, 143, 210 and 220 and WAC 173 -27). WAC 191(2)(a)(iii)(C), WAC 173 - 26- 201(3)(d)(vi) No change to SMP is proposed. Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 29 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Mechanism for tracking, and periodically evaluating the cumulative effects of all project review actions in shoreline areas. WAC 173- 26- 191(2)(a)(iii)(D) No change to SMP is proposed. SMP definitions are consistent with all definitions in WAC 173- 26 -020, and other relevant WACs. No change to SMP is proposed. Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 30 of 31 STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS Inventory of existing data and materials. WAC 173 -26- 201(3)(c)(i) through (x). Appendix A: Shoreline Inventory and Analysis, Section 2. Local government: SMP includes two urban designations that Wetland buffer requirements are adequate to ensure wetland functions are protected and maintained in the long- term, taking into account ecological functions of the wetland, characteristics of the buffer, and potential impacts associated with adjacent land uses. WAC 173-26 - 221(2)(c)(i)(B) City Ordinance CA 19.072, adopted July 17 2003, p. 32 meet high- intensity criteria — Urban Industrial, and Urban Mixed. STATE RULE (WAC) REQUIREMENTS LOCATION COMMENTS High - intensity environment Urban Industrial, p. 15 Local government: SMP includes two urban designations that designation criteria: Areas within meet high- intensity criteria — Urban Industrial, and Urban Mixed. incorporated municipalities, "UGAs," Urban Mixed, p. 18 These alternative designations allow more specificity for public and "rural areas of more intense access, view and amenity requirements for the mixed use areas. development" (see RCW 36.70A.070) that currently support or are planned for Also see Appendix B, Use Analysis, Chapter Ecology: Proposed alternative designations are consistent with the high - intensity water - dependent uses. 3, p. 12. purposes and policies of the high- intensity criteria, as per WAC WAC 173- 26- 211(5)(d)(iii) 173- 26- 211(4)(c). This checklist is intended to help in preparation and review of local shoreline master programs (SMPs). Local governments should include a checklist with all SMPs submitted for review by Ecology. Indicate in the location column where in the SMP (or other documents) the requirement is satisfied. If adopting other regulations by reference, identify what specific adopted version of a local ordinance is being used, and attach a copy of the relevant ordinance (see example 1, below). Draft submittals: For draft submittals, local governments may use the Comments column to note any questions or concerns about proposed language. Ecology may then use the Comment field to respond (see example 2, below). Final submittals: When submitting locally- approved SMPs for Ecology review, leave the comment field blank. Ecology will use the comment field to develop final comments on the SMP. INSTRUCTIONS Ecology has attempted to make this checklist an accurate and concise summary of rule requirements, however the agency must rely solely on adopted state rules and law in approving or denying a master program. This document does not create new or additional requirements beyond the provisions of state laws and rules [WAC 173- 26- 201(3)(a)]. EXAMPLE 1: reference other documents if necessary EXAMPLE 2: for draft submittals, use Comments column Acronyms and abbreviations • comp plan: Comprehensive Plan • CUP: Conditional Use Permit • SMA: Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58 • SMP: Shoreline Master Program • SSWS: Shorelines of Statewide Significance • WAC: Washington Administrative Code For more information www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/sea/SMA/index.html Ecology SMA Policy Lead: Peter Skowlund: (360) 407 -6522 Washington Department of Ecology SMP Submittal Checklist Page 31 of 31 Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 ATTACHMENT A Shoreline Inventory & Characterization Items Existing Structures There are no existing buildings within 200 feet of the Green River in the annexation area (Figure 1, Goldsmith Associates, Inc.) approximately River Mile (RM) 16.0 to 17.4. Other types of structures within the shoreline are described below. Utilities An existing gravity stormwater outfall discharges through a floodgate constructed in the Green River levee at approximately RM 16.8. A second separate stormwater outfall from I -5 discharges to the Green River at the same location. A third stormwater outfall serving S. 200th St. discharges to the Green River at approximately RM 17.1 immediately upstream of the South 200th Street Bridge (Figure 2, Goldsmith Associates, Inc.). A levee along the banks of the Green River separates the annexation area from the River in terms of most ecological functions and values. A flood protection barrier dike bisects the Tukwila South Property from east to west (at approximately S. 196th Street if it was continued across the river to the west). This dike is a secondary protection measure designed to prevent flooding of downtown Tukwila should the Green River levee fail upstream (Figure 1). Johnson Ditch (WRIA 09 -0038) is currently maintained by King County Drainage District #2 as an agricultural drainage ditch (Figure 1). The ditch was constructed sometime before 1917. Johnson Ditch discharges to the Green River at RM 17.4. A water service utility line is located within 200 feet of the river along Frager Road from the flood protection barrier dike north for approximately 950 feet within 200 feet of the river (DEIS Chapter 3.16, Utilities). Approximately 1,400 feet of overhead power lines are located along the Green River along Frager Road from S. 200th St. to the flood protection barrier dike (DEIS Chapter 3.16, Utilities). Water - Oriented Uses A short segment of paved pedestrian pathway is located between South 200th Street and South 204th Street along the top of the levee on the west bank of the Green River (DEIS Chapter 3.6, Land and Shoreline Use). Segale Properties, LLC Page 1 Tukwila South Master Plan Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 Navigation The Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District lists the Green River upstream of RM 10 as non - navigable, which includes the portion of the Green River adjacent to the property between RM 16.0 and RM 17.4 (personal communication, Carl Hadley, Cedarock Consultants, Inc.). Transportation The South 200th Street bridge (4 -lane roadway) crosses the Green River at approximately RM 17.1 (Figure 1). Frager Road (2 -lane roadway) is located within 200 feet of the Green River between approximately RM 16.7 and RM 17.4 (Figure 1). Shoreline and Adjacent Land Use Pattern Shoreline The portion of the property that lies outside the City of Tukwila (City) is intended to be annexed to the City in 2005 subsequent to issuance of the Final EIS for the Tukwila South Project and completion of a Development Agreement between La Pianta LLC and the City. Annexation of the site would occur consistent with RCW 35A.14 (annexation is exempt from SEPA (RCW 43.21C.222)). The Green River forms the eastern boundary of the property and the portion of its shoreline adjacent to the property and outside the City limits would also be annexed into the City. Current King County zoning that applies to the area to be annexed is industrial (I) and urban residential (R -1). The City of Tukwila is expected to apply zoning designations to the property upon annexation, which would correspond to the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations (DEIS Chapter 3.6, Land and Shoreline Use). All shorelines within the City (including the Green River) are designated Urban in the City's Shoreline Master Program (TMC 18.44.020). Subsequent to annexation of the property, the City anticipates applying its current shoreline regulations to the annexed shoreline area and designating it "Urban ", consistent with the remainder of the Green/ Duwamish River shoreline in the City (Tukwila South Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) (November 2004)). Since the use, setback, height restriction and other provisions of the existing King County and proposed Tukwila SMP designations are similar, no net loss of shoreline ecological functions would be anticipated. Additionally, the "use preference" and public access provisions incorporated into the Tukwila SMP are similar to King County's and consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and Department of Ecology Master Program Guidelines (DEIS, Chapter 3.7, Relationship to Plans and Policies). Segale Properties, LLC Page 2 Tukwila South Master Plan Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 The City's Shoreline Master Program would divide the 200 -foot shoreline zone in the annexation area into three environments (DEIS Chapter 3.6, Land and Shoreline Use). 1) The "River Environment" is a 40 -foot wide zone measured from the mean high water mark of the river. This zone is currently comprised of the Green River levee and associated vegetation in the annexation area. 2) The "Low Impact Environment" includes the area between 40 and 100 feet from the mean high water mark. This area includes the corn fields, portions of Frager Road, and a short segment of paved pathway located between South 200th Street and South 204th Street, along the west bank of the Green River in the annexation area. 3) The "High Impact Environment" includes the area from 100 to 200 feet from the mean high water mark. This shoreline portion includes corn fields and a part of the parking area for Seattle Tractor and portions of Frager Road in the annexation area. Land Use The annexation area south of the flood protection barrier dike along the eastern boundary of the Green River is undeveloped agricultural land. A small portion of the annexation area is industrial, consisting of parking for Seattle Tractor. Critical areas identifications and boundaries The Green River (WA -09 -1020) between RM 16 :0 and RM 17.4 is located along the eastern boundary of the property to be annexed. Johnson Ditch (WRIA 09- 0038) is a ditched stream tributary to the Green River at about RM 17.4 that would be regulated as a watercourse by the City of Tukwila under TMC 18.06.920 (See Figure 1). There are no other critical areas under the city of Tukwila's definitions in TMC 18.06.920. Unusual areas- priority habitats, toxic waste sites, ect. A habitat polygon on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) (2004) priority habitat database depicts a bald eagle territory, a priority habitat, extending onto the Tukwila South Property. The polygon includes an approximately 1.5 mile segment of the Green River. The bald eagle habitat polygon extends over the entire annexation area shoreline. The bald eagle is currently listed as threatened on both the state and federal lists. A bald eagle nest was documented in 1999 near the north end of Angle Lake, over 2,000 feet 1 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2004. Priority habitats and species database search, April 12, 2004. Olympia, Washington. Segale Properties, LLC Page 3 Tukwila South Master Plan Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 west of the annexation area, but was not active during WDFW surveys in 2001. During field surveys in June 2004, no eagles were observed in the area near Angle Lake, approximately 2,800 feet west of the Green River shoreline, nor were any potentially suitable nest trees found (DEIS, Appendix D). During one site visit by wildlife biologists to collect information for the EIS, a bald eagle was observed flying over the northern end of the annexation area toward the Green River. Bald eagles often prey on fish and waterfowl. Sightings in the vicinity of the annexation area would be expected because of the proximity of river and lake foraging areas and areas of waterfowl use, such as the agricultural fields. Tall trees in the forested habitat may be used as perch or roost trees. No eagle nest trees are known to occur on the annexation area or the Tukwila South Property as a whole, nor were any found during field investigations. The United States Fish and Wildlife Services lists wintering bald eagles as occurring in King County. Communal night roosts are an important component of bald eagle wintering habitat. Although some large potential communal roost trees were observed within the annexation area, no "winter concentration areas" or communal roosts are known to occur in the vicinity (WDFW 2004) (DEIS, Appendix D). According to the WDFW (2004) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) map, the Green River provides priority habitat for fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coho salmon (0. Kisutch), summer and winter steelhead (0. mykiss), chum salmon (0. keta), sockeye salmon (0. nerka), Dolly Varden /bull trout (Salvelinus malma /S. confluentus), and resident cutthroat trout (0. clarki). Chinook salmon and bull trout that are or may be present in the Green River basin are listed as threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Coho salmon is a species of concern (DEIS Chapter 3.3, Plants and Animals) Segale Properties, LLC Page 4 Tukwila South Master Plan N O O N O 0 O TREAIW inp TREAM (DITCHED ,$RE,4 XCLUS — — PIPE TO GREEN RIVER EXISTING FLOOD PROTECTION # BARRIER DIKE SOUTH BASIN S. 200TH ST. RIPE ORA /NAG COL ECT /ON CENTRAL BASIN EXISTIN DRAINA 1 L #6 Q D EXISTING JOHNSON DITCH 1 (DITCHED STREAM) CULVERT �fRE MJ2 Itz MADE BY CHECKED S. 200TH ST. E OUTFALL DRAWN: LCA DESIGNED: LCA APPROVED: KJO FLD BK: XIST G JOHNSON DITCH OUTFAL SIT PERIME ER CI LIMIT B • UNDARY — SE -TAC EXCLUSIONARY ZO E BOUN ■ A ® E E BASIN BOUNDARY PRO ECT REA ITHIN CITY OF TUKWILA ANNEX RIV R MIL MA' ER I II STREAM O 11 tD /TCHED s r»` AM) JOHNS2N D/ H (DITCHED S -. AM (EAST FORK) N - - -- JOHNSON CREEK SUB -BASIN (OFF SITE) ® !GOLDSMITH 8c ASSOCIATES2 since ism S Engineering - Land Use Planning - Surveying 1215114th Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98004, P.O, Box 3565, Bellevue, WA 98009 OFFICE: (425) 462-1080, FAX: (425) 462. 7719, staff@goldsmlthenglneedng.com REV. NO. DESCRIPTION PLOTTED: 03102.152.dre LCARPE 04/19/03 13:2 SCALE: 1• • 600' DATE: ACAD DWG.: 05102.152 VIEW: XREF: PSSF: CITY OF TUKWILA LA PIANTA LLC EXISTING CONDITIONS TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT WASHINGTON JOB No: 03102 SHEET FIGURE 1 a 4A tn TREA/L1 TREAM (DITCHED • TREAM J IYL ST ,f /7 L #2 t SOUTH BASIN CENTRAL BASIN • H'L if4 -A Cl STREAM C (DITCHED STREA N D/ D ST ✓OHNS9N D/ H (DITCHED S ,4 (EAST FORK) JOHNSON DITCH (DITCHED STREAM) EST FORK) LEGEND: SCALE SITE PERIMETER CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY SEA -TAC EXCLUSIONARY ZONE EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN BOU PROJECT AREA WITHIN CITY OF TUKWI RIVER MILE MARKER 300 600 1200 1800 DESCRIPTION IN • UTFALL INA OUTFAL IN MADE BY CHECKED PLOTTED: 03102.155.dwg LCARPE 04/19/0510 SCALE: DATE: DRAWN: • 600' DESIGNED: LCA APPROVED: KJG VIEW: XREF: FLO BK: STORM DRAIN OUTFALL FOR S. 200TH ST. TO BE REMOVED JOHNSON DITCH OUTFALL W STORM POND GRAVITY A D P MP OUTFALLS F•RS'UT BA IN / FL OD ATE ON CREE TH PIANTA - -- JOHNSON CREEK SUB -BASIN (OFF SITE) JOB NO: 03102 o GOLDSMITH g & ASSOC IATESi since 1958 I Engineering - Land Use Planning - Surveying 1215114th Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98004, P.O. Box 3565, 8euevue, WA 98009 OFFICE: (425) 462 -1080, FAX: (425) 462-7719, staff@goldsmfthenglneerIng.com REV. NO. ACAD DWG.: 03102.153 PSSF: GREEN RIVER OUTFALL LOCATIONS CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON SHEET FIGURE 2 O 8 N 0 z 3 N 0 dik is KEY • • • ss • Project area within City of Tukwila annex ___— Project perimeter Vegetation covertype boundaries Ag Agricultural field (Corn) Fc Coniferous forest Fd Deciduous forest Fm Mixed Deciduous and Coniferous Forest U Urban - Poorly vegetated U2 Urban • mostly vegetated S Lowland shrub Rs /f Riparian shrub/forest Gm Grassland • mowed PEM1 Palustrine emergent, persistent PEM2 (f) Palustrine emergent • P551 Palustrine scrublshrub • PFO1 Palustrine forested • • See text for subclass categories OBW -10 Cr NOR Scale: 1•q 600' Figure 3 Tukwila South Vegetative Cover Types Project Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 ATTACHMENT B Shoreline Vegetation and Shoreline Modifications Excluding the levees adjacent to the river, the vegetation cover types within 200 feet of the Green River are "agricultural fields" (corn) and "urban" (buildings or other impervious surfaces and very little vegetation) (Figure 3). Agricultural fields occur within a majority of the annexation area. Corn is the primary crop on the majority of the agricultural fields. The "urban" over adjacent to the river is located in the central portion of the property to be annexed. It consists mainly of impervious surfaces and gravel for commercial businesses of Seattle Tractor (DEIS, Appendix D). The Green River is leveed along the entire eastern boundary of the Tukwila South Property including the portion of the property to be annexed by the City of Tukwila (Figure 1). There are no trees currently adjacent to the Green River large enough to qualify as Large Woody Debris (LWD) should they fall into a channel. Maintenance requirements include prohibition of trees with stems greater than fl- inches in diameter on the dikes and levees. Green River levee vegetation consists of reed canary - grass, Himalayan blackberry, and some willow. Rip -rap has been placed along the Green River banks to ensure stability during high flows (DEIS, Appendix E). Approximately 500 feet on the west bank of the Green River was planted with small trees by King County and the City of Kent to re- vegetate upland areas disturbed by the South 200th Street Bridge construction. The South 200th Street bridge planting plan was prepared in April 1997 and likely planted soon thereafter. Johnson Ditch is a regulated watercourse tributary to the Green River. Johnson Ditch is channeled and maintained or dredged periodically to preserve drainage capacity of this system. Johnson Ditch is not a shoreline of the state, but passes through the Green River shoreline to and outfall installed through the Green River levee. King County Drainage District #2 obtains King County and WDFW permits to maintain Johnson Ditch. The ditch was last maintained in August 2001. Ditch cleaning in the system is known to have been ongoing in 1917 based on a log entry from the Board of Drainage Commissioners of Drainage District Number Two of King County (August 20, 1918) (DEIS, Appendix C and E). The Johnson Ditch outfall to the Green River has been fitted with a flood flap gate to prevent flooding through the river levee when the Green River rises. The floodgate is closed except when the Johnson Ditch outflow has enough hydraulic pressure to open the gate against the hydraulic pressure of the river, which Segale Properties, LLC Page 8 Tukwila South Master Plan Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 includes when the river is below the floodgate elevation and Johnson Ditch is discharging. When the flap -gate is closed water backs up in Johnson Ditch causing the surface water to pond in adjacent fields. A 100 -year FEMA floodplain is recorded in the Johnson Ditch area within and south of the annexation area because when the floodgate is closed by high Green River elevations, drainage in Johnson Ditch backs up in the ditch system and surroundings (DEIS, Appendix C). Segale Properties, LLC Tukwila South Master Plan Page 9 Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 ATTACHMENT C Discussion of how the SMP amendment achieves no net loss of shoreline ecological functions (WAC 173-26-201 (2)). a) Watershed Perspective: flow and movement of water, sediment, organic materials, fish movement, wildlife movement, and water quality. The entire mainstem of the Green River has been channelized, which has eliminated most side - channel and off - channel salmonid habitat, severely limiting winter refuge habitat for fish and reducing the quantity and quality of habitat preferred by juvenile salmonids as they migrate downstream to make the conversion from freshwater to saltwater habitat. The lower reach of the Green River adjacent to the annexation area is relatively low gradient with levees to protect adjacent lands from flooding. Green River flows are influenced by Howard Hanson Dam operations which have eliminated most high flows above about the 2 -year recurrence, and by water withdrawal at the Tacoma Headworks. The dam and permanent diversion of the White River from the Green River have eliminated coarse sediment movement from the upper to lower river reaches which greatly restricts spawning habitat availability. As a result of these influences, the lower Green River reach predominantly is used by fish for migration and rearing purposes (DEIS, Appendix E). Two major habitat enhancement projects will be created as part of the Tukwila South project entirely or partially within the annexation area. About 7.0 acres of land will be reconfigured to create 4.5 acres of new open water habitat and 2.5 acres of riparian buffer (Green River Off - channel Habitat Restoration Area). Another 0.34 acres of new Johnson Creek stream channel will be created to replace the existing Johnson Ditch alignment, a portion of which extends into the Green River shoreline in the annexation area. The two mitigation plans are discussed in detail below under bullet item (b) Local Perspective. By focusing on net environmental benefit promoted by the Master Plan Overlay provisions (Appendix L), rather than mitigation using like -kind and avoidance measures emphasized by standard TMC SAO requirements, the Tukwila South Project will convert poor quality agricultural ditched streams (located outside of the shoreline, with the exception of a portion of Johnson Ditch) into improved fish habitat to increase fish habitat values. Rather than avoiding or retaining ditched streams providing little or no fish access and impairing the quality of water delivered to the Green River, the project proposes creation of out - migrant holding, summer rearing, winter refuge, and upstream migrant holding fish habitat in the Green River. This new habitat would be created entirely within the shoreline of the annexation area, and would extend the shoreline boundary Segale Properties, LLC Page 10 Tukwila South Master Plan Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 westward of its current location. Rather than avoiding Johnson Ditch and leaving it ditched with poor quality buffers in place as would result under standard TMC SAO provisions, the project proposes to relocate and restore Johnson Ditch in a larger channel with greatly enhanced fish passage to the Green River through an improved floodgate, further opening up off - channel habitat now regionally limiting to anadromous and resident fish in the Green River. The Green River Off - channel Habitat Restoration Area and Johnson Creek mitigation plans were designed to improve the functions and values of fish habitat in the Green River system. The following Table provides the reasons that Sensitive Area Functions and Values would be increased under the proposal for fish and stream habitat. Net changes in functions and values for the Tukwila South Project site as a whole are summarized in Table 1 (DEIS, Appendix E and Appendix L). Table 1 Fish Habitat Functions and Values Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Conditions Habitat Function Existing Conditions Proposed Actions Summer Rearing Moderate to very low quality based on warm temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, shallow depths, livestock use, and exotic vegetation in Johnson Ditch channel. Enhanced riparian conditions, addition of woody debris, and livestock absence will result in improved water quality, increased pool frequency, and more diverse habitat. Access to habitat in Johnson Creek will be enhanced by new flood gate. Winter Rearing Channelized character of the lower Green River between RM 11 and 32 has resulted in the loss of most winter rearing habitat (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Approximately 4.5 acres of new off- channel rearing habitat and 0.32 acres of new tributary habitat will provide rare high quality rearing opportunities in the lower Green River. Johnson Creek will be accessible under most flow conditions. Winter Refuge Refuge habitat in the lower Green River is scarce due to levees, silt substrate, limited LWD, and absence of off- channel holding locations. Turbulent, high velocity streamflow is common. Approximately 4.5 acres of new off - channel rearing habitat will provide new high quality, calm -water refuge location in the lower Green River. Benefits to juvenile Chinook, coho, steelhead, and resident trout. Segale Properties, LLC Tukwila South Master Plan Page 11 Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments a Upstream migrants are adult salmon returning to spawn. b Downstream migrants are juvenile salmonids heading to saltwater to rear. May 3, 2005 Habitat Function Existing Conditions Proposed Actions Spawning Habitat Neither the project site nor the Green River adjacent to the site provide habitat suitable for use by salmon or resident trout for spawning. No change to spawning habitat quality is proposed or anticipated. Adult Migration (Upstream) a On -site channels not currently used by adult salmon to migrate upstream. Access to Johnson Ditch blocked by flood gate. Green River diked along entire project site with no off - channel resting habitat available. Approximately 4.5 acres of new off- channel rearing habitat, 0.34 acres of enhanced mainstem tributary habitat, and new fish- passable flood gate will provide critical resting areas and overall net benefit to adult salmonid migration habitat. Juvenile Migration (Downstream) b Only Johnson Ditch might currently be used by juvenile salmonids during out migration. Habitat in the ditch is poor and access is normally blocked by flood gate. Green River diked along entire project site with no off - channel holding or refuge habitat available. Approximately 4.5 acres of new off- channel rearing habitat, 0.34 acres of enhanced mainstem tributary habitat, and new fish- passable flood gate will provide critical areas for juvenile salmonids to smoltify on migration to estuary. Habitat meets critical need identified in Salmonid Limiting Factor Analysis. In addition to a net improvement in fish habitat the Tukwila South Project would allow for improved conveyance of good quality baseflow water to the Green River from the western slopes. Development though possibly high in impervious surface would not have measurable effect on the alluvial aquifer static water level and consequently could have no impact on baseflow alluvial aquifer recharge to the Green River and Johnson Creek. The alluvial aquifer is the predominant baseflow source of water to both the river and the creek during summer baseflow periods. Since no change to baseflow is anticipated, no change to correlated water quality parameters during the warm season, such as dissolved oxygen and temperature, are predicted. A net gain in water quality function would result through improvement in riparian conditions promoting water quality in a restored Johnson Creek channel. When stormwater from the Tukwila South Project is mixed with the Green River on a conservative seasonal basis (See DEIS, Appendix C), there would be no change to Green River quality. The existing beneficial uses would be protected as required under state water quality standards (including antidegradation) and federal antidegradation policy. The Tukwila South Project as a whole would have little influence on the quality of water in the Green River because it has a Segale Properties, LLC Page 12 Tukwila South Master Plan Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 very small contribution to total flow and because for most parameters the discharge quality is very close to background quality. Additional discussion regarding improvement to water quality function is discussed in detail below under bullet item (b) Local Perspective. b) Local Perspective: shoreline vegetation, sediment, water transit from site to shoreline, bed and banks. The Green River Levee and its associated shoreline along the annexation area would not change as a result of the project, except where the Green River Off - Channel Habitat Restoration Area would be constructed. The project area within 200 feet of the shoreline west of the Green River levee, which is currently corn fields and the Seattle Tractor business, would be developed as urban, commercial, and residential development per the Tukwila South Master Plan development proposal (See DEIS, Chapter 2 for a description of the SEPA Alternatives). As a result of the Green River Off - channel Habitat Restoration Area mitigation approximately 800 feet of the existing Green River levee will be eliminated and a new levee will be constructed to the west away from the existing river to create a 7 -acre off - channel habitat area. An approximately 4.5 acre area (acreage below OHWM) will be excavated down to the bed elevation of the Green River to create open water habitat. The bed of the off - channel area will be graded to provide a variety of water depths and slope grades. Large woody debris will be added as jams and individual pieces for habitat diversity. All of the wood will be anchored to prevent migration (DEIS, Appendix E). The 2.58 acres of upland area will be graded at slopes ranging from 3:1 to about 8:1 and planted. The planting plan has been designed to accommodate the proposed development and provide significantly enhanced functionality based on Best Available Science. Plantings will consist of native species including groundcovers, shrubs, and small trees as allowed by landscaping constraints such as the levee, flood control dike, and existing roads. The plants have been selected and located to provide a dense vegetated thicket of native species that fringe and overhang water's edge during normal flows. A mixture of palustrine emergent species and scrub -shrub species are proposed including rushes, sedges, willow, dogwood, salmonberry, thimbleberry, and hazelnut among others. During unusually high flows, the plants will slow the water's velocity along the shoreline, providing refuge habitat for fish and helping to protect the banks from erosion. During low flows, emergent species will continue to provide fringing vegetation and habitat for nearshore species (DEIS, Appendix E and Appendix L). Segale Properties, LLC Page 13 Tukwila South Master Plan Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 The proposed habitat restoration will create a rapid expansion of river width downstream of the S. 200th Street Bridge, from the current channel width of about 200 feet to about 600 feet. The restoration will widen the river for about 800 lineal feet, or about 4 channel widths, before reconnecting to the existing channel bank, just before the apex of the next bend downstream. Based on a qualitative analysis the project hydrologist (Ken Rood, Northwest Hydraulics, personal communication) expects changes to flow patterns will generally consist of the following 1 (DEIS, Appendix L): • Flows at the upstream end of the habitat restoration area will separate from the main flow and consist of slack or standing water at low flows and, potentially, a slowly circulating eddy at high flows. This area will extend downstream along much of the habitat area. • The flow in the main channel will expand and higher velocities may be directed at the downstream end of the excavated bank, where it transitions back to the existing bank. This is a potential erosion site and a smooth transition and bank protection by placement of LWD is proposed to prevent erosion. • The flow expansion is expected to reduce the potential for erosion along the right bank and may result in formation of a small bar opposite the downstream end of the habitat restoration area. Bar formation may contribute to bank erosion on the opposite bank. • The changes in flow patterns are also expected to cause channel adjustments through deposition of bedload and suspended sediment. Bedload sediments (coarse sand) will be deposited along the left side of the river, forming a long ridge or bar starting at the top of the opening and extending downstream. The bar may ultimately reach elevations of 8 to 10 feet (3 to five feet above the bed; based on observed point bar heights nearby in the river) and may join to the bank at the downstream end of the habitat area, potentially isolating the habitat area at low flows. Measures to prevent formation of an isolated pool are proposed (see the following section). Relatively slow development of the bar is anticipated based on the predicted low rates of bedload transport. In the absence of a large flood it may take several years to form. • Suspended sediments will likely be carried into the slack water zone and deposited. Fine sand will likely initially deposit at the downstream end of the habitat area with silt and clay deposited along the left bank towards the head of the habitat area. Initial deposits are likely to occur well below ordinary high water, on the shallow lower bank and on the flat bottom of the habitat area. The rates of deposition are not known and cannot be easily calculated, as they depend upon sediment concentrations and the rate of influx. However, it is thought that it will take many years to fill the Segale Properties, LLC Page 14 Tukwila South Master Plan Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 off - channel area to the elevation of the bar formed along the edge of the area. Changes in stream hydraulics resulting from development of the off - channel habitat area could result in erosion on the left bank near the downstream end of the project. To prevent erosion along this bank bioengineering bank treatments and construction of a logjam to deflect flows away from this section of bank is proposed (Northwest Hydraulics, Ken Rood, personal communication). Given the low mean water velocities in the Green River, bioengineering is a practical and standard practice for erosion treatment. Dense vegetative plantings and appropriate placement of large woody debris are expected to be fully protective of the new shoreline when combined with appropriate sloping of the banks (DEIS, Appendix L). To prevent isolation of the habitat area from the Green River during low flows by bar formation, construction of logjams at the upstream and downstream end of the habitat area are proposed to cause local scour through any forming sand bar and maintain low bed elevations for access and egress to the habitat area. The logjams would provide a "natural" solution to prevent formation of an isolated pool and can provide other aquatic habitat benefits such as overhead cover and a nutrient source. The logjams would maintain sediment in suspension through the hydraulic energy of water spilling over and around the jams, maintaining openings through a developing sand bar. While sediment deposition will occur, the design will ensure that pathways are maintained so that fish can enter and exit near shore habitat without the need for manual sediment removal (DEIS, Appendix L). The Johnson Creek mitigation project will create a meandering stream channel designed to provide good quality summer rearing and winter refuge habitats. Approximately 1,350 feet of the current ditch will be abandoned in favor of a newly constructed channel and associated floodplain to the south (DEIS, Appendix L). The Johnson Creek riparian area will be planted with native species including emergents, herbs, shrubs, and large trees to enhance riparian habitat functions and values. The plants have been selected and located to provide a dense overhanging cover of native species over time. A mixture of palustrine emergent species, scrub -shrub species, and trees are proposed including rushes, sedges, willow, dogwood, salmonberry, western red cedar, and big leaf maple among others. When the channel floods, the plants will slow the water's velocity along the shoreline, providing refuge habitat for fish and help protect banks from erosion. Large woody debris will be anchored to the banks to provide instream Segale Properties, LLC Page 15 Tukwila South Master Plan Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 structure, water velocity modification, macroinvertebrate substrate, and amphibian shelter. A new 200 -foot long by 48 -inch culvert will be located at a flat grade through the Green River levee at an elevation of 13 -feet. A fish - passable flood gate will be installed at the Johnson Creek confluence to the Green River to allow fish to migrate through the culvert and into the tributary under most flow conditions. The old Johnson Ditch outfall would be plugged and abandoned. The outfall from the existing S. 200th street stormwater pond would be removed. A stormwater pond south of S. 200th St. would be constructed within the annexation area and would add a new stormwater outfall to the Green River, including a floodgate. Strictly in terms of water quality function, the water quality analysis for stormwater discharge and baseflow conveyance concludes that the Tukwila South property as a whole would improve water quality for several reasons (DEIS, Appendix C): 1. Stormwater discharge quality would be improved or comparable to the existing condition; 2. Agricultural fertilizer and pesticide use would be removed from the annexation area and replaced to a much lesser extent by landscaping management products; 3. Baseflow and stormwater runoff from the undeveloped western slopes would be conveyed to the Green River cooler and with higher dissolved oxygen content; 4. No adverse impact to the Green River would be expected to occur, because the stormwater contributions to the Green River are very small relative to the Green River flow, and because the discharged stormwater on a site -wide basis would be similar to the background quality in the Green River; 5. There are multiple discharge points from the annexation area to the Green River; most outfall points would see improvement in water quality and no adverse impacts other than a rise in fecal coliforms was forecast at any of the "end of pipe" locations; 6. The quality of water passing through and discharging in restored Johnson Creek would be improved; and 7. Agricultural influences (herbicide and fertilizer applications) would be removed from the annexation area and from the Green River. Segale Properties, LLC Page 16 Tukwila South Master Plan Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 Shoreline Restoration Opportunities ATTACHMENT D a) Identify degraded areas, impaired function with restoration potential. The lower Green River adjacent to the annexation area is contained within levees. This has severely limited fish habitat in the river. One impact of the levees is they adversely affect salmon by preventing out - migrating juveniles from slowing their transition to salt water because they cannot move out of the main current during "smoltification." Juvenile salmon need time to transform to handle increasing salinity and the inability to hold in off - channel areas out of the main river current is likely a significant source of mortality to salmon. This affords an opportunity to move the levee inland and construct an off - channel fish habitat area as described above where juvenile salmon can hold and smolt during downstream passage in the Green River. This habitat area would also provide summer rearing, winter refuge, and upstream migrant holding habitats for fish 1 (DEIS, Appendix E and Appendix L). Johnson Ditch, a major agricultural ditch, collects water within and south of the annexation area to discharge to the Green River through a fish blocking floodgate. This affords an opportunity to restore Johnson Ditch as a tributary stream with good riparian conditions and with a fish- passage friendly floodgate to the Green River as described above. Two culverts currently carry flow from the ditch under the levee to an outfall located near elevation 15 -feet. Johnson Ditch currently does not provide habitat suitable for spawning. The reach does provide some winter and summer rearing opportunities in shallow runs and pools. Water quality in the stream is considered to be poor relative to fish use requirements due to low dissolved oxygen and low pH. Currently, several years' growth of willow, Himalayan blackberry, and dense reed canary grass cover most of the banks in a narrow corridor between two crop fields. South 204th Street immediately abuts the right bank of the creek for about 1,100 feet along the western end 1 (DEIS, Appendix E and Appendix L). b) Goals and priorities of restoration and functions. Two major habitat enhancement projects will be created as part of the project. About 7.0 acres of land will be reconfigured to create 4.5 acres of new open water habitat and 2.5 acres of riparian buffer, including 1.2 acres of wetland habitat (Green River Off - channel Habitat Restoration Area). Another 0.34 acres of new Johnson Creek stream channel will be created to replace the existing Johnson Ditch alignment, plus 1.55 acres of adjacent wetland creation. The need for this type of off - channel habitat at this location was based on a regional salmonid habitat study conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers; King County; local, Segale Properties, LLC Page 17 Tukwila South Master Plan Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 state, federal, and tribal agencies; and various private organizations. This study, known as The Green / Duwamish River Ecosystem Restoration Study, together with the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis for the Cedar River (WRIA 9) identified a number of issues affecting regional salmonid populations (DEIS, Appendix E and Appendix L). Two of the key recommendations identified during the WRIA 9 study provided the basis for the proposed mitigation: Fish passage and habitat values along the leveed portion of the Green River (between Auburn and Tukwila) should be improved consistent with flood protection goals in this reach. A program to revegetate and add woody debris in this reach is recommended in this study. Productive tributaries...should be protected through acquisition and land use regulations, and disturbed habitats along these tributaries should be restored for salmon spawning and rearing and other fish and wildlife use. The Green River Off - channel Habitat Restoration Area and Johnson Creek mitigation plans and functions and values are described above in 3 (a) and (b). c) Existing and on -going projects /programs contributing to local restoration goals. A wetland mitigation plan will compensate for impacts to 9.45 acres of wetland as part of the Tukwila South Project through enhancement and rehabilitation of previously degraded wetland habitats on the Tukwila South Property and through creation of new wetland. The overall goal of the mitigation plan is to increase habitat diversity, improve wetland habitat functions, and establish contiguous wetlands to Johnson Creek, a tributary to the Green River, similar to those that occurred in the Green River Valley prior to construction of flood control dikes on the river (DEIS, Chapter 3.4, Wetlands). Wetland functions and values would be improved within the annexation area as a whole, but outside the shoreline (See Table 2). Mitigation plans to restore habitat in Johnson Creek and the Green River are described above. Segale Properties, LLC Page 18 Tukwila South Master Plan Wetland Function Exiit u ; Conditions ` w Pro . osed Actions Water Quality Functions Potential for Removing Sediment Moderate to low functional scores due to small size of wetlands, lack of vegetative cover in agricultural wetlands, and depressional outflow hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification of most wetlands impacted by proposal. Rehabilitation and enhancement of wetlands will result in vegetated wetlands habitats providing greater opportunity to remove sediments. Proposed mitigation will increase Washington State Wetland Functional Assessment Method (WAFAM) acre -point score by 26.17 Potential for Removing Nutrients Moderate to low functional scores due to small size of wetlands, lack of vegetative cover in agricultural wetlands and depressional outflow HGM classification of wetlands to be effected by the development. Rehabilitation and enhancement of wetlands will result in vegetated wetland habitats better suited to uptake and remove nutrients from water column. Increased residence time in long duration hydroperiod wetlands results in greater opportunity to remove nutrients. Proposed mitigation increases WAFAM acre -point score by 26.63 Potential for Removing Heavy Metals and Toxic Organics Moderate functional scores due to wetland locations in agricultural fields and nearby industrial activity. Rehabilitation and enhancement of wetlands will result in near duplication of WAFAM acre - point scores (net loss of 6.53). Discontinuation of agricultural and industrial activities on project site would eliminate existing untreated pollutant sources. DEIS concluded net project plus wetland alterations impact on water quality would be neutral to beneficial (DEIS Appendix C, Attachment A — Wetland Water Quality Function and Impact Assessment) Hydrologic Functions Potential for Reducing Peak Flows Moderate to low functional scores due to small size and depressional outflow HGM of most wetlands impacted. Rehabilitation and enhancement of wetlands will result in longer duration hydroperiod within mitigation wetlands. Increased woody vegetation will slow water, reducing peak flows. WAFAM acre -point score increase by 1.51. Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments Table 2 Wetland Functions and Values Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Conditions Segale Properties, LLC Tukwila South Master Plan May 3, 2005 Page 19 WetlandeFunction :, : gym y,` rExistin Conditions , Pro . oseiigActions ` . Potential for Reducing/Decreasing Downstream Erosion Moderate to low functional scores due to small wetland size and depressional outflow HGM of most wetlands affected by development. Loss of total wetland area will reduce overall storage capacity. WAFAM acre -point score decrease by 9.95. Required stormwater retention/detention will result in no real loss of water storage capacity. Potential for Groundwater Recharge Moderate to low functional scores due to depressional outflow HGM of most wetlands and lack of long duration hydroperiod. Rehabilitation and enhancement of wetlands will result in longer duration hydroperiod, increasing potential to recharge groundwater. WAFAM acre - point score increases by 38.01. Biologic Functions General Habitat Suitability Low functional scores due to small size, agricultural use, lack of connectivity to other habitats, and lack of vegetation in most wetlands proposed to be altered. Rehabilitation and enhancement will result in increased habitat through establishment of different vegetation strata, longer duration hydroperiods. WAFAM acre -point score increases by 100.67. Habitat suitability for Invertebrates Low functional scores due to agricultural practices and lack of vegetation in wetlands to be effected by development. Rehabilitation and enhancement will result in contiguous vegetated wetland habitats. WAFAM acre -point score increases by 82.07 Habitat suitability for Amphibians Low functional scores due to agricultural practices, short duration hydroperiod, and lack of vegetation in wetlands to be altered. Rehabilitation and enhancement will result in contiguous vegetated wetland habitats with long duration hydroperiods. WAFAM acre -point score increases by 71.03. Habitat suitability for Anadromous Fish Low functional scores due to lack of connectivity to fish bearing waters for many wetlands proposed to be affected. Rehabilitation and enhancement will result in improved flow to fish bearing waters. Increased vegetation diversity will improve food sources for fish WAFAM acre -point score increases by 77.41. Habitat suitability for Resident Fish Low functional scores due to lack of connectivity to fish bearing waters for many wetlands proposed to be affected. Rehabilitation and enhancement will result in improved flow to fish bearing waters. Increased vegetation diversity will improve food sources for fish WAFAM acre -point score increases by 45.54. Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments Segale Properties, LLC Tukwila South Master Plan May 3, 2005 Page 20 .Wetland Pniiction > Existing '.Conditions s . " Proposed Act onsaY Habitat suitability for Wetland Associated Birds Moderate to low functional scores due to lack of vegetation in agricultural wetlands. Flooded agricultural fields do provide wintering waterfowl habitat. Rehabilitation and enhancement will increase vegetation structure, provide greater nesting and forage opportunities for passerines. Longer duration hydroperiod portions of mitigation area provide some waterfowl habitat. WAFAM acre -point score increases by 13.94. Habitat suitability for Wetland Associated Mammals Moderate to low functional scores due to small wetland size. Agricultural fields do provide forage habitat for small mammals. Net loss of wetland area and conversion to woody vegetation will reduce habitat for mammals. WAFAM acre -point score decreases by 23.6. Native Plant Richness Low functional scores due to agricultural practices. Rehabilitation and enhancement will provide a diverse native plant community. WAFAM acre -point score increases by 152.18 Primary Production and Export Moderate functional scores due to depressional outflow HGM of wetlands to be altered. Rehabilitation and enhancement will result in increased vegetative cover in wetlands and direct output to fish bearing waters. WAFAM acre -point score increases by 6.36 Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 A Lower Green River Salmon Habitat Acquisition Project involving up to 37 acres of habitat along the Lower Green River in the City of Kent is proposed in the WRIA 9 Plan. d) Added projects needed to achieve local restoration goals None are needed. e) Timelines The entire fish habitat mitigation plans would be constructed during the first two years of construction (Appendix E and Appendix L). Year 1 work planned for the 2006 construction season would include the following: • Excavation of most of the Green River Off - channel Habitat Restoration Area (separated from the river by a berm during year 1) and relocation of the Green River levee at this location; • Excavation and creation of the new Johnson Creek channel and construction of the new Johnson Creek outfall to the Green River Segale Properties, LLC Page 21 Tukwila South Master Plan Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 through a fish - passage friendly floodgate. The Johnson Creek restoration area would be completed with large woody debris and plantings, but flow through the area would remain in the current Johnson Ditch until the plantings were established the following construction season; and • Construction of the new Flood Protection barrier dike using excavated material from the new Johnson Creek channel and the Green River Off - Channel Habitat Restoration excavations. Year 2 work planned for the 2007 construction season would include the following: • Finished excavation of the Green River mitigation area, planting, and LWD installation; • Complete the permanent connection of the Green River mitigation area to the river and install woody debris snags at the upper and lower ends of the mitigation area in the time frame allowed by WDFW HPA permit. The large woody debris snags are proposed to protect the downstream bank from erosion and to prevent sand bar formation from creating an isolated pool; and • Transfer Johnson Creek flow into the restored channel, and plug and abandon the temporary culvert under the flood protection barrier dike. f) Monitoring and as -built assurance Compliance monitoring consists of evaluating streams and buffers immediately after construction. The objectives will be to verify that all design features, as agreed to in the various plans, have been correctly and fully implemented, and that any changes made in the field are consistent with the intent of the design. Evaluation of the planting areas after restoration will be done by the landscape architect and project wetland biologist, and the wetland creation and wetland buffers will be monitored and evaluated by a wetland biologist. Evaluation of the instream work will be completed by the project fisheries biologist. The mitigation monitoring information was extracted from the DEIS, Appendix L. The compliance monitoring phase will conclude with the preparation of a brief compliance report from the project biologists. The report will verify that all design features have been correctly, fully, and successfully incorporated, and if not, detail what is required to ensure that successful incorporation of all design features are constructed. Monitoring to evaluate the success of instream habitat creation shall take place once each summer for the first five years after completion of the work (Approximately years 3 through 7). Wetland monitoring will extend over a 10 year period. Fisheries monitoring shall evaluate each of the following factors: Segale Properties, LLC Page 22 Tukwila South Master Plan Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments • Erosion • Fish Access • Habitat Suitability • Fish Stranding May 3, 2005 The purpose of the plan is to restore Johnson Creek and the Green River off - channel area to a relatively natural condition, thus a certain amount of erosion is to be expected as the channels adjust to the new configuration. During years with unusually heavy flows, bank erosion may be considerable. However, overall habitat stability will be assessed to ensure construction efforts have resulted in a relatively stable environment with no unusually slide -prone or erosive features. Problem areas could be those that are slumping or eroding due to misguided stormwater runoff for example. Erosion of areas adjacent to the channels is expected to abate somewhat as vegetation matures. Those areas that still show unusually high erosion after 5 years will be noted in the report and discussions with permitting agencies undertaken to identify any appropriate additional mitigation work. Bed erosion (and or deposition) is expected to be continuous and will not be evaluated except in the case where fish access or stranding becomes and issue (discussed below). Fish access to the new off - channel refuge and holding area in the Green River, and from the Green River into Johnson Creek will be evaluated each year to ensure passage into the new habitat is maintained. While some sediment deposition in the new Green River habitat area is expected, the deposition patterns are not expected to result in the off - channel rearing area becoming isolated to fish. Deposition will be evaluated and mapped each year during the low . flow period. If isolation of significant portions of habitat becomes a concern, it will be noted in the report and discussions with permitting agencies undertaken to identify any appropriate additional mitigation work. This mitigation might consist of placement of bed roughness material (e.g. boulder, LWD) to change flow patterns. The new flap gate to be installed on the culvert outlet from Johnson Creek to the Green River will be evaluated each year to make sure it is functioning appropriately. Any necessary adjustments will be noted in the report. Design goals call for creation of off - channel rearing and holding habitat in Johnson Creek and the Green River. A qualitative assessment of select areas in the Green River and Johnson Creek will be made each year to describe habitat suitability in terms of average channel depths, widths, and flow velocities. As habitat conditions are expected to remain in a state of natural and constant flux, the habitat descriptions will be qualitative in nature and be used only to determine whether or not the overall habitat goals are substantially not being met. Any concerns will be addressed in the annual report. Photos will be taken Segale Properties, LLC Page 23 Tukwila South Master Plan Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments May 3, 2005 each year to record conditions and document any changes. These will also be included in the report. Final design considerations for new and restored channels and wetlands shall include features to ensure that "attractive nuisances" such as isolated ponding areas or channels are not intentionally created. Monitoring shall include evaluation of any potential stranding hazard locations that might develop over time and observations of any stranded fish or carcasses. Segale Properties, LLC Tukwila South Master Plan Page 24 Shoreline Master Plan Submittal Checklist Attachments ATTACHMENT E Tukwila South Project Fisheries and Wetland Mitigation Plans May 3, 2005 Segale Properties, LLC Page 25 Tukwila South Master Plan CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Environmental Consulting FISHERIES MITIGATION PLAN TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: La Pianta LLC P.O. Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138 Prepared by: Cedarock Consultants, Inc. 19609 244th Avenue NE Woodinville, Washington 98077 April 13, 2005 19609 244th AVENUE NE • WOODINVILLE, WA 98077 • P:425/788 -0961 • F:425/788 -5562 Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Location 1 1.2 Existing Site Description 1 1.3 Mitigation Concept 1 2.0 GREEN RIVER 4 2.1 Existing Condition 4 2.2 Proposed Mitigation 5 3.0 JOHNSON DITCH (CREEK) 10 3.1 Existing Condition 10 3.2 Proposed Mitigation 11 4.0 MONITORING 15 4.1 Construction Monitoring 15 4.2 Compliance Monitoring 16 4.3 Long -Term Monitoring 17 5.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 19 5.1 Erosion 19 5.2 Fish Access 19 5.3 Habitat Suitability 19 5.4 Fish Stranding 19 6.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 20 7.0 LITERATURE CITED 21 FIGURES Page Figure 1. Vicinity Map 3 Figure 2. Green River Off - channel Habitat Restoration Area (Plan View) 6 Figure 3. Green River Off - channel Habitat Restoration Area (Cross Section) 7 Figure 4. Johnson Creek Realignment and Enhancement (Plan View) 13 Figure 5. Johnson Creek Realignment and Enhancement (Cross Section) 14 APPENDIX S. 200 Street Planting Plan for West Bank Shelf (City of Kent and King County 1997) April 13, 2005 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.doc Page i Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Location The Tukwila South project fisheries mitigation sites quarter of Section 3 and the western half of Section of the City of Tukwila in King County, Washington valley floor generally bounded by S. 204 Street on on the north, and the Green River on the east. are located within a portion of the southeast 2, Township 22 North, Range 04 East south (Figure 1). The sites are on the Green River the south, 1,000 feet north of S. 200 Street 1.2 Existing Site Description The mitigation sites consist of flat to gently sloped farmland adjacent to the Green River between River Mile (RM) 17.0 and 17.4. The area is mostly undeveloped and in agricultural use. Existing site elevations within the farmlands range between approximately 15 and 30 feet above sea level. The bed of the Green River adjacent to the site ranges from about 4 to 5 feet above sea level. 1.3 Mitigation Concept Two major fish habitat enhancement projects will be created as part of the project. About 7.0 acres of land will be reconfigured to create 4.5 acres of new open water habitat and 2.5 acres of riparian buffer (Green River Off- channel Habitat Restoration Area). Another 0.34 acres of new Johnson Creek stream channel will be created to replace the existing Johnson Ditch alignment. The mitigation plan is a work in progress. Further details will be provided as the project receives input from agency, tribal, and other biologists. The conceptual designs were based on a regional salmonid habitat study conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers; King County; local, state, federal, and tribal agencies; and various private organizations. This study, known as The Green/Duwamish River Ecosystem Restoration Study, together with the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis for the Cedar River (WRIA 9) (Kerwin and Nelson 2000) identified a number of issues affecting regional salmonid populations. Two of the key recommendations identified during the study provided the basis for the proposed mitigation: Fish passage and habitat values along the leveed portion of the Green River (between Auburn and Tukwila) should be improved consistent with flood protection goals in this reach. A program to revegetate and add woody debris in this reach is recommended in this study. Productive tributaries ...should be protected through acquisition and land use regulations, and disturbed habitats along these tributaries should be restored for salmon spawning and rearing and other fish and wildlife use. The mitigation plan was designed to improve the functions and values of fish habitat in this section of the Green River system. The following table provides a comparison of existing conditions with those expected to be created following full implementation of the mitigation program. April 13, 2005 Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 1 Habitat Function Summer Rearing Existing Conditions Moderate to very low quality based on warm temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, shallow depths, livestock use, and exotic vegetation in Johnson Ditch channel. Proposed Actions Enhanced riparian conditions, addition of woody debris, and livestock absence will result in improved water quality, increased pool frequency, and more diverse habitat. Access to habitat in Johnson Creek will be enhanced by new flood gate. Winter Rearing Channelized character of the lower Green River between RM 11 and 32 has resulted in the loss of most winter rearing habitat (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Approximately 4.5 acres of new off - channel rearing habitat and 0.32 acres of new tributary habitat will provide rare high quality rearing opportunities in the lower Green River. Johnson Creek will be accessible under most flow conditions. Winter Refuge Refuge habitat in the lower Green River is scarce due to levees, silt substrate, limited LWD, and absence of off - channel holding locations. Turbulent, high velocity streamflow is common. Approximately 4.5 acres of new off- channel rearing habitat will provide new high quality, calm -water refuge location in the lower Green River. Benefits to juvenile Chinook, coho, steelhead, and resident trout. Spawning Habitat Neither the project site nor the Green River adjacent to the site provide habitat suitable for use by salmon or resident trout for spawning. No change to spawning habitat quality is proposed or anticipated. Adult Migration (Upstream) a On -site channels not currently used by adult salmon to migrate upstream. Access to Johnson Ditch blocked by flood gate. Green River diked along entire project site with no off- channel resting habitat available. Approximately 4.5 acres of new off- channel rearing habitat, 0.34 acres of enhanced mainstem tributary habitat, and new fish - passable flood gate will provide critical resting areas and overall net benefit to adult salmonid migration habitat. Juvenile Migration (Downstream) b a Only Johnson Ditch might currently be used by juvenile salmonids during outmigration. Habitat in the ditch is poor and access is normally blocked by flood gate. Green River diked along entire project site with no off- channel holding or refuge habitat available. Approximately 4.5 acres of new off - channel rearing habitat, 0.34 acres of enhanced mainstem tributary habitat, and new fish - passable flood gate will provide critical areas for juvenile salmonids to smoltify on migration to estuary. Habitat meets critical need identified in Salmonid Limiting Factor Analysis. Tukwila South Project Tukwila, Washington U pstream migrants are adult salmon returning to spawn. n Downstream migrants are juvenile salmonids heading to saltwater to rear. April 13, 2005 Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.doc Fish Habitat Functions and Values Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Conditions Fisheries Mitigation plan CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 2 ACAD DWG.: M : \ACAD \PLATS \03 \03102 \03102e416.dwg PLOTTED: 03102e416.dwg LCARPE 03/29/05 07:53 - -- - --L Z--_ 0 500 1000 2000 SCALE I" = 1000' - - SITE PERIMETER -.-- -• = ' CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY s� SEA -TAC EXCLUSIONARY ZONE BOUNDARY - • • - • • EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY na RIVER MILE MARKER / -s 4 r c LM, JOHNSON CREEK /EAST 1-47.147 ±.. SUB- BASIN (OFF SITE) t N ® !GOLDSMITH - V Sc ASSOCIATES ma I Edheem • UM, u.e Pia( U • !sewn FIGURE I TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT VICINITY MAP Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.doc 2.0 GREEN RIVER 2.1 Existing Condition The Green River (WRIA 09 -0001) begins in the Cascade Mountains approximately 30 miles northeast of Mount Rainier and flows west and northwest over 93 miles to the Puget Sound where it enters at Elliot Bay near Seattle. Between RM 33.8 to RM 11.0 is considered the lower reach of the Green River. This relatively low- gradient reach meanders through open hills and across historic lacustrine (lake bed) and glacial deposits. Much of the channel has been diked to protect adjacent residential, agricultural, and industrial development from flooding. The lower reach is used by fish predominately for migration and rearing purposes. Instream flows and sediment transport characteristics of the lower Green/Duwamish River system are influenced by Howard Hanson Dam operations and water withdrawal at the Tacoma Headworks. The dam is operated to control flooding downstream and, since its construction in 1961, has eliminated most high flows above about the 2 -year event. Excess water volumes are released over time, which results in a higher frequency of moderate flows. Filling of the reservoir during the late spring temporarily reduces flows and can affect downstream migration of juvenile salmonids. The City of Tacoma intercepts water downstream of the dam and diverts it for use as domestic water. This water use has historically represented approximately 12 percent of the average annual flow at the point of diversion (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Howard Hanson Dam prevents delivery of coarse sediment from the upper basin to downstream reaches. The upper basin is believed to have formerly supplied over 90 percent of the alluvial gravel deposited in the Green River floodplain downstream of RM 45 (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Landslides in the Middle Green River sub - watershed contribute material that is predominantly sand size or smaller. Thus, elimination of the sediment supply from the upper basin has a significant effect on habitat conditions downstream. An analysis of floodplain deposits suggest that the White River formerly supplied approximately 75 percent of the sediment to the Green River downstream of RM 32 (Mullineaux 1970). When the White River was permanently diverted to the Puyallup system in 1906, this supply was eliminated. As a result of these changes, substrate sizes in the lower Green River have become increasingly finer over time. Sands and silts now dominate the substrate, and gravel bars suitable for salmonid spawning are almost non - existent. The entire mainstem of the Green River downstream of RM 32 has been channelized with the concomitant loss of side - channel and off - channel habitat. Winter refuge habitat is now limited for the most part to tributaries such as Mill Creek and Mullen Slough. Levees and revetments commonly line both banks of the river throughout virtually the entire reach downstream of RM 32 (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). In the Green/Duwamish estuary, over 97 percent of the historic estuarine mudflats, marshes, and forested riparian swamps have been eliminated by channel straightening, draining, dredging, and filling. All of the tidal swamps bordering the Duwamish River were filled by 1940. The remaining shortened channel has been simplified and is currently used by commercial shipping operations. This has dramatically reduced the quantity and quality of habitat types preferred by many juvenile anadromous fish as they make the conversion from freshwater to saltwater habitat. April 13, 2005 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 4 Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington Chinook, coho, chum, pink, and sockeye salmon; steelhead; and coastal cutthroat trout are currently found at various times of the year in the Green/Duwamish River System. Native char may be present though not considered likely (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Native resident salmonids include rainbow and cutthroat trout and mountain whitefish. Other native resident fish species are also present, including lamprey and various minnow, sculpin, and sucker species. 2.2 Proposed Mitigation The Green River Off - channel Habitat Restoration Area will be created as mitigation for impacts to the presumed fish- bearing agricultural ditches (Figures 2 and 3). Mitigation will be provided at a minimum ratio of 4:1 for impacted surface area of open water channels '. As proposed, the Green River Off - channel Habitat Restoration Area mitigation project will create new summer rearing, winter refuge, and upstream migration holding habitats. Approximately 800 feet of the existing Green River levee will be eliminated and a new levee constructed to the west away from the existing river to create a 7 -acre off - channel habitat area. An approximately 4.5 acre area (acreage below OHWM) will be excavated down to the bed elevation of the Green River to create open water habitat. The bed of the off - channel area will be graded to provide a variety of water depths and slope grades. Large woody debris will be added as jams and individual pieces for habitat diversity. All of the wood will be anchored to prevent migration. The 2.58 acres of upland area will be graded at slopes ranging from 3:1 to about 8:1 and planted. The planting plan has been designed to accommodate the proposed development and provide significantly enhanced functionality based on Best Available Science. Plantings will consist of native species including groundcovers, shrubs, and small trees as allowed by landscaping constraints such as the levee, flood control dike, and existing roads. The plants have been selected and located to provide a dense vegetated thicket of native species that fringe and overhang water's edge during normal flows. A mixture of palustrine emergent species and scrub - shrub species are proposed including rushes, sedges, willow, dogwood, salmonberry, thimbleberry, and hazelnut among others (Raedeke 2005). During unusually high flows, the plants will slow the water's velocity along the shoreline, providing refuge habitat for fish and helping to protect the banks from erosion. During low flows, emergent species will continue to provide fringing vegetation and habitat for nearshore species. Complete planting details are provided in Raedeke 2005. Under existing conditions very little native buffer exists near the Green River and Johnson Creek with one exception. Following construction of the S. 200 Street Bridge, an area on the west bank of the Green River that had been graded and used as an equipment storage and staging area was revegetated (see Appendix). The revegetation work was not completed as part of any required mitigation or enhancement project (Mike Mactutis, City of Kent, e-mail conversation, ' Approximately 1.2 acres of area below the ordinary high water mark of the Green River will qualify as wetland creation and is being credited as mitigation for wetland impacts in addition to qualifying as fish habitat mitigation. Wetlands adjacent to instream habitat provide excellent juvenile fish rearing and refuge habitat. For accounting purposes, if these created wetlands are removed from fish habitat credit, the overall fish habitat mitigation ratio is approximately 3.4:1. April 13, 2005 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 04/305. doc Page 5 ACAD DWG.: M: \ACAD \PLATS \03 \03102 \03102e409.dw PLOTTED: 03102e409.dwg LCARPE 03/28/05 15:49 40 30 20 to 0 411111r MIMMEEMINIONI N • p.'^ \ � • 0 0 30 60 MI INN 11•11 SCALE PROPOSED LEVEE ELEV. 35.0 PROPOSED LEVEE ELEV. 35.0 120 I" = 60' EXISTING LEVEE (FRAGER RD.) 40 a EXISTING GROUND AMIT7711111111,1911111011•Lailli14 11111 30 te N mw1a.r ��)w�i i ✓` / / > %ji / . / �y ear ...8 ' .... ass i , ,\ MF' a 'ry. `� �• . Q ��1i� \i \7 \��0��• • V V Nl�i •-4" ".∎ . �\` j ` ` %\� ` ` l�it�i \�i��:1� / ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ V /./ BOTTOM ELEV. 5.0 SECTION B - B 111/771,7 ;';' MMEMEWECEOP QN mramma mmormr mmum s • V. 140 ,' +'11111 IOR11111111MINN3[q•.1',i /_111 a '�Wwli1 liENNN ��L'LzL E ��( Ilff�f�fifili�i ►Ga!�\!�'.\:.,. i�! - . ■■■.■ 1,4�i1o..�i. /i /i /i t� /i /i' , • s,,' %s•/i. % T % %i ` % A:Ai> %r> %r� %i�iS� % %i�:G� of?. /AA %i�' %i �� %) % �l i! • � • �% i %iti %i�yy - % %t %i ..' '' \ %� %i. %�i'i� %i. �• �• �V \ • /. / /. / /. / /. / /. / /. /. /. /. - . /./ / /. /. / . BOTTOM ELEV. 5.0 EXISTING LEVEE (FRAGER RD.) SECTION A - A EXISTING GROUND 40 30 20 0 40 30 20 10 0 0 !GOLDSMITH g & ASSOCIATESi av nu S ErpheeMg - Lana Use Plonntp - Survetiing 1215 114h Averue SE, Belevue, WA 98004, P.O. Boot 3565, Bellevue. WA 98009 OFRCE:14251442-108Q FAX 1425) 462.7719. stafg' oklotVhe*gnee lg.arn 9 FIGURE 3 TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT GREEN RIVER OFF- CHANNEL HABITAT RESTORATION AREA Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington March 24, 2005). Sections of the bank approximately 250 feet long on either side of the bridge were replanted with native shrubs and trees (City of Kent and King County 1997). The revegetated area to the north of the bridge will be eliminated during construction of the Green River Off- channel Habitat Restoration Area. The newly created levee banks will be replanted with a mix of species similar to what was planted by the City with the exception of the spruce which grows too large to plant on the levee under Army Corps regulations (Raedeke 2005). The proposed habitat restoration will create a rapid expansion of river width downstream of the S. 200` Street Bridge, from the current channel width of about 200 feet to about 600 feet. The restoration will widen the river for about 800 lineal feet, or about 4 channel widths, before reconnecting to the existing channel bank, just before the apex of the next bend downstream. Based on a qualitative analysis of the proposed action, the project hydrologist (Ken Rood, Northwest Hydraulics, personal conversation) expects changes to flow patterns will generally consist of the following: • Flows at the upstream end of the habitat restoration area will separate from the main flow and consist of slack or standing water at low flows and, potentially, a slowly circulating eddy at high flows. This area will extend downstream along much of the habitat area. • The flow in the main channel will expand and higher velocities may be directed at the downstream end of the excavated bank, where it transitions back to the existing bank. This is a potential erosion site and a smooth transition and bank protection is proposed to prevent erosion here (see the following section). • The flow expansion is expected to reduce the potential for erosion along the right bank and may result in formation of a small bar opposite the downstream end of the habitat restoration area. Bar formation may contribute to bank erosion on the opposite bank. • The changes in flow patterns are also expected to cause channel adjustments through deposition of bedload and suspended sediment. Bedload sediments (coarse sand) will be deposited along the left side of the river, forming a long ridge or bar starting at the top of the opening and extending downstream. The bar may ultimately reach elevations of 8 to 10 feet (3 to five feet above the bed; based on observed point bar heights nearby in the river) and may join to the bank at the downstream end of the habitat area, potentially isolating the habitat area at low flows. Measures to prevent formation of an isolated pool are proposed (see the following section). Relatively slow development of the bar is anticipated based on the predicted low rates of bedload transport. In the absence of a large flood it may take several years to form. • Suspended sediments will likely be carried into the slack water zone and deposited. Fine sand will likely initially deposit at the downstream end of the habitat area with silt and clay deposited along the left bank towards the head of the habitat area. Initial deposits are likely to occur well below ordinary high water, on the shallow lower bank and on the flat bottom of the habitat area. The rates of deposition are not known and cannot be easily calculated, as they depend upon sediment concentrations and the rate of influx. However, it is thought that it will take many years to fill the off- channel area to the elevation of the bar formed along the edge of the area. April 13, 2005 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 04I305.doc Page 8 Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington Changes in stream hydraulics resulting from development of the off - channel habitat area may subject the left (west) bank near the downstream end of the project to increased scour potential. To prevent erosion along this bank, bioengineering bank treatments and construction of a logjam to deflect flows away from this section of bank is proposed, and are expected to prevent the need for rock riprap or other hard protection (Northwest Hydraulics, Ken Rood, personal communication). Given the low mean water velocities in the Green River, bioengineering is a practical erosion treatment. Dense vegetative plantings and appropriate placement of large woody debris are expected to be fully protective of the new shoreline when combined with appropriate sloping of the banks. Deposition is predicted to occur in the habitat area and on the right (east) bank opposite the downstream end of the habitat area. Due to existing limited habitat quality and minimal expected deposition, sediment depositing on the right bank is of limited concern and does not require treatment. Deposition in the habitat area could reduce its functional value over time. Potential isolation of the habitat area by bar formation and gradual filling of the habitat area by suspended sediment deposition could eventually affect summer rearing habitat were it left unmitigated. To prevent formation of a continuous sediment bar across the mouth of the habitat area during low flows construction of logjams at the upstream and downstream end of the habitat area are proposed to cause local scour and maintain low bed elevations (Figure 2). This is typical bioengineering practice for this type of situation. The two logjams would be positioned so they project into the flow, cause velocities to dive over the structures, and scour the local streambed. Spur -type features are commonly constructed at water intake sites to help prevent deposition and maintain local bed levels and are expected to be successful in this application. The logjams would provide a "natural" solution to prevent formation of an isolated pool and can provide other aquatic habitat benefits such as overhead cover and a nutrient source. The logjams would maintain sediment in suspension through the hydraulic energy of water spilling over and around the jams, maintaining openings through a developing sand bar. While sediment deposition will occur, the design will ensure that pathways are maintained so that fish can enter and exit nearshore habitat without the need for manual sediment removal. A numeric hydraulic model will be developed to predict velocities, depths and water levels after construction of the proposed habitat area and to finalize design features such as jam placement, size, and orientation. Though widening the river at this location should mitigate any effect the log jams may have on flood levels, the model will also be used to confirm this assumption. Monitoring together with adaptive management will ensure the design functions as expected in the future. To avoid the need for extensive maintenance, the log jams will be overbuilt under the assumption that it will require less disturbance to move, shorten, or eliminate logs from the existing jam, if needed by observation of sediment accumulations during the monitoring period, than it would to install new logs. April 13, 2005 Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 9 Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington 3.0 JOHNSON DITCH (CREEK) 3.1 Existing Condition Johnson Ditch (WRIA 09 -0038) is currently maintained by King County Drainage District #2 as an agricultural drainage ditch. The ditch was constructed sometime before 1917 to drain area wetlands and carry drainage from hillside seeps to the Green River. Meeting records from the Board of Drainage Commissioners show maintenance expenditures underway in the fall of 1917 General Land Office (GLO) survey maps from 1863 show pre - settlement floodplain in this area was primarily wetland with numerous natural springs and no defined tributary to the Green River (Collins and Sheikh 2004). The area was described as "an extensive cranberry marsh" in 1863 by GLO surveyors. Under existing conditions, perennial drainage is collected along S. 204 Street from adjacent agricultural fields and pastures off-site, from seeps on the hillside to the west on either side of S. 200 Street, and from the Johnson Ditch watershed extending southward off-site (Daley Design 2001). The ditch currently angles northeast away from S. 204 Street on its path to the Green River where it enters via piped outfall near RM 17.4. Two culverts, a 150 -foot long by 24 -inch pipe and a 65 -foot long by 36 -inch pipe currently carry flow from the ditch under the levee to an outfall located near elevation 15 -feet. The outfall has been fitted with a gate to prevent flooding. The gate is often blocked by debris or vandalized and remains in a partially open position. Under these conditions fish are believed to migrate upstream into the ditch under some flow conditions (Daley Design 2000). The on -site channel at the OHWM ranges from about 5 feet to about 20 feet wide and from 6 inches to about 2 feet deep. It is unconfined where adjacent to S. 204 Street but drops into a highly confined ditch between the culvert under S. 204 Street and the Green River. Channel gradient is approximately 0.1 percent, and substrates consist of fine silts and sands. No habitat suitable for spawning was observed during surveys to describe pre - project conditions. The reach provides some winter and summer rearing opportunities in shallow runs and pools. Water quality in the stream is considered to be poor relative to fish use requirements due to low dissolved oxygen and low pH. The presence of riparian vegetation depends on the last time the ditch was cleaned and dredged. The most recent maintenance by King County Drainage District No. 2 was primarily for removal of reed canarygrass and took place in September 2001. Currently, several years' growth of willow, Himalayan blackberry, and dense reed canary grass cover most of the banks in a narrow corridor between two crop fields. South 204 Street immediately abuts the right bank of the creek for about 1,100 feet along the western end. Few fish surveys have specifically targeted the project site. No salmon or trout were recorded in surveys by the City of Tukwila (Jones and Stokes 1990) or the applicant (Daley Design 2000), though agency habitat biologists from King County and WDFW have reportedly observed 2 Resolutions passed at the November 1, 1917 special meeting of the Board of Drainage Commissioners of Drainage District Number Two included $960 for construction funding and $1,000 for a maintenance fund. Claims allowed at the December 7, 1917 board meeting include four amounts to three different people for "cleaning ditch." April 13, 2005 Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 10 Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington salmonids in Johnson Ditch in the past. The Priority Habitat and Species database shows no known use of the site but this only indicates no confirmed sightings (WDFW 2004). Electrofishing surveys have recorded observations of threespine stickleback and sculpin (Daley Design 2000). A local resident reported capturing trout from the stream when he was a child some 20 to 30 years ago. Under current conditions, it is likely that salmonids occasionally access Johnson Ditch and its tributaries during suitable flows when the flood gate is stuck open. Johnson Ditch is assumed to be fish - bearing. 3.2 Proposed Mitigation The Johnson Ditch mitigation project will create a meandering stream channel designed to provide good quality summer rearing and winter refuge habitats. Approximately 1,350 feet of the current ditch will be abandoned in favor of a newly constructed channel and associated floodplain (Figures 4 and 5). The riparian area will be planted with native species including emergents, herbs, shrubs, and large trees to enhance riparian habitat functions and values. The plants have been selected and located to provide a dense overhanging cover of native species over time. A mixture of palustrine emergent species, scrub -shrub species, and trees are proposed including rushes, sedges, willow, dogwood, salmonberry, western red cedar, and big leaf maple among others (Raedeke 2005). When the channel floods, the plants will slow the water's velocity along the shoreline, providing refuge habitat for fish and help protect banks from erosion. Runoff from S. 204 Street will work its way through the vegetation which will help remove sediment and pollutants. The dense plantings will fully shade the corridor over time helping to eliminate potential infestations of non - native species such as reed canary grass and Himalayan blackberry. Complete planting details are provided in Raedeke 2005. Large woody debris will be anchored to the banks to provide instream structure, water velocity modification, macroinvertebrate substrate, and amphibian shelter. A new 200 -foot long by 48 -inch culvert will be located at a flat grade through the Green River levee at an elevation of 13 -feet. A fish - passable flood gate will be installed at the confluence to the Green River to allow fish to migrate through the culvert and into the tributary under most flow conditions. The new Johnson Creek channel will connect back into the existing channel near the proposed Wetland 10 and 11 enhancements. Potential sedimentation of Johnson Creek in the future will be a function of stream velocity, channel profile, and sediment supply. The proposed Johnson Creek layout includes a larger outfall culvert through the Green River levee and a slightly higher gradient. Thus velocities in the new channel are expected to be similar to or slightly higher than existing channel velocities (Larry Karpack, Northwest Hydraulics, personal communication). Under existing conditions, sedimentation of the channel has not generally been an issue. Ditch cleaning was last carried out in 2001 and very little additional sediment has accumulated in the interim. Past cleaning activities have reportedly been undertaken primarily to remove clogging vegetation (reed canarygrass) rather than sediment (Mark Segale, Segale Properties, personal communication). The Tukwila South project will not lead to an increase in sediment input to Johnson Creek, and may in fact result in reduced sediment loads due to the elimination of existing farmlands bordering the channel, elimination of steep banks now along the ditch that periodically slough April 13, 2005 Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 11 Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington sediment into the channel, and a slight increase in the hydraulic energy passing through the channel. Runoff from the proposed site development will be treated and ordinarily discharge to the Green River by a separate outfall; discharging to Johnson Creek only during overflow conditions when the Creek area will be flooded due to high Green River flow elevations. Given (1) that sediment input potential to the Johnson Creek system will be reduced, (2) hydraulic energy increased somewhat, and (3) there has been no adverse collection of sediment in the existing ditched channel in the 4 '/2 years since the last ditch maintenance, it is reasonable to conclude the proposed Johnson Creek restoration project will not have sedimentation problems. Enhancement, rehabilitation, and creation of approximately 35 acres of wetland tributary to Johnson Creek, and elimination/modification of some of the agricultural ditches dug historically to drain these wetlands will also indirectly benefit fish. The wetland mitigation plan is described by Raedeke (2005). Replacement of the ditches and crop /pasture lands with functional wetlands will re- establish a more natural hydrologic flow regime. Native plants re- introduced to replace the former agricultural crops and exotic pasture grass species will provide temperature modification and nutrient benefits. April 13, 2005 Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 12 t 0 !GOLDSMITH g & ASSOCIATES shc. • Engineering - Land Use Planning - Surveying 1215 1141h Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98004, P,O. Box 3565, Bellevue, WA 98039 OFFICE: (425) 462-1080, FAX (425) 462.7719, slot4goldsrrithenglnee6ng.com / — — SITE PERIMETER 0 EXISTING740H1jSON DITCH TO BE REL: ATED LEGEND: 100 II r z - Ri c y - s - o - fir — OU AL TH le Flo G "Fl INST NEW JOHNSON CREEK 200 400 SCALE: I" = 200' FIGURE 4 ON TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT JOHNSON CREEK REALIGNMENT M: \ACAO \PLATS \03 \03102 \03102e411.dwg PLOTTED: 03102e411.dwg LCARPE 03/28/05 15:51 0 APPROX. EXISTING JOHNSON EXISTING GROUND (TYPICAL) FILL TO SITE GRADE RELOCATED FLOOD PROTECTION BARRIER DIKE TYPICAL CROSS- SECTION 0 20 40 Ma NM SCALE PROPOSED JOHNSON CREEK OHWM 80 120 I " =40' eo ;• , �0 !GOLDSMITH ‘ • 12151lghAvenue SE, Belem. WA 98034. P,O.8ox3565.8eBawe. WA 98039 OFFICF:1425) 462 -1080. FAX 1425) 462.7719. sicit@gollsrrifhenOneeft.can FIGURE 5 TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT JOHNSON CREEK RESTORATION PLAN TYPICAL CROSS - SECTION Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington 4.0 MONITORING The purposes of the instream habitat monitoring program are: (1) to document physical and biological characteristics of the newly created stream and off - channel habitat; and (2) to ensure that design goals and objectives along with applicable permit specifications are met. Riparian buffer monitoring will be carried out in conjunction with the wetland plant monitoring. Details are provided by Raedeke (2005). The monitoring process will consist of three distinct phases: (1) construction monitoring; (2) compliance monitoring; and (3) long -term monitoring. The following sections describe elements of an effective monitoring program and outline conceptual features of the various detailed monitoring programs that will be developed for the Tukwila South Project. 4.1 Construction Monitoring Aquatic habitat monitoring during construction is separated into two components. The first deals with noise, visual, and direct instream disturbances created as work takes place in or adjacent to fish- bearing waters. These types of disturbances can significantly reduce habitat quality and potentially prevent fish from completing critical parts of their normal life - history phase (e.g. upstream migration). The second component deals with construction of new aquatic habitat designed to provide fish habitat. Two potential construction disturbance issues have been identified for the Tukwila South Project: (1) filling of ditches, and (2) noise and visual disturbances to upstream migrants in the Green River. No watercourse filling will proceed until all available instream habitat has been thoroughly electroshocked or seined to remove as many fish and amphibians as practicable. These actions will be conducted under terms of the Scientific Collection Permit required by WDFW. Each end of the watercourse to be filled will be blocked off with netting. Fish and amphibians will be removed following standard WDFW protocols and quickly transported to the nearest suitable habitat (normally downstream). Once aquatic biota have been removed, the channel will be permanently blocked, any flow will be diverted around the site, and the channel filled. Water quality will be monitored downstream of the construction area. The fisheries biologist will conduct fish removal actions after first receiving appropriate permits and be on -site as necessary during construction to ensure adjacent habitat was adequately protected. If any signs of fish distress or mortality are observed, construction will be halted until appropriate preventative measures can be undertaken. WDFW will be contacted to discuss these measures as required in the HPA permit. During all in -water work activities in the Green Rivera the adult Chinook population will be monitored to ensure actions on the bank are not inhibiting upstream migration for substantial_ numbers of fish. Once a day, during the middle of the day, a trained fisheries biologist will check 3 Instream construction will be limited to the USFWS and NMFS approved work period between August 1 and August 31. April 13, 2005 Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.dac CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 15 Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington the river downstream of the work area for several hundred feet. Should an unusually large number of fish be observed waiting downstream of the site (numbers to be determined in conjunction with tribal and WDFW fisheries biologists), construction will be temporarily halted to allow fish an opportunity to swim past the site with less disturbance. Once the majority of fish have moved upstream, or if the fish did not move upstream after 60 minutes, work will be allowed to proceed. Fish movement during non - working hours will never be blocked. Prior to filling of any watercourses or construction within 50 feet of the Green River we recommend a pre - construction meeting to include the contractor, fisheries biologist, water quality biologist, and agency representatives. The purpose of the meeting will be to review permitting requirements, discuss the mitigation plan requirements, establish a pathway of communication during construction, agree upon the construction sequence, and address and resolve any questions. The second component of instream habitat monitoring deals with ensuring new habitat construction meets all goals of the design and permits. Again, we recommend a pre - construction meeting of the personnel responsible for the design and those responsible for establishment of instream habitats. The purpose of the meeting will be to review the intent of the mitigation plan, establish a pathway of communication during construction, agree upon the construction sequence, and address and resolve any questions. The project fisheries biologist will be present on -site during the various stages of project implementation. Duties will be to: (1) assist in laying out the bounds of the new stream channel; (2) inspect the material to be used for large woody debris and identify their final placement locations; (3) assist equipment operators with precise construction of habitat features as designed in the plans; (4) make field adjustments to the designs as necessary to conform to field conditions; and (5) resolve problems that arise during restoration, thus lessening problems that might occur later during the long -term monitoring phase. 4.2 Compliance Monitoring Compliance monitoring consists of evaluating streams and buffers immediately after construction. The objectives will be to verify that all design features, as agreed to in the various plans, have been correctly and fully implemented, and that any changes made in the field are consistent with the intent of the design. Evaluation of the planting areas after restoration will be done by the landscape architect and project wetland biologist and is described further by Raedeke (2005). Evaluation of the instream work will be completed by the project fisheries biologist. Evaluation standards and criteria are discussed below. The compliance monitoring phase will conclude with the preparation of a brief compliance report from the project biologists. The report will verify that all design features have been correctly, fully, and successfully incorporated, and if not, detail what is required to ensure that successful incorporation of all design features are constructed. Substantive changes made in the plans will be noted in the compliance report and on the drawings for use during the long -term monitoring phase. Information on changes will include what was done, where, why, at whose request, and the result of the change. Locations of April 13, 2005 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.doc Page 16 Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington monitoring stations established for the compliance monitoring will be identified on the as-built plans. The planting and instream habitat design plans together with the compliance report will document "as- built" conditions at the time of construction compliance. The instream habitat compliance report will detail the final physical characteristics of new habitat including stream lengths, widths, and depths (average and range at ordinary high water mark). Large woody debris pieces will be counted and an average size reported. Log jams will be described in terms of number of logs, range and average of log size used, center of pile, and anchoring details. Representative monitoring stations will be established for photo - documentation over the long -term monitoring program. The compliance report and as-built drawings will be submitted to the City of Tukwila, the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 4.3 Long - Term Monitoring Monitoring to evaluate the success of instream habitat creation shall take place once each summer for the first five years after completion of the work. Monitoring shall evaluate each of the following factors: o Channel and Bank Erosion o Fish Access o Habitat Suitability o Fish Stranding o Riparian Vegetation Channel and Bank Erosion The purpose of the plan is to restore Johnson Creek and the Green River off- channel area to a relatively natural condition, thus a certain amount of erosion is to be expected as the channels adjust to the new configuration. During years with unusually heavy flows, bank erosion may be considerable. However, overall habitat stability will be assessed to ensure construction efforts have resulted in a relatively stable environment with no unusually slide -prone or erosive features. Problem areas could be those that are slumping or eroding due to misguided stormwater runoff or where reconfiguration of the channel has resulted in flows being increased along a bank for example. Erosion of areas adjacent to the channels is expected to abate somewhat as vegetation matures. Those areas that still show unusually high erosion after 5 years will be noted in the report and discussions with permitting agencies undertaken to identify any appropriate additional mitigation work. Bed erosion (and or deposition) is expected to be continuous and will not be evaluated except in the case where fish access or stranding becomes an issue (discussed below). Fish Access Fish access to the new off- channel refuge and holding area in the Green River, and from the Green River into Johnson Creek will be evaluated each year to ensure passage into the new habitat is maintained. While some sediment deposition in the new Green River habitat area is April 13, 2005 Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 17 Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington expected, the deposition patterns are not expected to result in the off - channel rearing area becoming isolated to fish. Deposition will be evaluated and mapped each year during the low flow period. If isolation of significant portions of habitat becomes a concern, it will be noted in the report and discussions with permitting agencies undertaken to identify any appropriate additional mitigation work. This mitigation might consist of placement of bed roughness material (e.g. boulders, LWD) to change flow patterns. The new flap gate installed on the culvert outlet from Johnson Creek to the Green River will be periodically evaluated to assess flood protection and fish access functions. Any adjustments will be noted in the report. Habitat Suitability Design goals require creation of off- channel rearing and holding habitat in Johnson Creek and the Green River. A qualitative assessment of select areas of both sites will be made each year to describe habitat suitability in terms of average channel depths, widths, and flow velocities. As instream habitat conditions are expected to remain in a state of natural and constant flux, habitat descriptions will be qualitative in nature and be used only to determine whether overall habitat goals are being met. Any concerns will be addressed in the annual report. Riparian vegetation will be assessed for expected development of shade, bank stability, overhead cover, and other functions. Photos will be taken each year to record conditions and document any changes. These will also be included in the report. Fish Stranding Final design considerations for new and restored channels and wetlands shall include features to ensure that "attractive nuisances" such as isolated ponding areas or channels are not intentionally created. Monitoring shall include evaluation of any potential stranding hazard locations that might develop over time and observations of any stranded fish or carcasses. Riparian Vegetation Vegetation planted adjacent to the Green River and Johnson Creek habitat creation areas will be monitored in conjunction with the wetland vegetation monitoring. The vegetation monitoring plan is described in detail by Raedeke (2005). April 13, 2005 Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 18 Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington 5.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The overall evaluation criteria will be whether or not aquatic features created by the project provide usable fish habitat rather than try to quantify changes in the habitat. Aquatic habitat quality and use by fish is dependent on a variety of factors, many of which are out of control of the project designers and owners (flow, sediment movement, ocean conditions, etc.). Aquatic habitat quality in any system changes constantly and fish use varies in response. Monitoring data will be gathered which will allow resource agencies to judge whether or not the habitat continues to function in a manner conducive to use by regional fisheries resources for rearing and refuge as dictated by the seasons. Riparian vegetation performance standards are provided in Raedeke 2005. 5.1 Channel and Bank Erosion Channel banks should be relatively stable with no unusually large erosive features. Unacceptable conditions will include any areas that are slumping or eroding due to actions directly related to construction of the project, or large areas of erosion where no manmade cause is evident. Small areas of bank erosion are to be expected as the stream settles into its new channel. If erosion leads to a significant loss of planted material, it may be allowed to continue if deemed part of a natural process. However, an equivalent number of plants will be replanted in any new depositional areas created as a result of channel movements. 5.2 Fish Access The new Green River off - channel habitat area and Johnson Creek should remain accessible to fish in the Green River at all times except during summer low flows when water depths may be inadequate to allow fish to move through the new flap gate. Should deposition appear to hinder access to the habitat area, an hydraulic engineer will be called for further inspection. The new flap gate should operate as designed to prevent flooding and stay open during non - flooding periods. Any adjustments should be worked out during the five years of monitoring. 5.3 Habitat Suitability The Green River off- channel habitat area should continue to provide off - channel rearing area for juvenile fish, especially during the winter and spring migration periods. Minimum depths over 50 percent or more of the created habitat area should not diminish below 2 to 3 feet during this period in the normal water year. Key pieces of large woody debris should remain in the vicinity of where it was originally anchored. Pieces that move should be evaluated for function and if found lacking (i.e. no longer in the channel or not available for future recruitment), should be moved back to the channel. Much of the habitat diversity (channel meanders, LWD, etc.) built into Johnson Creek should remain though some channel changes are inevitable. 5.4 Fish Stranding Attractive nuisances such as isolated ponding areas or cut -off channels should not develop over time. These could occur in the mainstem Green River as new gravel bars develop in the channel or in the newly created wetlands tributary to Johnson Creek. Monitoring shall include evaluation of any potential stranding hazard locations that might develop and observations of any stranded fish or carcasses. Corrective measures shall be identified as necessary. April 13, 2005 Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 04I305.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 19 Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington April 13, 2005 Segalel Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.doc 6.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN Failure to meet performance standards will result in implementation of contingency measures. Contingency measures will generally consist of: • Developing a plan in conjunction with the appropriate agencies, • Carrying out the plan, and • Additional monitoring to ensure repairs have corrected the problem and led to a reasonable expectation that performance standards will be met in the future. Due to an inability to anticipate all possible problems and their solutions at this time, it is not possible to develop a detailed contingency plan until specific problems that need to be addressed are known. However, issues of bank erosion will generally be dealt with using bioengineering techniques; fish access problems in the Green River will be solved by moving existing large woody debris as necessary to provide scouring in suitable locations; fish access into Johnson Creek will require additional coordination between the gate manufacturer and maintenance personnel; habitat suitability issues will be worked out with WDFW and generally involve installation of additional habitat features such as LWD, boulders, or plantings; fish stranding involving minor configuration changes to instream habitat will also be coordinated with WDFW. The contingency plan may require extension of the monitoring phase of the project, especially if major changes in the plan are required. Recommendations for identified problems should be made by the project biologist representative in consultation with the project managers and civil engineers. CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 20 Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington 7.0 LITERATURE CITED City of Kent and King County. 1997. West bank shelf conceptual revegetation plan, S. 200 Street, Green River Bridge. City of Kent Engineering Department, Kent, WA., and King County Dept of Transportation. (provided as appendix to this document). Collins B. and A. Sheikh. 2004. Historical aquatic habitats in the Green and Duwamish River Valleys (May 17, 2004 Draft). Report to King County Dept. of Nat. Res. and Parks, Seattle, WA. '77p. Daley Design. 2000. Habitat assessment of Johnson drainage ditch. Consultant's report prepared for Mario Segale. August 12, 2000. 2pp plus appendix. Daley Design. 2001. Amended report and habitat assessment of Johnson Creek drainage system. Consultant's report prepared for Mario Sega le. February 14, 2001. 3pp plus appendix. Jones and Stokes Associates. 1990. City of Tukwila watercourse ratings data sheets. Consultant's report prepared for the City of Tukwila. October 29, 1990. Kerwin, J. and T.S. Nelson. (Eds.). 2000. Habitat limiting factors and reconnaissance assessment report, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Department of Natural Resources. Mullineaux, D.R. 1970. Geology of the Renton, Auburn and Black Diamond quadrangles, King County, WA. USGS Professional Paper 672.92 p. Raedeke. 2005. Wetland mitigation plan, Tukwila South Development. Consultants report prepared for Mark Sega le, La Pianta LLC. Tukwila, WA. 25 pp plus appendices. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2004. Priority habitats and species database search, April 12, 2004. Olympia, Washington. April 13, 2005 Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 21 Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington April 13, 2005 Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 04I305.doc APPENDIX S. 200 Street Planting Plan for West Bank Shelf (City of Kent and King County 1997) CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Page A -1 PLANT LEGEND KEY' QTY.' SCIENTIFIC NAME' COMMON NAME' SIZE' CONDITION' SPACING' TREES • CONIFEROUS 20 Picea sitchensis Sltka Spruce 3 -4' B&B os shown - DECIDUOUS TREES 10 Matus fusca Vestern Crabapple 4 -5' B&B, cont. as shown 0 10 Froxlnus latlfolla Oregon Ash 4 -5' B&B, coat, ns shown SHRUBS 50. Corylus conuta Western Hazelnut 1 gal. container 6' O.C. Lonicera involucrata Black Twinberry 1 gal. container 5' O.C. 100 Physocarpos cupttatus Pacific Nlnebark 1 gal. container 6' ac. I 60 50 Ribes bracteosun Stink Currant 1 gal. container 5' o.c. 100 Rosa Nutkana Nootka Rose 1 gal. container 6' ac 80 Rubus spectablls Salnonberry 1 gal. container 6' o.c. LIVE CUTTINGS 200 Corpus stolonlfera Red Osier Dogwood 2 -3' 1'dlam. stakes 24' o.c. 100 Sallx loslandra Pacific Villa* 2-3' l'dlam. stakes 24' o.c. 100 Snlix scouleriana Scouler's Willow 2 -3' 1'dlam. stakes 24' o.c. 100 Sallx sltchensls Sltka Vlllow 2 -3' 1'dlam. stakes 24' o.c. ADDENDUM NO.1 APPROXIMATE ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE EL 10.0 \\A„ % . I tt‘V V Iral■-1' YtWAXAVAN'ai ginartlittr-Va Ihk NAL L.A. PIAN 1A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP lik ROCKWALL INDUSTRIES INC.7 EASEMENTT 1 / NEW TOP OF SLOPE J Y /� HELF =28 O A - MPH 5/14/97 DESIGNED MPM MAW% VJM CHECKED PRO.IECT 911- PROJECT 4 -3028 SCOLD lneu. 1• ` 20r VERTJA WEST BANK SHELF - CONCEPTUAL REVEGETATION PLAN BAR IS ME rV SDI SCALES TYPICAL PLANTING DETAIL N.T.S. CITY OF KENT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT sae ATM AVE. S. �f'Ri"f�o PM a( w wl NOME TO WOO o w a m warn o 'A'c wor r eec WW1 Pal IMAM WON ISM TOP cR a war A e tat WCa1Uwm COMIC 1101. TYPICAL TREE STAKING DETAIL N.T.S. KING COUNTY at DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION s swauwaiw 'a PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS' A. Solt 1. Amend existing soil by incorporating 2' organic material Into each planting hole, mixing well with existing soil. Product shall be 100X composted hardwood bark, free of all noxious weed, chemicals, or toxic matertals. Particle size shall be fine with 100X passing through a 7/16' screen. Cedar Grove Compost (or equivalent) Is recommended. B. Planting 1. Do not disturb existing native vegegatlon. 2. Excavate plant hole twice as wide In diameter than the diameter of the rootball. 3. Set plant in It's normal up -right growing position and at the same depth as originally grown. Pull burlap back from top 1/3 of root ball on B&B material. Backfill completely around roots with existing soli as amended under A. Soli above, eliminating all voids. Adjust the plant to a vertical position. Form 2' soli berm around shrubs and trees to form a water basin. 4. Staking' Stake all trees with three 2x2 stakes per tree staking detail. Drive stake securely into firm soil below plant hole. Place stake 12' from trunk of tree, do not drive through rootball. Tle trunk to stake with 12 gauge aluminum wire encased In rubber hose and twisted Into a figure eight between trunk and stake. Vire must not be In contact with trunk (only rubber hose). 5. Mulch' All planted areas shall receive a two Inch layer of organic material as specified under A. Soil. C. Maintenance 1. Hand water until ground Is saturated once per week through first growing season. WEST BANK SHELF KING COUNTY /CITY OF KENT c onnTI-1 qT /C:RFFN RIVFR RRIDcF SHEET Flt F Ht)_ C5 OF 32 Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington E -mail chain showing source and purpose of preceding drawing: Original Message From: Mactutis, Mike [ mailto:MMactutis @ci.kent.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 1:12 PM To: Jay Babcock Subject: RE: S. 200th Bridge Jay, I don't have a letter stating that. There would be letters, reports, permits and other correspondence if this was a mitigation or enhancement project, but since it was simply revegetating the riverbank that was graded during the bridge construction, the vegetation plan is all the documentation I have. Mike Original Message From: Jay Babcock [mailto:jbabcock @segalebp.com] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 9:05 AM To: Mactutis, Mike Subject: RE: S. 200th Bridge Thank you! Mike, could you email me a note or a copy of the letter you have to King Co. stating that this was a re vegetation project and not a wetland enhancement or mitigation area. Thanks Jay Original Message From: Mactutis, Mike [ mailto:MMactutis @ci.kent.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 8:28 AM To: Jay Babcock Subject: FW: S. 200th Bridge Original Message From: Nopp, Fauna [mailto:Fauna.Nopp @METROKC.GOV] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 4:36 PM To: Mactutis, Mike Subject: FW: S. 200th Bridge Hi Mike, Attached is the planting plan you requested in an ACAD file. Let me know if you have any problems opening it. I can also send you a hard copy if you'd like. I just need your mailing address. «BRIDGE.ZIP» April 13, 2005 Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Page A -3 Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation plan Tukwila, Washington FAUNA 6. NOPP Landscape Architect, Capital Projects & Open Space Water and Land Resources Division King County Department of Natural Resources & Parks 201 S. Jackson St., Suite 600 Mai/ Stop - KSC NR -0600 Seatt /e, Wa 98104 206 - 296 -8499 fauna.nopp@metrokc.gov April 13, 2005 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Segale/ Fisheries Mitigation plan 041305.doc Page A -4 WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN Tukwila South Development Tukwila, Washington RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. April 20, 2005 Prepared for: Title: Project Number: 2001 - 014 -003 Prepared by: Date: April 20, 2005 Mr. Mark Segale LaPianta, LLC P.O. Box 88028 Tukwila, Washington 98138 -2028 Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Tukwila South Property Tukwila, Washington RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5711 Northeast 63rd Street Seattle, Washington 98115 (206) 525 -8122 Principal: Kenneth J. Raedeke, Ph.D. Certified Senior Ecologist, ESA Project Manager: Christopher W. Wright, B.S. Soil and Wetland Scientist Project Personnel: G. Emmett Pritchard, B.S. Ecologist Gail W. Livingstone, B.S.L.A. Natural Resource Planner Claude McKenzie, B.A Landscape Architect Lisa Danielski, B.A. Wetland Ecologist/Botanist TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF TABLES iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Location 1 1.2 Existing Conditions — Wetland Delineation 1 1.3 Impacts — Project Description 2 2.0 MITIGATION OVERVIEW 4 2.1 Mitigation Approach and Sequence 4 2.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives 10 3.0 MITIGATION PLAN 11 3.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork 12 3.2 Establishment of Wetland Plant Communities 12 3.3 Landscape Maintenance and Protection 14 4.0 MONITORING PLAN 16 4.1 Construction Monitoring 16 4.2 Compliance Monitoring 16 4.3 Long -Term Monitoring 17 5.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 19 6.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 21 7.0 LIMITATIONS 22 8.0 LITERATURE CITED 23 FIGURES AND TABLES 26 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Project Vicinity and Key Map 27 2. Wetland Grading Plan 28 3. Wetland Planting Plan 29 4. Johnson Creek Grading Plan 30 5. Johnson Creek Planting Plan 31 6. Green River Off- channel Habitat Grading Plan 32 7. Green River Off - channel Habitat Planting Plan 33 8. Plant Schedules 34 9. Planting Details 35 10. Construction Notes 36 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Compensatory wetland mitigation ratios and mitigation provided 37 2. Wetland function and values comparison 38 3. Scientific and common names of plants proposed for site 40 4. Factors adversely affecting wetland creation or enhancement and contingencies to ensure success 41 iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes the wetland mitigation measures to be implemented to replace wetland habitat losses resulting from the proposed development of the Tukwila South Property. This report and attached drawings outline proposed plans for enhancement of existing degraded wetlands, rehabilitation of previously altered wetlands, and creation of new wetland habitats to compensate for impacts to approximately 9.45 acres of wetland habitat on -site. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project area occurs west of the Green River between S. 178 Street and S. 204 Street, east of Orillia Road in Tukwila Washington (Figure 1). The proposed compensatory wetland mitigation areas are located in the southern and eastern portions of the Tukwila South project area (Figure 1). The Tukwila South Property is an approximately 500 acre property located in Section 3, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in the City of Tukwila, Washington (Figure 1). The property lies east of Orillia Road and west of the Green River between S. 178 Street and S. 204 Street. A portion of the property that is included in the compensatory mitigation planning area extends south of S. 204 Street. Project area boundaries are depicted on maps prepared by Hugh G. Goldsmith and Associates, Inc. 1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS — WETLAND DELINEATION Seventeen wetlands with a total area of nearly 49 acres were identified and delineated on the property. Wetland descriptions are found in the Wetland Assessment (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2005b) report prepared for the Tukwila South draft EIS. Vegetation in the rehabilitation mitigation wetland is dominated by reed canarygrass. Scrub -shrub vegetation occurs along the western portions of the rehabilitation mitigation site and includes a mixture of red alder, Scouler's willow, and black cottonwood trees. Johnson Ditch conveys water east from the mitigation site. The proposed off - channel wetland mitigation area and Johnson Creek wetland mitigation area are currently farmed agricultural fields and do not support wetlands at their existing elevations. Wetland portions of the site receive surface water runoff from higher ground to the west of the property as well as seasonally high groundwater. Agricultural drainage ditches convey drainage through or around Wetlands 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the portion of the property between S. 200`" Street and S. 204 Street. The East Fork Johnson Ditch conveys drainage along the east edge of Wetland 11, south of S. 204 Street. Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 1 Continuous groundwater aquifer static water level data from three monitoring wells in the rehabilitation wetlands area are attached as an appendix to this document (October 2003 through March 2005). Groundwater monitoring of the shallow aquifer will continue through the spring and early summer 2005 prior to implementation of the mitigation plan. Data from this monitoring will be used to revise the grading and planting plans if necessary. Shallow piezometers are installed in the compensatory mitigation areas where rehabilitation is proposed. Eight piezometers are in Wetland 11, south of S. 204 Street, six are installed in Wetland 10 between S. 200 Street and S. 204 Street. Water levels in these piezometers will be read and recorded approximately every five days from April 11, 2005 through the early summer, or until they are dry. 1.3 IMPACTS — PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Tukwila South development project is intended to create a viable employment and emerging advanced technology commercial hub in a large -scale campus setting on the 498 -acre site. Fundamental components of the site development concept are the extension and expansion of Southcenter Parkway through the site, and relocation of the flood barrier dike from South 196 Street to the southern boundary of the site (north of South 204 Street). Proposed development of the property would result in alteration of approximately 9.45 acres of existing wetland habitat. Approximately 7.4 acres of the wetlands to be altered are degraded agricultural fields that are annually tilled and planted. The proposed mitigation sites have been used to graze livestock or grow crops and livestock forage for many years. Excavation to allow the East Fork of Johnson Ditch to flow into the wetland rehabilitation area will restore hydrology to large portions of the mitigation area previously altered by ditching and tilling of the agricultural field. A natural flow regime Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan Apri120, 2005 2 The wetland mitigation plan would remove reed canarygrass and expand the area of scrub -shrub and forested wetland vegetation on the site. Grading of the existing degraded wetlands would alter the hydrologic regime in portions of the mitigation area by varying elevation within a relatively low range (less than 2 feet). Hydrology would be rehabilitated in most of Wetlands 10 and 11 by breaking all drainage tiles and by either plugging and dispersing drainage ditch water through the rehabilitated wetland areas, or excavation into a (largely) offsite drainage ditch at the point where it enters the property to allow drainage flow to disperse through a rehabilitated wetland area. These activities, in combination with soil scarification, cessation of mowing, removal of invasive species, removal of grazing, establishment of native plant communities, and monitoring to prevent invasive re- establishment and ensure native plant success, are proposed to establish wetland plant communities and habitat functions and values that do not currently occur on the site. will be restored to Wetland 11 by breaching a portion of the west bank of East Fork Johnson Ditch. The establishment of natural flows and establishment of a native plant community is anticipated to rehabilitate 21.7 acres of Wetland 11. Water that currently flows from Wetland 13, north of S. 200 Street will be routed to the northern portion of the wetland rehabilitation area to restore hydrologic regimes in the wetlands and restore previously affected flow paths. Two linear drainage ditches in the northern portion of the wetland rehabilitation area that now drain Wetland 10 would be blocked and dispersed through the rehabilitated wetland. A drainage ditch conveying flow around Wetland 10 would be plugged and dispersed into the eastern portion of Wetland 10. Drainage tiles would be broken in Wetland 10. These activities are anticipated to rehabilitate the eastern and southern 6.1 acres of Wetland 10. Wetland enhancement would involve excavation and grading, removal of invasive species, breaking drainage tiles, and establishment of native plant communities in areas within Wetlands 10 and 11 that are degraded by invasive plants, mowing, and livestock grazing. The portion of Wetland 10 with forested scrub -shrub native plant community characteristics and the small stream J -2 would be retained within the compensatory mitigation plan, but invasive plant species would be removed, and native plant communities would be re- established. 3 Wetland creation would involve excavation and grading of three existing upland areas in order to establish elevations that will support wetland hydrology. The three areas of wetland creation are: (1) conversion of upland to wetland within the northwest portion of Wetland 10; (2) creation of wetland along the Green River within an Off - Channel Habitat Restoration Area by relocation of the Green River levee and excavation on the river side of the relocated levee; and (3) creation of wetland associated with a restored Johnson Creek channel, a tributary to the Green River which conveys drainage from the Wetland 10 and 11 compensatory mitigation areas to the Green River. The newly graded areas will be planted with species adapted to the hydrologic regimes determined by measurements from: (1) shallow groundwater monitoring wells since October 2003, for the purposes of wetland creation adjacent to the new Johnson Creek channel, and wetland rehabilitation, enhancement, and creation in Wetlands 10 and 11; and (2) Green River stage height flow duration data for wetland creation adjacent to the Green River. All wetland mitigation areas will, at a minimum, have wetland hydrology within the majority of the root zone (saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface) for at least 12.5% of the growing season. Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 2.0 MITIGATION OVERVIEW Mitigation has been defined by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 197- 11 -768; cf. Cooper 1987), and more recently in a Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE (Memorandum 1989). In order of desirability, mitigation may include: 1. Avoidance - avoiding impacts by not taking action or parts of an action; 2. Minimization - minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; 3. Compensatory Mitigation - which may involve: a) repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; b) replacing or creating substitute resources or environments; c) mitigation banking. 2.1 MITIGATION APPROACH AND SEQUENCE 2.1.1 Avoidance of Impacts Direct impacts (i.e., fill or excavation) to on -site wetlands and their buffers would be largely avoided under the proposed plan. Direct impacts are limited to 20% of wetlands on the property. Thus, 80% of the existing wetland acreage on -site would be retained under the proposed development. Additionally, the majority (7.47 acres of 9.45 acres) of the proposed fill will be to farmed wetlands that are annually tilled and planted with corn. The relationship between the Project's Purpose and Need and explanation for the causes of all wetland impacts is described in the Explanation of Unavoidable Wetland and Stream Impacts, which is attached to the JARPA application for the project in Section 7b. Since the JARPA application, a summary table specifically identifying impacts and their causes to each wetland and stream has been added to the Explanation. The Explanation and summary table are attached as appendix to this document. 2.1.2 Minimization of Impacts The site plan incorporates a number of design features that would minimize or limit impacts to the wetlands and wildlife, including: • retaining the majority (80 percent) of the existing wetland habitat; • providing functional buffers along the upland edges of the rehabilitated and created Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 4 wetlands on the site; • clearly marking the limits of wetland buffers or setbacks prior to construction activities to prevent inadvertent or unnecessary encroachment; and • installing and maintaining temporary and permanent soil erosion control measures for Wetlands 1, 10, and 11 during and after construction, consistent with Best Management Practices, as required by the City of Tukwila to limit the potential for sediment deposition or erosion in the retained wetlands. 2.1.3 Compensatory Mitigation Overview The Washington Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1 (2004) defines wetland rehabilitation as "actions which provide greater gains in a whole suite of functions both at the site- and landscape - scale." Wetland enhancement is defined as "actions often focused on structural or superficial improvements to a site and generally do not address larger scale environmental processes." (Washington Department of Ecology 2004.) The 2004 Guidance states that the distinction between rehabilitation and enhancement is difficult to define, however, on a specific project, mitigation actions that are determined to be more effective in improving wetland functions would be considered rehabilitation while actions that are less effective in improving wetland functions are considered enhancement. Table 5 in the 2004 Guidance contains examples of site alterations and their relative effectiveness as wetland compensation actions. This portion of the guidance identifies removal of dikes, breaking drainage tiles, and plugging of ditches as actions generally considered rehabilitation. The project cannot feasibly propose removal of the Green River levees to restore flooding to portions of the lower Green River valley, however it is able to break drainage tiles, and wholly plug drainage ditches where they are contained within the property, or excavate to partially breach a significant off -site drainage ditch at the point where it passes into and out of the property. Other actions to counter site alterations from prior activities identified by Table 5 and proposed as part of the wetland rehabilitation and enhancement compensation include cessation of tilling and mowing, scarification, establishment of native plant communities and removal of invasive species (including monitoring to prevent reintroduction), and removal of grazing. This mitigation plan proposes to enhance, rehabilitate, and create wetland habitats on the Tukwila South project site. Enhancement of wetlands would involve removing existing invasive plant species and replanting with native plants. Approximately 4.35 acres of existing wetland would be enhanced. Rehabilitation of wetlands would involve restoring previously present hydrologic regimes to the wetlands by re- routing previously ditched flow paths to the wetland areas and revegetating with plant species associated with Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan Apri120, 2005 5 riparian wetland communities. Approximately 27.8 acres of wetland would be rehabilitated. Creation of wetlands entails excavation of existing uplands in order to establish wetland hydrologic conditions and planting with wetland vegetation species. The mitigation plan intends to create 3.05 acres on new wetland on the Tukwila South property. As proposed, the compensatory wetland mitigation plan provides approximately 2.5 more acres of wetland creation than is required. This area is reserved as a contingency for unanticipated impacts or lack of success in other portions of the mitigation areas. 6 Compensatory mitigation for the impacts to 9.45 acres of wetlands on the Tukwila South Property includes enhancement, rehabilitation, and creation of 35.47 acres of wetland on- site. These actions would provide functional replacement of 12.25 acres of wetland in accordance with the City of Tukwila (2004) Municipal Code: • Enhancement of 4.35 acres of existing on -site wetland at a ratio of 3:1, resulting in 1.45 acres of compensatory mitigation. • Rehabilitation of 27.8 acres of existing on -site wetland at a ratio of 3:1, resulting in 9.27 acres of compensatory mitigation. • Creation of 3.05 acres of new wetland at a ratio of 2:1, resulting in 1.53 acres of compensatory mitigation. The Washington Department of Ecology recommends specific standard mitigation ratios to compensate for wetland impacts. Ecology explains the rationale behind the standard mitigation ratios in its August 2004 draft Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands (Volume 2 Guidance). Appendix 8 -C, Guidance on Buffers and Ratios — Western Washington, lists the basic assumptions for using Ecology's guidance on ratios. These include the following: • The ratios assume compensatory mitigation does not create, restore, or enhance an "atypical" wetland (one that does not naturally fit within the landscape situation). In this case, the project proposes to compensate by constructing wetland communities likely to have been historically present in the lower Green River valley prior to human interventions including White River re- routing, levee construction, dam building, and agricultural fill and ditching. • The ratios are for a concurrent compensatory mitigation project. The compensatory mitigation is concurrent with project construction and on the same site. • The ratios are based on the assumption that the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class of the wetland proposed as compensation is the same as the impacted wetland. The project largely proposes to create, rehabilitate, and enhance wetlands of the same HGM class, with the exception of wetland creation along the Green River. Direct riverine- associated wetlands are now largely missing along the Green River Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 because of the levees constructed early last century; however that type of wetland was historically present in the lower Green River valley • Ratios for projects in which the HGM class of wetlands is not the same as that of the impacted wetland should be determined on a case -by -case basis using the recommended ratios as a starting point. The project proposes to use the recommended ratios for the Green River associated wetland creation. For the purposes of this project, it is proposed that compensatory mitigation ratios for impacts to the farmed wetlands be two times the recommended standard creation ratio for enhancement and 1.25 times the recommended standard creation ratio for rehabilitation. The Department of Ecology Volume 2 Guidance allows for reduction of mitigation ratios provided that certain criteria are met. Appendix 8 -C, Guidance on Buffers and Ratios — Western Washington, indicates that reductions in replacement ratios are appropriate when "documentation by a qualified wetland specialist demonstrates that the proposed Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 7 • The recommended ratios for compensatory wetland mitigation are based on replacing an (Ecology classification system) Category I or II wetland with a Category II wetland, and replacinga Category III or IV wetland with a Category III wetland. The project proposes to replace impacts to Ecology Category II, III, and IV impacts through the creation, rehabilitation and enhancement of wetlands to Category II criteria. • The ratio for using enhancement alone, without any replacement of wetland area, is 4 times that for restoration or creation. The project proposes a combination of enhancement, creation, and rehabilitation. • If the area of impacted wetland is replaced at a 1:1 ratio through restoration or creation, the remainder of the area needed to meet the required total ratio for restoration or creation can be replaced by enhancement at a 2:1 ratio. The project proposes to create, rehabilitate, and enhance wetlands at ratios which vary by impact wetland Category, as shown in Table 1, and generally exceed the guidance provided in this bullet. Ratios are higher for higher quality wetland impacts because the risk of achieving function and values replacement is higher, and are lower for lower quality wetland impacts because the risk of achieving function and values replacement is lower (Appendix 8 -F, Rationale for Draft Guidance on Ratios). Similarly, when replacement wetlands will have fewer functions and values or perform functions at a lower level than the impacted wetlands, then mitigation ratios must be higher to compensate. Conversely, when replacement wetlands will have more functions and values and perform functions at a higher level than the impacted wetlands, then mitigation ratios can be lowered and still compensate. The project proposes to compensate with higher and more functions and values for most of the impacted wetlands, and thus proposes lower than standard mitigation ratios for those degraded wetlands. Where impacts are proposed to non - degraded wetlands, the project proposes to use Ecology's standard mitigation ratios to compensate for wetland impacts. • mitigation actions have a very high likelihood of success based on prior experience," and when "documentation by a qualified wetland specialist demonstrates that the proposed actions for compensation will provide functions and values that are significantly greater than the wetland being impacted:" Clarification of what constitutes high likelihood of success also can be found in the section of Appendix 8 -C that describes when increases in replacement ratios are appropriate. Where these situations do not exist, then either standard ratios or potentially smaller ratios may be warranted. The circumstances that could lead to increases in replacement ratios are the following: 1. "Uncertainty exists as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation." In this case, wetland hydrology will be provided by baseflow springs from the western hillslopes to the Wetland 10 area, from the regional shallow aquifer as demonstrated by the groundwater static water level data (late 2003 through present) from three wells surrounding the wetland compensatory mitigation area for the entire Wetland 11 and Johnson Creek wetland compensatory mitigation areas, and by stage height data for the Green River for the Green River compensatory mitigation areas. For these reasons, the hydrology to support the proposed vegetation communities and functions and values is assured with extremely low risk of failure. 2. "A significant period of time will elapse between impact and establishment of wetland functions at the mitigation site." In this case, the wetland impacts are proposed to occur during the 2006 construction season. The compensatory wetland mitigation south of S. 204 Street and the Johnson Creek wetland creation would be constructed and planted during the 2006 construction season. The wetland creation associated with the Green River habitat creation would be largely excavated during the 2006 construction season, and completed and planted during the 2007 construction season. The compensatory wetland mitigation north of S. 204 Street would be constructed and planted during the 2007 construction season. Wetland compensation would be completed in stages of approximately 6 months and 18 months after wetland impacts. In addition, because the degraded wetlands where lower than standard mitigation ratios are proposed have such low functions and values, relative to the compensatory mitigation proposed, that little time is reasonably expected for the compensatory mitigation to mature enough to provide higher functions and values than the wetlands they have replaced. 3. "Proposed Mitigation will result in a lower category wetland or reduced functions relative to the wetland being impacted" In this case, higher category wetlands with higher functions and values relative to the impacted wetlands are being proposed for every degraded wetland where less than standard mitigation ratios are proposed. The rational for the proposed ratios that vary from standard Ecology recommendations for the degraded wetlands include: 8 Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 This mitigation plan presents the design features and their locations, monitoring plan outline, evaluation criteria and performance standards, and a discussion of contingency plans intended to meet the stated goals and objectives. The proposed plantings are designed to simulate native Pacific Northwest plant communities and provide enhanced function in the enhanced, rehabilitated, and created wetland. 9 1. The high success potential of the mitigation proposed in replacing lost wetland functions due to the supporting hydrologic data; 2. The high success potential of the mitigation proposed in replacing lost wetland functions due to the low functions and values of the impacted wetlands relative to the higher functions and values of the proposed compensatory wetlands, 3. The relatively short period of time between impact (lost function) and compensated function at higher levels for the degraded wetland impacts, and 4. The demonstrable success of the project proponent and their consultants in implementing the types of compensatory mitigation proposed. Examples of this success include: Members Club at Aldarra (COE #95 -04- 00177) creation of 14.43 acres and enhancement of 13.94 acres of wetland as compensation for 4.06 acres of wetland impact; Emerald Corporate Park (aka Goedeke South, COE #97- 04- 01228) enhancement of 6.3 acres of wetland as compensation for 2.17 acres of wetland impact; and Baydo Pit (City of Auburn MDNS SEP #0009 -96) creation of 0.5 acres of wetland as compensation for 0.47 acres of wetland impact. Table 1 outlines the proposed mitigation ratios and their application to the Tukwila South project. For impacts to degraded wetlands 2, 3A, 4A, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, the proposed mitigation ratios for enhancement and rehabilitation are 50% lower than the standard ratios for each Category, because of the very low risk to rapid and full replacement of impacted wetlands functions and values. The proposed mitigation ratios for creation and all non - degraded wetlands (1, 3, 10, 13, and 16) are equal to the standard guidance by Ecology. As shown in Table 1, the mitigation plan provides over 2.5 acres of wetland creation more than the minimum required to compensate for the proposed impacts. In addition to the application of compensatory mitigation ratios reasonable for this project and consistent with 2004 Guidance from the Washington Department of Ecology, a wetland functional assessment was conducted for the project using Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions Volume I: Riverine and Depressional Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western Washington (WAFAM; Hruby et al. 1999). A comparison of the anticipated functional scores of the compensatory mitigation area to the functional scores from the wetlands to be altered as a result of the proposed development yielded a net gain in wetland hydrologic and biological functions. Table 2 contains a summary of the functional losses resulting from the proposed development and the functional replacement provided by the proposed mitigation. A complete description of the wetland functional analysis and scores is contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Tukwila South Project (City of Tukwila 2005). Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 2.2 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Achieving these goals and objectives would result in no net loss of wetland functions by increasing the biologic and hydrologic functions of the wetlands to greater than current site conditions. Standards for achieving these goals are found in Performance Standards (Section 5.0). The overall goal of the mitigation plan is to compensate for impacts to 9.45 acres of wetland through enhancement and rehabilitation of previously degraded wetland habitats on the site and through creation of new wetland on the site. The overall goal of the mitigation plan is to increase habitat diversity, improve wetland habitat functions, and establish contiguous wetlands similar to those that occurred in the Green River Valley prior to agricultural activities and construction of flood control dikes on the river. The specific objectives of the mitigation plan are: 10 • Enhancement of about 4.35 of existing degraded wetland on the Tukwila South Property; • Rehabilitation of about 27.8 acres of existing degraded emergent wetland to establish diverse native plant communities; • Creation of about 3.05 acres of new emergent, scrub- shrub, and forested dominated wetland communities in areas currently upland; and • Establishment of 5.24 acres of functional vegetated buffer along the upland edges of the compensatory wetland mitigation areas. Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 3.0 MITIGATION PLAN 11 The City of Tukwila, The Washington Department of Ecology, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers require compensation for wetland habitat functions lost or degraded because of development. To compensate for approximately 9.45 acres of fill in primarily low -value wetlands, this wetland mitigation plan proposes to enhance, rehabilitate, and create 35.47 acres of functionally higher wetland on -site in the southern and eastern portions of the property. Excavation, grading, and shaping of the rehabilitation and enhancement mitigation site will establish a permanently ponded hydrologic regime in the lower portions of the mitigation site, supported by groundwater and by plugging or partial excavation of drainage ditches. Soil excavated to form the lower troughs would be mounded at other locations in the mitigation area in order to create suitable planting locations for wetland plant species that do not require prolonged ponding. Drainage tiles would be broken throughout the wetland mitigation area. Excavation, grading, and shaping of the wetland creation areas would establish hydrologic regimes capable of supporting wetland plants in portions of the site that are currently upland. The mitigation is designed to provide habitat features and hydrologic regimes that would replace the wetland functions lost through the filling of other wetland habitats on the site. Vegetated buffers would be provided along the margins of the enhanced, rehabilitated, and created wetlands where they abut uplands. The slopes of the new flood protection levee (north and east of Wetland 10, north of Johnson Creek, and south and west of the Green River Off - channel habitat area) would be planted with low shrubs and small trees in order to provide screening and intrusion prevention functions. The southern border of the Johnson Creek mitigation area would be planted with deciduous and coniferous trees to provide shading and screening functions to the creek and riparian wetland habitat. Additional buffering function would be provided to the Johnson Creek and Wetland 10 mitigation areas by the presence of the stormwater ponds along their northern and eastern boundaries. These stormwater ponds will provide additional intrusion prevention and screening to the mitigation areas by separating them from the development area by over 300 -feet. The Green River Off - channel habitat mitigation area also would be functionally buffered by development restrictions within the shoreline management zone of the Green River. Where the compensatory mitigation wetlands abut existing wetland (i.e., the western edge of Wetland 10, the southern, eastern, and western perimeter of Wetland 11) no additional buffer is proposed. Existing farmed wetland extends south, east and west from Wetland 11 for several hundred feet. Compensatory mitigation in Wetland 11 will be Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 protected by development restrictions and buffer requirements for the Class 1 wetland that extends offsite in City of Kent jurisdiction. The existing buffer along the western edge of Wetland 10 is comprised of 50- to greater than 100 -feet of forested hillside extending westerly to Orillia Road. The western buffer of Wetland 10 will be protected by development restrictions and buffer requirements for Class 1 wetlands in the City of Tukwila. 3.1 SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK 1 2 Wetland mitigation would occur in the southern and eastern portions of the Tukwila South Property (Figure 1). The portions of the existing wetland proposed for mitigation is comprised almost exclusively of dense monotypic stands of reed canarygrass. The majority of the mitigation area supports a mixture of reed canarygrass and willow shrubs. Wetlands to the west of the mitigation site contain areas of deciduous trees and shrubs. Rehabilitation of the wetland would require re- grading and shaping of the site. Grading and shaping of the site would establish areas approximately 1.5 feet higher and 1.5 feet lower than current site elevations. Clearing and grading of the areas to be rehabilitated will be accomplished in the dry season when the soils are not saturated and the potential for erosion and sedimentation is minimized. Installation of sediment and erosion control devices (such as silt fences and/or hay bales) between the graded areas and the retained wetland will be included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. Soil logs from well installation in the wetland rehabilitation areas are attached as an appendix to this document. The existing soil conditions in the rehabilitation areas indicates that adequate soil with adequate moisture retention properties is present to support the vegetation communities proposed. Existing reed canarygrass would be mowed, bailed, and removed from the site. Grading in the wetland creation areas would require removal of existing material and establishing elevations that support wetland hydrology. 3.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF WETLAND PLANT COMMUNITIES The wetland mitigation plan has been designed to establish forested, scrub - shrub, and emergent plant communities. These communities would be established through a combination of planting and natural succession. The enhancement and rehabilitation plantings would use native species characteristic of the wetland cover -types in the region. Dense shrub communities would be placed in areas currently dominated by invasive species such as reed canarygrass. A list of the plant species proposed for the site is contained in Table 3 and Figure 8. Figures 2, 4, and 6 show the proposed grading for the mitigation sites. Planting plans for the proposed mitigation areas are shown on Figures 3, 5, and 7. Planting details and typical planting layouts are shown on Figure 9. Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 Species selected for planting are based on their availability and potential to provide nesting, resting, and feeding opportunities for passerine birds, small mammals, and amphibian species. Plant species have been specified for locations within the rehabilitated and enhanced wetland in order to provide a diversity of habitats and in response to anticipated hydrologic regimes. Planting in the mitigation area would occur in the late fall or early spring (November 1 through March 1) to maximize establishment and survival of the various plant species. Planting at other times of the year may be allowed, provided that adequate hydrology is available to the plant material. Replanting and control of various invasive species may be required during the duration of the monitoring period. Construction and installation notes are found on Figure 10. Installation of the plantings would be supervised by the landscape contractor and project biologists. Locations for the plantings will be identified in the field and the quality and quantity of the plants would be verified by the project biologist and/or landscape contractor. Description of the plant communities proposed for the site and the methods of establishment are described in the following sections. Palustrine Forest (PFO): Clearing and grading of the rehabilitation and enhancement mitigation site will result in mounded areas on the site. Forest vegetation comprised of small trees and tall shrubs such as Pacific willow, Scouler's willow, Sitka willow, western crabapple, western red cedar, and Oregon ash would be planted atop the mounded areas. Mounded soils will be covered with erosion or weed - control matting in an effort to control reed canarygrass. Trees and shrubs would be planted through the matting material. 13 Excavation to establish the restored Johnson Creek also would result in areas appropriate for forest vegetation plantings. Trees and shrubs would be planted along the higher areas on both sides of new stream channel. The species selected for these areas tolerate a wide range of hydrologic conditions as well as provide a greater diversity of species than is currently found on site. The mitigation plan is designed to establish 14.62 acres of PFO communities on site. An existing PFO and PSS wetland along the western site boundary would be retained. Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS): Scrub -shrub vegetation would be planted on the lower slopes of the mounded areas, along the edges of the excavated channel areas in the rehabilitated wetlands. The shrub vegetation community would be comprised of red - osier dogwood, Sitka willow, western hawthorn, clustered wild -rose, nootka rose, black twinberry, and salmonberry. As with the forested vegetation, the shrubs would be planted through erosion or weed control matting. Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 Scrub -shrub plantings also would be installed along the Green River Off - channel habitat mitigation area and along the restored Johnson Creek. Woody species would be planted along the newly graded slope of the flood levee, above the ordinary high water elevation of the Green River and along the edges of the Johnson Creek channel. The mitigation plan is designed to establish 10.65 acres of PSS habitat on site. Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Saturated (PEMA): The upper margins of the excavated areas in the rehabilitated wetlands, the Green River Off - channel habitat area, and along Johnson Creek would be seeded and planted with grasses, sedges, and rushes such as meadow foxtail, creeping bentgrass, red fescue, tall mannagrass, slough sedge, and dagger -leaf rush. The mitigation plan intends to establish 2.71 acres of PEMA habitat on site. 14 Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded (PEMC): The mid - elevation portions of the newly excavated channels in the rehabilitated wetlands and the Green River Off - channel habitat area would be planted with a mixture of slough sedge, small - fruited bulrush, common spike rush, American three - square, wooly sedge, and dagger -leaf rush. The intent of the mitigation design is the establishment of 4.33 acres of PEMC habitat on the site. Palustrine Emergent Semi - Permanently Flooded (PEMF): The portions of the mitigation sites excavated to the greatest depth, approximately two feet below existing grades in the rehabilitated wetlands would be planted with emergent species adapted to flooded conditions. The lowest portions of the Green River Off - channel Habitat area also would be planted with flood adapted wetland plant species. Species specified for these areas include hard -stem bulrush, simple stem burreed, and water plantain. It is anticipated that species such as cattail (Typha latifolia) would colonize this area; however, the proposed plantings should preclude the establishment of a monoculture. A total of 3.16 acres of PEMF habitat are designed for the mitigation area. 3.3 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION The enhanced, rehabilitated, and created wetland areas are designed to be self - sustaining. To ensure success of the plantings, some additional replanting and control of undesirable plant species may be necessary. Invasive species would be controlled by methods that would not compromise the rest of the plantings. Manual removal is preferred, but does require early detection and action to be effective. Control of reed canarygrass may include cutting the grass before it can flower (topping) in areas where it occurs on site. If monthly visits indicate that mowing is necessary to control reed canarygrass, the mowing should occur monthly from March through October. In addition to mowing, other maintenance activities to suppress reed canarygrass may be implemented after consultation with the project biologist and representatives of the appropriate regulatory agencies. If cutting and hand removal are not effective in controlling undesirable Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 15 species, other maintenance activities, including herbicide applications, may be employed. These maintenance activities are designed to allow desired plant species to become established and to keep invasive species at reasonable levels of occurrence. The time frame most effective for control of invasive species is during the first few years after installation. During the first three years, while desired species are becoming established, it is important to eliminate or limit the development of invasive plant species to prevent them from becoming re- established. The proposed maintenance and monitoring is intended to detect and control invasive species when their recurrence is low and more easily controlled. Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 4.0 MONITORING PLAN The purposes of the monitoring program are: (1) to document physical and biological characteristics of the wetland and fisheries mitigation areas, and (2) to ensure that the goals and objectives comply with permit specifications (Josselyn et al. 1990). The monitoring process would consist of three distinct phases: (1) construction monitoring; (2) compliance monitoring; and (3) long -term monitoring. The "time -zero" or baseline composition, structure, and cover abundance would be documented during the compliance monitoring phase. The long -term monitoring program would document the survival of planted vegetation and rates of colonization by other plants (i.e., in bare soil areas) over a ten -year period after enhancement activities had been completed. The following sections describe the elements of an effective monitoring program. 4.1 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING It has been our experience that the success rate of constructed and/or restored wetlands is increased through the coordination and communication between appropriate parties before and during the construction/implementation phase. Coordination meetings would include the biologist, landscape architect, project engineers, regulatory agency representatives, and contractors. We recommend a pre - construction meeting of the personnel responsible for the design and those responsible for establishment of the wetland and fisheries habitats. The purpose of the meeting would be to review the intent of the mitigation plan, establish a pathway of communication during construction, agree upon the construction sequence, and address and resolve any questions. 4.2 COMPLIANCE MONITORING Compliance monitoring consists of evaluating the wetland and fisheries mitigation and buffer areas immediately after planting is completed. The objectives would be to verify that all design features, as agreed to in the planting plan, have been correctly and fully 16 The landscape architect and project biologists should be present on -site during the various stages of implementation. Their duties would be to: (1) assist in identifying and marking the limits of clearing and grading, where applicable; (2) inspect the plant materials and recommend their final placement before planting; (3) determine the correct type and application rate of amendments to the soil, if needed; (4) make adjustments in planting plans, as needed, in response to field conditions; (5) ensure that construction activities are conducted per the approved plan; and (6) resolve problems that arise during restoration, thus lessening problems that might occur later during the Tong -term monitoring phase. Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 The compliance monitoring phase would conclude with the preparation of a compliance report from the project biologists. The report would verify that all design features have been correctly, fully, and successfully incorporated. Substantive changes made in the planting plans would be noted in the compliance report and on the drawings for use during the long -term monitoring phase. Information on changes should include what was done, where, why, at whose request, and the result of the change. Locations of monitoring stations established for the compliance monitoring would be identified on the as -built plans. 4.3 LONG -TERM MONITORING Monitoring would be conducted semi - annually (twice yearly) in the first, second, fourth, sixth, and eighth year during the ten -year monitoring period. A final site check and 17 implemented, and that any changes made in the field are consistent with the intent of the design. Evaluation of the planting areas after restoration would be done by the landscape architect and project biologist using evaluation standards and criteria discussed below. After grading and planting of the wetlands and buffers is completed, fixed sampling stations would be established within areas representative of the plant communities being sampled. The same points would be monitored each monitoring session. These points may be located randomly or along specific transects, depending upon -site conditions. A quantitative assessment of the plants established in the wetland and buffer (including plant counts and cover - abundance, as appropriate) would be recorded in representative sample plots for baseline data. This information would be used to document "time -zero" conditions from which the long -term monitoring period would begin. At each point, fixed -point photos would be taken during each monitoring visit to provide physical documentation of the condition of the mitigation areas. Photographs would be taken from all sample plot locations established during the first monitoring site visit (compliance) and thereafter each visit of the monitoring period from the established location points. The planting plans, with the compliance report, would document "as- built" conditions at the time of construction compliance. The compliance report and as -built drawings would be submitted to the City of Tukwila, the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Long -term monitoring would begin only after acceptance of the compliance report and acknowledgment that the construction is complete by the City of Tukwila. Long -term monitoring would be conducted for ten growing seasons. Monitoring would evaluate the establishment and maintenance of the plant communities in the created, enhanced, and rehabilitated wetlands and their planted buffers to determine if the goals and objectives of the mitigation plan have been met. Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 summary report would be prepared in the tenth year of monitoring. At each sample station, plant species would be identified, individual shrubs and trees counted (where appropriate) to document survival, and an estimate of cover and abundance made by appropriate means, such as the Braun- Blanquet methods (Mueller - Dombois and Ellenberg 1974). Plant identifications would be made according to standard taxonomic procedures as described in Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976), with nomenclature as updated by Pojar and MacKinnon (1994), Hickman (1993), and Cooke (1992). The plantings would be examined to document the survival rate of species planted, signs of stress, damage, or disease as well as signs of vigor, and rates of colonization by other plants (i.e., in bare soil areas). Special attention would be paid to species considered to be invasive (e.g., reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry [Rubus discolor]). 18 Hydrologic conditions of the wetland sites would be noted at each sample point either by observation of inundated conditions or excavation of shallow pits near the sampling point to determine soil saturation. Separate site visits during the late spring or early summer of each monitoring year may be necessary to document site hydrology in the growing season. All wildlife observed during the monitoring would be recorded, with notes made regarding habitat use patterns and activities. Any evidence of breeding or nesting activities would be noted. Monitoring reports would be prepared for submittal to the appropriate regulatory agencies at the end of each monitoring year. The monitoring report would document the changes occurring within the mitigation areas and make recommendations for improving the degree of success or correcting any problems noted during monitoring. Monitoring reports would document how the mitigation is meeting the goals and objectives of the plan. Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 5.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The overall evaluation criteria would be whether or not the created, enhanced, and rehabilitated wetlands meet the COE 1987 wetland criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Evaluation criteria for success of the mitigation plan should not be 100% survival of individual plant materials over the monitoring period, but the establishment of desirable plant communities within the enhanced, rehabilitated, and created wetlands. Evaluation criteria are: Year 1: Evidence that the desired plant communities are developing: survival of the planted trees and shrub species and evidence of colonization by desirable non - planted species. At the end of the first growing season after installation is complete, the plantings should demonstrate good health and vigor, and plant coverage of all areas should be sufficient to control erosion. Any planted material that has not survived the first year because of transplant shock should be noted and replaced at this time. If plant material mortality is a result of site conditions, appropriate measures should be taken to ensure plant survival. Year 2: Evidence that the desired plant communities continue to develop. Evidence of reproduction or new sprouting by the plantings, and expansion of the coverage of desirable plants colonizing the area. Plant community structure, diversity, and wildlife habitat function should be greater than that documented during the first -year monitoring. Year 4: Evidence that the desired plant communities continue to develop. Evidence of continuing reproduction or new sprouting by the plantings, and expansion of coverage of desirable plants colonizing the area. Plant community structure, diversity, and wildlife habitat function should be greater than that documented during the second -year monitoring. Desirable plant species communities should be out - competing undesirable plant species throughout the site. Undesirable plant species represent less than 15% of cover within the plant communities. Year 6: Plant community structure, diversity, and wildlife habitat function should be greater than that documented during the fourth -year monitoring. Desirable plant species communities should be out - competing undesirable plant species throughout the site. Undesirable plant species represent less than 15% of cover within the plant communities. Year 8: Evidence that the desired plant communities have developed. Plant community structure, diversity, and wildlife habitat function should be greater than that documented during the sixth -year monitoring. Undesirable plant species represent less than 15% of cover within the plant communities. 19 Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 Specific performance standards to be used in the long -term monitoring are as follows: 20 • 100% survival of all planted shrubs and trees in wetlands and buffers for one year after planting and at least 85% survival after eight years. • Coverage by shrub and tree species in planted areas of wetlands and buffers: • at least 20% after one year; • at least 40% after four years; • at least 60% after six years; and • at least 80% after eight years. • At the end of the first growing season after installation (Year 1), herbaceous cover in the planted areas should be sufficient to minimize erosion and discourage establishment of undesirable plant species. • Establishment of three plant strata (trees, shrubs, and herbs) within the wetlands after six years. • no more than 15% cover of undesirable or invasive species within the mitigation area after 10 years. Undesirable or invasive plant species would include reed canarygrass, Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), Himalayan blackberry, and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Observations of these species on -site would trigger maintenance actions. The created, enhanced, and restored compensatory mitigation areas would, at a minimum, be saturated through the majority of the root zone for 12.5% of the growing season. The spring monitoring should demonstrate hydrology within 12 inches of the ground surface through the end of March in each monitoring year. Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 6.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN Contingency plans are needed if long -term monitoring shows that objectives and performance standards have not been met. It should be noted, however, that it is not possible to develop a detailed contingency plan until the specific problems that need to be addressed are known. It would be unproductive to try to anticipate all possible problems and their solutions at this time. Common problems, both human and natural, that might arise can be identified and general recommendations for remedy proposed. For example, after the second year, plant communities within the mitigation areas may not be established at acceptable levels. It may be necessary to replant with new or different stock, provide additional watering or irrigation during critical seasons, or augment the soil. Table 4 lists components important to restoration, factors that might adversely affect wetlands, and contingencies to ensure the success of the project. The contingency plan may require extension of the monitoring phase of the project, especially if major changes in the plan are required. Recommendations for identified problems should be made by the project biologist representative in consultation with the project managers and civil engineers. 21 Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 7.0 LIMITATIONS 22 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of LaPianta, LLC and their consultants. No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from them. The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. With regard to wetlands, the final determination of their boundaries for regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various agencies that regulate development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies. We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and was prepared substantially in accordance with then - current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponent and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of the study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 8.0 LITERATURE CITED Anderson, J., E. Hardy, J. Roach, and R. Witmer. 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. 28 pp. Azous, A. and R. Horner, eds. 1997. Wetlands and urbanization: implications for the future. Final report of the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, King County Water and Land Resources Division, and University of Washington., Seattle, WA. 255 pp. Brinson, M. M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical ReportWRP -DE -4. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Cooke, S. 1997. A field guide to common wetland plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington. Cooper, J.W. 1987. An overview of estuarine habitat mitigation projects in Washington State. Northwest Environmental Journal 3(1): 112 -127. Cowardin, L., F. Golet, V. Carter, and E. LaRoe. 1992. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service Publ. FWS /OBS- 79/31. 103 pp. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. Federal Register. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers; final rule. Vol. 51. No. 219. pp. 41206 - 41260, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Franklin, J.F., and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report PNW- 8. 417 pp. Hickman, J. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Univ. of Cal. Press, 1400 pp. Hitchcock, C., and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of 23 Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 730 pp. Hruby, T., T. Granger, K. Brunner, S. Cooke, K. Dublanicia, R. Gersib, L. Reinelt, K. Richter, D. Sheldon, E. Teachout, A. Wald, and F. Weinmann. July 1999. Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions, Volume I: Riverine and Depressional Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western Washington. WA State Department of Ecology Publication #99 -115. Josselyn, M., J. Zedler and T. Griswold. 1990. Wetland mitigation along the Pacific Coast of the United States. Pages 3 -36 in J. Kusler and M. Kentula, editors. Wetland creation and restoration: The status of the science. Island Press, Covelo, CA. Memorandum. 1989. Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act, Section 404 B1 Guidelines. Effective 7 November 1989. Mueller - Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 547 pp. Pojar, J., and A. MacKinnon. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska. B.C. Ministry of Forests; B.C. Forest Service; Research Program. Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2005b. Wetland Assessment for the Tukwila South Property, City of Tukwila, Washington. March 2005 Draft EIS Report to Ms. Sue Carlson, La Pianta LLC. Tukwila, Washington. Reed, P., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 88 (26.9). 89 pp. Reed, P., Jr. 1993. 1993 Supplement to list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Supplement to Biological Report 88 (26.9) May 1988. Tukwila, City of. 2004. Tukwila Municipal Code Title 18 — Zoning, Chapter 18.45, Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Draft of November 23, 2004. 24 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991a. Special notice. Subject: Use of the 1987 wetland delineation manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. August 30, Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 1991. 25 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991b. Memorandum. Subject: Questions and answers on the 1987 manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C. October 7, 1991. 7 pp. including cover letter by John P. Studt, Chief, Regulatory Branch. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Memorandum. Subject: Clarification and interpretation of the 1987 methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C., March 26, 1992. 4 pp. Arthur E. Williams, Major General, U.S.A. Directorate of Civil Works. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Public Notice. Subject: Washington regional guidance on the 1987 wetland delineation manual. May 23, 1994, Seattle District. 8 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Special Public Notice. Final Regional Conditions, 401 Water Quality Conditions, Coastal Zone Management Consistency Responses, for Nationwide Permits for the Seattle District Corps of Engineers for the State of Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. July 23, 2002. 138 pp. Washington Department of Ecology. 2004a. Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Laws, rules, policies, and guidance related to wetland mitigation. Draft. Publication #04- 06 -013A. April 2004. Washington Department of Ecology. 2004b. Washington state wetlands rating system, western Washington. Third edition. Publication #93 -74. August 2004. Washington Department of Ecology. 2004c. Wetlands in Washington State. Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Draft. Publication #04 -06 -024. August 2004. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington state wetlands identification and delineation manual. March 1997. Publication No. 96 -94. 88 pp. plus appendices. Wentworth, T. and G. Johnson. 1986. Use of vegetation in the designation of wetlands. Final report to USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. North Carolina Agricultural Service and N.C. State University, Raleigh. 107 pp. Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 FIGURES AND TABLES 1¢1111•11 • i SEE SHEETS 6 and 7 for Green River Off - Channel Habitat Plan Bess Information from Goldsmith Engineers Ines received 9/16)04: 03102401 dwg. 03102A03.0wg, 03102J05.dwg, 03102T01.dw2 and 03102103.tlwg: flies received 10/12/04 031020.0w9 and 0310200 dwg: (56 03102J.dwg rec. 2/15/05. File RADKEY WET.dwg from Sepals received 4/15/05. • L5' S•' PEW (fl Project perimeter Existing wetlands Existing watercourses Impacted watercourses 11 •••.u..••• SEE SHEETS 2 and 3 for Wetland Mitigation Plan SEE SHEETS 4 and 5 for Johnson Creek Restoration Plan VICINITY MAP 0 / ri 1 of 10 KEY MAP 2 of 10 3 of 10 MITIGATION PLAN - Wetland Grading Plan MITIGATION PLAN - Wetland Planting Plan 4 of 10 MITIGATION PLAN - Johnson Creek Restoration Grading Plan \ \ \ 5 of 10 MITIGATION PLAN - Johnson Creek Restoration Planting Plan \ \ 6 of 10 MITIGATION PLAN - Green River Off - Channel Habitat Grading Plan 7 of 10 MITIGATION PLAN - Green River Off - Channel Habitat Planting Plan DRAWING SET SHEET NO. TITLE 8 of 10 PLANTING SCHEDULES 9 of 10 PLANTING LAYOUTS 10 of 10 CONSTRUCTION NOTES WARNING: UTILITY LOCTIS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY SHOWN DEPTH UNKNOWN. CALL 1 -B00 - -5555 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING. 07.1 11191/117C LvO 0R ARC0EC1 CMWDE 8-7011211 CEPIVICFC 8S sae PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5711 N.E. 63rd Street Seattle, WA 98115 (208)525 -6122 FAX (206)528 -2880 ■• • LEGEND ▪ Project perimeter - - -° Proposed wetland mitigation area — 770 Proposed contour lines (contour intervals 6 ") .17.5 Proposed spot elevations Proposed grading is approximate. The actual final configuration of the graded contours will be defined based on field conditions work around features to be retained, as identified in the field by the Project Biol ist xnd or Landscape Architect. The grading shall be done to achieve a balance of • ; and fill. SECTION A -A1 HORRONTAL SCALE EXAGGERATED GRADING PLAN \ Base Information from Goldsmith Engineers riles �_ received 9/18/04 03102A01.dwg, 03102A03.dwg, --- 03102J05.8109. 03102T01,5 g and 03102T03.dwg; files received 10/12/04 031020.dwg and 0310200.dwg; file 03102J.Wvg - = ` o 0s. e 2/18/05. File RAEDEKE UPDATE 41805.dwg from Segale received 4/19/05. H I a 15. _ P85 PFO PEM (Psi sWs, Scrub-Shrub Wetland) (P5Waaem. Forested Wetland) (P511640. Emergent Wetland) (Elevation 15.6.18E) (E6veCm 166- -17.5') (Elevation 14 8.155) 1° OBW -9 See Section A -A1 / i PFO !S 50 i Z 20 0 100 300 PmpPled Gvede UPP�J. E04t49 0004 — Uowov.l. ,, Exuvafien � Too d Bemt—t 11.9' Max. Fnoh Wade FHSh 5001 11.5' 1415. OBW -10 51Pr a 1nv«ma+ s n MOIIECT CIL01y aINZIE5 5550550 nC. 554 WARNING: UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. DEPTH UNKNOWN. CALL 1- 800 -424 -5555 48 HOURS BEFORE 515019C. 5711 M.E. 53rd Strut Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 525-5122 FAX (208) 526-2880 -18 =16 1 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. P. a 0 SHEET 20f10 VIN 1, .See Sheet 5 for Buffer planting in this area. l� LEGEND - - -rr- Project perimeter •- -- Wetland Mitigation Area (Approx. 32.42 Ac.) Wetland Rehabilitation PEMF -1 - Palustrine emergent (Semi permanently Flooded) (Approx. 2.94 Ac.) PEMC -1 - Palustrine emergent (Seasonally Flooded) (Approx. 3.87 Ac.) Elevation approximately 0 to 0.5' above PEMF zones PEMA -1 - Palustrine emergent (Seasonally Saturated) (Approx. 2.00 Ac.) Elevation approximately 0' to 0.5' above PEMC zones PSS -1 - Palustrine scrub -shrub (Approx. 9.52 Ac.) Elevation approximately 0' to 1.0' above PEMA zones PSS - Wetland Creation (Approx. 0.05 Ac.) Buffer PSS -2 Enhancement Wetland (Approx. 0.61 Ac.) PFO-1 - Palustrine forested (Approx.13.48 Ac.) Above elevation 16.5' SS -1 - Upland scrub -shrub (Approx. 0.31 Ac.) PLANTING PLAN a ■ In Bose Information from Goldsmith Engineers files received 9/16/04: 03102A01.owg, 03102503.dwg, 03102J05.dwg. 03102T01.dwg and 03102T03.dwg: fNes received 10/12/04 031020.dwg and 0310260, d11'g: file 03102J dwg rec. 2/18/05. Fib RAEDEKE UPDATE 041605.0w9 from Segole received 4/18/05. PSS (P0WSU5 -, ScMbtrpb Wetland) (Elevation 15.5' .165') OBW -9 O 0 0 3 )) pF0 (Passible, Forested Wetland) (Elevation .15,5'.71.51 1 1 See Section A -A1 PEN ( (EW64 0 Emergent 14.7W15..5') 50 0 100 2 O 200 IMM 300 Proposed evade (Appr. Existing 0/00. • U_pDfga.1__ OBW -10 WARNING: UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. DEPTH UNKNOWN. CALL I- 800 -424 -5555 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING. PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5711 N.E. 63rd Street Seattle, WA 58115 (206) 525-8122 FAX: (206) 528.2660 0 5 a z 3 1 A 3 0 SHEET GRADING P N See Sheet 2 for Wetland Mitigation Grading. i • Propose d new Johnson Creek alignment starts here. — ry 0 n �o Proposed grading for storm water ponds and levee is for reference only. See Engineer's plans for actual proposed grading of these element. 0 S. 204th Street 2 Existing Johnson Creek alignment to be removed. •••=1•Ola•r Proposed Johnson Creek alignment. Q WARNING: i ARE APPROXIMATE SHOWN DEPTH UNKNOWN. CALL 1 -800 -424 -5555 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING. 0 LEGEND Project perimeter Proposed wetland mitigation area t8— Proposed contour lines (contour intervals 2') • / I 4 I NORTH 30 120 60 180 ..dOgo Pr =� STAT CIF 5/ Ew08D*PE ARCATE l /WIIC 4NNEMZIE ¢mralt 58. sae 53 0 V Base information from Goldsmith Engineers files received 9/16/04: 03102A01.dwg. 03102A03.dw9, 03102J05.dwg, 03102701,dwg and 03102T03.dwg; 51es received 10/12/04 031220Aw9 and 0310230.2.9; 6M 03102J.dwg rec. 2/15/05. Fllo RADKEV WET.dwg from Sepals received 4/15/05. PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5111 N.5.63/0 Street Seattle, WA •115 (206) 625-8122 8AX. (206)525-28E10 J A SHEET z 0 0 0 = Z rn J 0 < c • < U) 5 • _ I— O U '8 0 410 O 0 0 2 z z L- See Sheet 2 for Wetland Mitigation Planting. ■ ■ Project perimeter e = = Johnson Creek Restoration Mitigation Area (Approx. 4.86 Ac.) Wetland Creation = == PEMA -2 - Palustrine emergent (Semi permanently Flooded) = == : (Approx. 0.19 Ac.) PSS -3 - Palustrine scrub -shrub (Approx. 0.22 Ac.) PFO -2 - Palustrine forested (Approx. 1.14 Ac.) - _ _ ����������= �c������G iii / /��� // "'",,� �� / / // / / /I' /a• _ — ���'���.�� � Q`t���' � /�,.1 /,_,���I��_ __ . _..i /! - _ _ �� __ ___--_ i i i __ -__ - ______ __r• � - �y .�..� ��4r `f r -. -. t. .� ce 41;11, •. 2 20 18 PLANTING P` 20 Proposed Johnso Creek alignment. WARNING: ARE APPROXIMATE MATE ONLY. DEPTH UNKNOWN. CALL 1-800-424-5555 HOURS BEFORE ORE DIGGING. 0 f , AIL NORTH 30 120 60 180 nn Or 6491X.704 tµDZ� oSIEK ITEn CIAUDE X01/420. 6101KXYn NO sm i/ Base information from Goldsmith Engineers files 1 1. 03102A03. receNW 6/161W: 03 02A0 d1'/6, tlwg, 03102J05.dwg. 03102T01.dwg and 03102T03.dwg; flies reeGNed 10/12/04 031020.dwg and 03102GG.dwg; file 03102.1.dwg rec. 2/16/05. File RADKEY WET.dwg trotn Segele receNed 4/15/05. PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5711 N.E. 83rd Sheel Sest6e, WA 63115 (206)525-8122 FAX: l236)526-2380 Z O 1- 2 H z o Q J 0 e g g -J F— O U SHEET 510 Proposed Green River Off - Channel Habitat WARNING: NORTH ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. 25 100 DEPTH UNKNOWN. CALL 1-800-424-5555 48 E DIGGING. 0 50 150 LEGEND Project perimeter • i• — • Proposed wetland mitigation area —15— Proposed contour lines (contour intervals 2') Base Information from Goldsmith Engineers Ides received 8/16/04: 03102A01.dwg. 03102A03.dwg. 03102J05.dwg, 03102T01.dwg and 03102T03.dwg; files received 10/12/04 03102Q.dwg and 03102GO.dwg: file 03102J.dwg rec. 2/16/05. Fee RAGKEY WET.dwg from Segale received 4/15105. PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5711 N.E. 63rd Street Seattle, WA 88115 (206) 525 -8122 FAX: (206)526-2880 9' Ordinary Low Water a 14' Ordinary High Water 1 1 WARNING: UTILITY LOCATIONS W ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY N DEPTH UNKNOWN. CALL 1- B00- 424 -5555 48 HOURS BEFORE 0 /00010. LEGEND Project perimeter Mitigation Area Wetland Creation ! I PEMF -2 - Palustrine emergent (Semi permanently Flooded) (Approx. 0.22 Ac.) Elevation between 9.0' - 10.0' - - PEMC -3 - Palustrine emergent (Seasonally Flooded) (Approx. 0.46 Ac.) Elevation between 10.0' -12.0' PEMA -2 - Palustrine emergent (Seasonally Saturated) (Approx. 0.52 Ac.) Elevation between 12.0' - 14.0' PSS-4 - Palustrine scrub -shrub (Approx. 0.25 Ac.) Elevation between 14.0' - 16.0' SS -3 - Upland scrub -shrub (Approx. 1.94 Ac.) Elevation above 16' NORTH STA Of 8A94NOTOM IAeSCAAI rWOnra OAW[ M[N[Nte UMW-at: PO. See Base Information from Goltlsmlth Engineers files received 9115/04: 03102A01.dwg. 03102A03.dwg, 03102J05.dwg, 03102T01.dwg end 03102T03.dwg: roes received 10/12/04 031020.dwg end 0310200.dwg: Be 03102J.dwg rec. 2/16/05. Fie RADKEY WET.dwg from 5egete received 4/15/05. PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5711 4.6. 63rd Street Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 525 -8122 FAX: (206)528.2880 - COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAM SIZE COND. REMARKS WETLAND (PEMF -1) WETLAND (PEMC -1) WETLAND (PEMA -1) WETLAND (PSS -1) WETLAND (PSS -2) WETLAND (PFO -1) WETLAND (SS-1) JOHNSON CREEK (PEMA -2) JOHNSON CREEK (PSS-3) JOHNSON CREEK (PFO -2) JOHNSON CREEK (SS-2) JOHNSON CREEK (FO-1) � 0111/1/4 i TREES Oregon ash Fraxinus latifo8a TW 1. mrn. MI II /4, PS _ Sitka spr Picea sitchensis - 2 - 4 7 '11 - Tun. Oregon ash 1 gal. container 18" ht. min. 1,409 119 ` . V PM = Douglas ,„\II II // PS- _ spruce 1 gal. container 24" ht min. - - - Pacific willow Salix ludda 18" ht min. - 119 - Bilter cherry Bitter Scouler's willow 1 gal. container 18" ht min. - - - - - 1,409 - Thuja plicate 24 ht. min. - 119 - - �`- �/ "� Douglas fir esii 1 gal. container ' 24" ht. min. _ - - - - - - - - - - 83 PM Pacific willow Pa - gal. container 18" ht min. 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched 4,977 49 1,409 - a 115 119 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched N /I I I\0 /. Scouter's widow 1 gal. container 18" ht. min. Crataegus douglasii 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched 1.409 60 - - 119 486 83 1 gal. container 24" ht. min. - - - - - - - - 49 - 83 TP ' ///1110• Westem red cedar SHRUBS 12" ht, min., well rooted and branched 49 - - Pacific ninebark Physocarpus capitatus 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched 49 Western serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia 1 gal. container 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched - - - 60 - - - 486 73 - Red dogwood Comus sericea 1 gal. container 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched Rosa pisocarpa 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched 1,843 84 2,055 424 43 173 vifl Rubus parorus - • -osier Westem hazelnut Corylus comuta 1 gal. container 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched - - - 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched - 60 49 - 486 73 hawthorn 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched 1 gal. container 12" ht, min., well rooted and branched - - 1,843 Red elderberry 2,055 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched - 43 173 - - Westem Common snowberry 1 gal. container 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched - - 424 - EMERGENTS 60 - 486 73 ■.tom Ocean -spray Water 1 gal. container 12° ht. min., well rooted and branched - - - - 1,843 84 - Carex obnupta - 43 - 2,496 2,496 2,496 2.496 - - - � � � :� Black twinberry Western crabapple Common spikerush 1 gal. container 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched • - 1,843 2,055 well rooted. 18" on center spacing well rooted, 18" on center spacing 1.067 1,067 43 173 - _ - - Physocarpus capitatus 1 gal. container 12" ht, min., well rooted and branched - - - 1,843 84 2,055 • - 43 173 - - a Pacific Col ninebark well rooted, 18" on center spacing 1 gal. container 12' ht. min., well rooted and branched - Small- fruited bulrush 84 2,055 - 1,269 173 gooseberry Nootka rose Rosa nootkana 1 gal. container 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched - • 1,843 - 2,055 60 - 43 173 486 73 Clustered wild rose Rosa plsocarpa 1 gal. container 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched - - - 1,843 - - 60 43 486 73 Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus 1 gal. container 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched - 60 - 486 73 Salmonberry Rubus spectabflis 1 gal. container 12"-ht. min., well rooted and branched 1,843 84 2,055 43 173 r► Sitka willow 1 gal. contatner 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched 1,843 2,055 43 173 486 73 Red elderberry .a 1 gal. container 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched - 60 486 73 Common snowben us 1 gal. container 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched - - 60 - EMERGENTS uatica 10" plugs bareroot well rooted, 18" on center spacing 14,286 - - - - - - - Water plantain Carex obnupta 10" plugs bareroot well rooted, 18" on center spacing - 10,683 9,652 - - - - 920 - Slough sedge 10" plugs bareroot well rooted, 18" on center spadng - 10,683 9,652 - - - - 920 - - Common spikerust 10" plugs bareroot well rooted, 18" on center spacing • 10.683 9,652 • - - - 920 - - Tell mannagress Juncus ensifolius 10" dugs bareroot well rooted, 18" on center spacing - 10,683 9,652 • • - • 920 Daggerieaf rush bulb bareroot well rooted, 18" on center spacing 14,286 - - - - - Yellow pondlily bulrush Nuphar polvsepalum Sdrpus acutus 10" plugs bareroot well rooted, 18" on center spacing 14,286 - • - - _ - - - - - - - Hardstem bulrush Scirpus emericanus 10" plugs bareroot well rooted, 18" on center spacing - 10,683 - - - - - • - - - - Three-square Scirpus atrodnctus 10" plugs bareroot well rooted, 18" on center spacing 10,683 - - - - - - Wooly sedge bulrush Sdrpus mlcrocarpus 10" plugs bareroot well rooted, 18" on center spacing - 10,683 - - - - - burreed Sparganium emersum 10" plugs bareroot well rooted, 18' on center spacing 14,286 - - - - - - - - Simple -stem �\UIII / //p COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME SIZE COND. REMARKS GREEN RIVER (PEMF -1) GREEN RIVER (PEMC -1) GREEN RIVER (PEMA -1) GREEN RIVER (PSS.4) GREEN RIVER (SS -3) TOTAL TREES cr 99999Q999 99 m m CO m CO CO 0:1 CO Co io n n a a a CO mmmmm mm g v_ g v v v v v v L �, E d m g R. m m m m m C C C C C C C C C an C H N A N yy N h N N N N , d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 2 2 9 9 ^^^ 2 ^^ 2 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C R g g g � gj .5.813919B BBSS11119139S.S.895B99 § § h § § § § § § § § § h § § § § § § § § § § a a a a a n a a a a Oregon ash Fraxinus latifo8a TW 1. mrn. MI II /4, PS _ Sitka spr Picea sitchensis - 2 - 4 7 '11 - Tun. ` . V PM = Douglas Pseudotsuga menzlesll ht min. - - - - __ Pacific willow Salix ludda 18" ht min. 132 "/1111\�� // Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana 18" ht. min. - 1,017 Westem cedar - Thuja plicate 24 ht. min. - TP 1g co ; / /ll llt 0 _ red SHRUBS _ Westem serviceberry Amelanchier alnifdia 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched - - - 424 - CI Red -osier dogwood Comus sericea 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched 49 - a Western hazelnut Corylus cornuta 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched 424 - Western hawthorn Crataegus douglasii 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched 49 - lila Ocean -spray Hdodiscus discolor 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched 424 411 Black twtnben Lanlcere Involucrata 12" ht. Mn., well rooted and branched - - - 49 - � Western crabapple Malus fusca 12" ht, min., well rooted and branched 49 - Pacific ninebark Physocarpus capitatus 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched 49 0 4 Swamp gooseberry Ribes lucustre 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched Nootka rose Rosa nootkana 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched - - - 49 424 - Or Clustered wild rose Rosa pisocarpa 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched 49 424 0 Thimbleberry vifl Rubus parorus 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched • 424 C Salmonberry Rubus spectabflis 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched - 49 - co r Sitka widow Satix sltchensis 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched 49 - Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa 12" ht. min., well rooted and branched - 424 Cii Common snowberry Symphoricerpos albus 12" ht, min., well rooted and branched - - 424 - EMERGENTS - Water a Allsma plantagoquatice well rooted, 18" on center spadng 1.067 - - - - plantain Slough sedge Carex obnupta well rooted. 18" on center spacing well rooted. 18" on center spacing well rooted. 18' on center spacing well rooted. 18" on center spadnq - - - - 1,269 1,269 1.269 1.269 2,496 2,496 2,496 2.496 - - - - - - - - - Common spikerush Eleocharis palustris Tall mannagrass Daggedeaf rush Glyceria elate • - Juncus enslfollus Nuphar well rooted. 18" on center spacing well rooted, 18" on center spacing 1.067 1,067 - - - _ - - Yellow pondldv Hardstem bulrush polvsepalum Scirpus acutus - - . - - bulrush Scirpus americanus well rooted, 18" on center spacing • _ 1,269 • - - - Three-square Wooly sedge Scirpus atrodnctus well rooted, 18" on center spacing - 1,269 - Small- fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus well rooted, 18" on center spacing - 1,269 Simple -stem burreed Sparganium emersum - well rooted, 18" on center spacing 1,067 - - - T SCHEDULE (Cont. WETLAND MITIGATION AREA GREEN RIVER OFF -CHANNEL HABITAT AREA WARNING: DEPTH UNKNOWN. CALL 1- 800 -424 -5555 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING. JOHNSON CREEK RESTORATION AREA R Of UTILrY LOCATIONS SHOWN rU ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. PEfi51[RED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CWAE YRR0r25 5ERTR4A2E Ro. fm PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5711 N.E. 63rd street Seams, WA 28115 r206) 525.8122 FAX (200528-288° n 6 m r o° c 0 0 a SHEET 8 CT 5 a 0 i c 0 i v+ O 0 0 v N 0 e c 0 2' 5 v s D H 5 5 0 5) u 0 D 5- Y u c 2 L7 MITIGATION PLAN - PLANT SECTION AND SCHEDULE RAI# 2001-014-004 MIIIGATION PLAN 4/05 ProJ. 42001-014 FILE NAME: 06 SCALE: 1••1a // / / ill \ \ \�� SCALE 1' • to 50'-0' BUFFER FORESTED (FO -1) TYPICAL PLANTING LAYOUT 4 1 1111 \\ %HIGHER ELEVATION LOWER ELEVATION PALUSTRINE FORESTED WETLAND (PFO -1 and PFO -2) TYPICAL PLANTING LAYOUT HIGHER ELEVATION LOWER ELEVATION 4 0 N SCALE: r =1a SCALE 1' • 1a 50'-0' yaw Sr otto BUFFER SCRUB -SHRUB (SS-1 and SS-2) TYPICAL PLANTING LAYOUT HIGHER ELEVATION LOWER ELEVATION PALUSTRINE SCRUB -SHRUB WETLAND (PSS -1, PSS -3, and PSS-4) TYPICAL PLANTING LAYOUT HIGHER ELEVATION LOWER ELEVATION PALUSTRINE SCRUB -SHRUB WETLAND (PSS -2) TYPICAL PLANTING LAYOUT SCALE: r • 1a WARNING: ARE �AP LOCATIONS RX E SHOW DEPTH UNKNOWN. 24 55 CALL 5 48 HOURS 8EFORE DICCINC. SU t Or •0540000 YEGSIEALD INOSJFE WHITER CUM YCKEN6[ 051500 R •a 58S PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION — EXISTING WILLOWS — INFILL PLANTINGS RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5711 N.E. 63r0 Street Seattle. WA 98115 (206) 525.8122 FAX: (206)526-2E180 3 41 SHEET 90f10 0 3 O 0 L 0 3 v u N O m 0 w 0 4 O 0 O 2 0 W O 3 j 0 0 ° o i m U d O 2 'U 0 O 2 / GENERAL NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL CONDITIONS GENERAL DESCRIPTION FURNISH AU. MATERIALS, TOOLS, EQUIPMENT. AND LABOR NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF GRADING, PLANTING, AND HABITAT STRUCTURE INSTALLATION AS INDICATED ON DRAWINGS AND SPECIFIED HEREINAFTER WORK INCLUDES VEGETATION THINNING BY HAND METHODS, PLANTING, FERTILIZING, MULCHING, MAINTENANCE AND GUARANTEE OF PLANTED AREAS AS SPECIFIED HEREIN. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION / QUALITY ASSURANCE / GUARANTEE THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST (BIOLOGIST) SHALL BE INVOLVED DURING THE FOLLOWING PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION: (1) ON-SITE MEETING PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK (PRE - CONSTRUCTION MEETING): (2) APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY HAIR. ROAD LOCATION (IF NECESSARY); (3) APPROVAL OF SUBGRADE; (4) APPROVAL OF PLACEMENT OF SALVAGED TOPSOIL AND FINISH GRADES: (5) APPROVAL OF HABITAT STRUCTURE INSTALLATION AND OF HYDROSEEDING; (6) APPROVAL OF PLANTS, PLANTING LOCATIONS AND TECHNIQUES; (7) COMPLIANCE ACCEPTANCE; (8) RESTORATION OF TEMPORARY HAUL ROADS; AND (9) FINAL INSPECTION. PRIOR NOTICE OF 48 HOURS TO THE BIOLOGIST FOR THE ABOVE ACTIVITIES IS REQUIRED. PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS MAY BE PERMITTED BASED ON PLANT AVAILABILITY, BUT ONLY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE BIOLOGIST. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ONE FULL YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PLANTING. ANY PLANTED MATERIAL (WOODY OR HERBACEOUS) OTHER THAN SPECIFIED OR NOT IN VIGOROUS CONDITION WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE. AN 85% MINIMUM SURVIVAL RATE IS EXPECTED AFTER THREE YEARS. SITE CONDITIONS / DAMAGE 1 CLEANUP THE BIOLOGIST SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY IF SITE CONDITIONS DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO PROTECT THE EXISTING WETLAND DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 11-15 MITIGATION PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED BY CONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BY THE BIOLOGIST PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING PLANTED AREAS FREE OF DEBRIS. UPON COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AU. SURPLUS MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT. AND DEBRIS FROM THE SITES. ALL PLANTED AREAS SHALL BE RAKE- CLEAN. MAINTENANCE A THREE -YEAR MAINTENANCE PROGRAM BY CONTRACTOR SHALL INCLUDE WEEDING. SUPPLEMENTAL WATERING, AND OTHER ITEMS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN PLANTED AREAS IN A HEALTHY CONDITION. WEEDING SHOULD BE PERFORMED AS NECESSARY AND SHALL ONLY OCCUR IN CLEARED AND MULCHED AREAS MAINTAINED AROUND EACH WOODY PLANT AND REMOVAL OF EXOTIC SPECIES SUCH AS BLACKBERRIES, SCOTS BROOM, REED CANARYGRASS. OR OTHERS AS DETERMINED FROM THE MITIGATION AREAS. SUPPLEMENTAL WATER FOR AU. SHRUB PLANTINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE SURVIVAL OF PLANT MATERIAL. HAND WATERING OR A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM RECOMMENDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BY BIOLOGIST MAY BE USED. ALL WATERING SHALL. SOAK ENTIRE ROOT ZONE WITHOUT CAUSING EROSION. SUPPLEMENTAL WATERING SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 1 INCH OF WATER PER MONTH ACROSS ENTIRE WETLAND MITIGATION AND UPLAND BUFFER COMMUNITIES DURING HOT, DRY WEATHER (TYPICALLY MAY THROUGH SEPTEMBER). ANY EROSION SHALL BE RECTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. NO PRUNING SHALL OCCUR UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY BIOLOGIST. THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD SHALL COMMENCE FOLLOWING ACCEPTANCE OF PLANTING BY BIOLOGIST. SCHEDULE ALL EARTHWORK SHALL OCCUR WHEN SITE CONDITIONS WARRENT UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST. HYDROSEEDING SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 15 UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY BIOLOGIST. ALL SUCH WORK IN SATURATED SOILS AT ANY 1TME OF THE YEAR OR DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE BIOLOGIST PRIOR TO EXECUTION, AND MAY REQUIRE USE OF TECHNIQUES AND EQUIPMENT DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO SATURATED SOILS OR ADJACENT AREAS OF STANDING WATER. PLANTING OF WOODY MATERIAL SHALL OCCUR BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND MARCH 15 TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SEASONAL RAINS AND GREATER AVAILABILITY OF PLANT MATERIAL. PLANTING DURING ABNORMALLY HOT, DRY, OR FREEZING WEATHER. OR AT TIMES OTHER THAN AS NOTED, SHALL BE AUTHORIZED BY BIOLOGIST AND MAY REQUIRE PLANT SUBSTITUTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION. SPOT SEEDING SHALL OCCUR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING EARTHWORK IF SEEDING OCCURS BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND MARCH 31, STRAW MULCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEED APPLICATION. EXISTING VEGETATION ALL EXISTING VEGETATION OUTSIDE LIMITS OF PLANTING SHALL BE PROTECTED UNLESS SPECIFIED. ANY EXISTING VEGETATION DAMAGED BY CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPLACED WITH PLANTS OF EQUAL OR BETTER SIZE AND CONDITION AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. PRODUCTS PLANT MATERIALS NO PLANT MATERIAL MAY BE TRANSPLANTED FROM OTHER PROTECTED WETLANDS UNLESS APPROVED BY THE BIOLOGIST. ALL PLANT MA TERIAL SHALL BE LOCALLY GROWN AND BE OF ACCEPTED SIZE STANDARDS AS SPECIFIED IN "AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK -1996' PUBUSHED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (PHONE: 202.789. 2900). ROOTED PLANTS SHALL BE FIRST QUALITY. WELL - FOLIATED, WITH WELL-DEVELOPED ROOT SYSTEMS. AND NORMAL WELL-SHAPED TRUNKS, UMBS, STEMS, AND HEADS. THE BIOLOGIST SHALL INSPECT FOR QUALITY CONFORMANCE. ALL ROOTED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE LABELED BY GENUS. SPECIES AND VARIETY. PLANTS DEEMED UNSUITABLE SHALL BE REJECTED BEFORE OR AFTER DELIVERY. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE FREE FROM DAMAGE, DISEASE, INSECTS. INSECT EGGS AND LARVAE. FERTIUZER FERTIUZER SHALL BE 21-GRAN AGRIFORM TABLETS AND CONTAIN 21 % NITROGEN. 10% PHOSPHORIC ACID AND 5% POTASH, OR EQUAL VEGETATION CONTROL MATTING VEGETATION CONTROL MAT SHALL CONSIST OF PHOTO DEGRADABLE PVC OF POLYPROPYLENE PLASTIC SHEETING, MINIMUM THICKNESS 6 MILS, OR EQUAL. EXECUTION TEMPORARY HAUL ROADS IF TEMPORARY HAUL ROADS ARE NECESSARY LOCATIONS SHOULD BE APPROVED BY PROJECT BIOLOGIST PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROADS IN UPLAND AREAS SHALL BE BACKBLADED. TEMPORARY HAUL ROADS IN WETLAND AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED. HOGFUEL WILL BE REMOVED FROM ALL WETLAND AND WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS AND THE AREAS SHALL BE HYDROSEEDED WITH WETLAND SEED MIX. CULVERT CROSSINGS SHALL BE REMOVED AND RESTORED ONCE PLANT COMMUNITIES MACE ESTABUSHED. SEEDING SCHEDULE SHALL CONFORM TO SPECIFICATION. SITE CLEARING AND GRADING MOW AREAS DESIGNATED FOR EARTHWORK OPERATIONS TO A HEIGHT OF Y. BAIL MOWED MATERIAL AND REMOVE FROM SITE. GRADE SITE AS SPECIFIED. IN AREAS WHERE FINISH GRADES WILL BE 16' OR GREATER BELOW ORIGINAL GRADE, PROJECT BIOLOGIST SHALL RENEW SUBGRADE. IF SOIL IS NOT SUITABLE FOR PLANTING OVER EXCAVATION MAY BE NEEDED. IF DETERMINED TO BE NEEDED OVER EXCAVATE THE NEXT 12' AND STOCKPILE SEPARATE FROM SALVAGE TOPSOIL. PLACE 17 OF SALVAGE TOPSOIL IN OVER - EXCAVATED AREAS AND TRACK COMPACT. ALL AREAS BETWEEN ELEVATION 15.5 - 16.5 WILL BE COVERED WITH WEED CONTROL FABRIC TO MINIMIZE GERMINATION OF WEEDY GRASS SPECIES. FINISH GRADE ELEVATION IN PALUSTRINE FORESTED AREAS (PF0) SHALL NOT EXCEED ELEVATION 17.5 FEET. VEGETATIVE CONTROL MATTING INSTALLATION PLASTIC SHEETING SHALL BE PLACED IN SHINGLE PATTERN WITH UPPER SECTION OVERLAPPING LOWER SECTION. SHEETING SHALL BE ANCHORED WITH STAKES AT A MAXIMUM 10 FOOT GRID SPACING IN ALL DIRECTIONS, THERE SHALL BE A 12 INCH OVERLAP ON ALL SEAMS. OUTSIDE PERIMETER OF VEGETATIVE CONTROL MATTING TO BE STAKED AT A 10 FOOT SPACING. PLANT INSTALLATION PLANTING SHALL OCCUR ACCORDING TO PREVIOUSLY DEFINED SCHEDULE PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN COMPLIANCE WITH DETAILS IN THE PLANS. DIG PITS FOR TREES, SHRUBS, AND GROUNDCOVER 2 TIMES AS WIDE AND 1.5 TIMES AS DEEP AS THE DIMENSIONS OF THE CONTAINER OR NATURAL ROOT SPREAD. AND CONSISTENT WITH 0000 HORTICULTURAL PRACTICE. IF CONTAINER STOCK APPEARS TO BE ROOTBOUND, SLASH ROOTS VERTICALLY WITH A SHARP KNIFE ALONG OUTSIDE OF BALI. IN THREE (3) PLACES MINIMUM BEFORE PLANTING. SOAK DRIED ROOTBALLS IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLANTING. CLEANLY PRUNE BROKEN ROOTS ONE -HALF (0.5) INCH OR GREATER IN DIAMETER. PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED SO FINISH GRADE IS LEVEL WITH TOP OF ROOT BALL AND IS AT THE SAME ELEVATION WITH RESPECT TO GRADE AS THE PLANT WAS GROWN IN NURSERY. PLANTS SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND WATER-SETTLED IF SOIL IS DRY. NO COMPACTION OF BACKFILL IS TO OCCUR AROUND PLANT. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE WATERED THOROUGHLY AT TIME OF INSTALLATION. PLANTING LOCATIONS INDICATED ON THE PLAN ARE BASED ON ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS. NO TREE 011 SHRUB SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTED IN STANDING WATER. SEEDING SEEDING SHALL CONSIST OF SEED APPUCATION TO BARE SOIL WITHIN THE WETLAND MITIGATION AND UPLAND BUFFER AREAS TO BE CREATED/ENHANCED/RESTORED. SEEDING SHALL BE APPLIED IN A CONTINUOUS UNIFORM MANNER OVER DESIGNATED AREAS AND KEPT MOIST THROUGH GERMINATION UNTIL FULLY ESTABLISHED. WETLAND AREA SEED MIL' AGROSTIS ALBA ALOPECURUS PRATENSIS FESTUCA RUBRA LOTUS CORNICULATUS APPUCATION RATE: 50 LBS. PER ACRE FERTILIZER: NONE UPLAND BUFFER SEED MIX: AGROSTIS TENUIS FESTUCA RUBRA LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM TRIFOLIUM REPENS APPLICATION RATE: 80 LBS. PER ACRE FERTILIZER: 12 -24.24 ® 250 LBS. PER ACRE REDTOP BENTGRASS MEADOW FOXTAIL RED FESCUE BIRDSFOOT TREFOIL 30% 30% 30% 10% COLONIAL BENTGRASS 10% RED FESCUE 40% ANNUAL RYEGRASS 40% WHITE CLOVER 10% AS - BUILT DRAWINGS FOLLOWING COMPLETION. AND APPROVAL OF PLANTINGS BY THE BIOLOGIST, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AS -BUILT DRAWINGS TO THE BIOLOGIST. DRAWINGS SHALL ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE CHANGES WITH NOTES, SYMBOLS, AND DIMENSIONS. BIOLOGIST WILL SUBMIT AS -BUILT DRAWINGS TO CITY OF TUKWILA. MONITORING AFTER ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL OF AS -BUILT DRAWINGS BY THE CITY OF TUKWILA LONG -TERM MONITORING OF THE SITE WOULD COMMENCE. MONITORING REPORTS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA FIRST, SECOND, FOURTH. SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND TENTH YEAR AFTER CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. PROJECT ACCEPTANCE AFTER COMPLETION OF THE MONITORING PERIOD, THE CITY OF TUKWILA SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATION 517E PROVIDED THAT THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET AS DOCUMENTED BY MONITORING. NOTES l 7.402 ROOTM'1 Y 30 R:.`:5 NT evR Wl eN 516¢IC N.w'1110.' 4 TIC!, 440 5PP111K SK CC4..'4._DON NC TO 404 AYfJJO: :,011.142N. 4 MJIC Nl 0.'W 411) CPL':'1 J405 MI 110015. • ANTNG 55 D1.2t2EC W. A1! - `M C A - CY 11.11055' 0 5112.05 PLANT ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE PERIOD FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF PLANTING, BUT PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL BY THE F P TY OF THE LAM S WILL BE - ARRAN AfY' PTANCE O BIOLOGIST. A PROVISIONAL VIAL PRE W GRANTED. FROM THIS DATE FORWARD, FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, THE LANDSCAPE PLANTING WARRANTY SMALL B5 IN EFFECT. A100 % SURVIVORSHIP OF NEWLY INSTALLED PLANT MATERIAL IS REQUIRED UNDER THIS GUARANTEE. IF MORTALITY EXISTS DURING THIS PERIOD. THE BIOLOGIST WILL SPECIFY WH CH PLANTS WILL BE REPLACED TO ACHIEVE 100% SURVIVAL RATE. SPECIFIED PLANTS SHALL BE REPLACED WITH PLANTS OF SPECIES. SIZES. AND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY BIOLOGIST IN WRITING. ALL MAINTENANCE OF PLANTED AREAS DURING THE GUARANTEE PERIOD SHALL BE BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL INCLUDE ITEMS A5 INDICATED TO FULLY ESTABLISH ALL PLANTED AREAS TO A HEALTHY, VIGOROUS STATE. EIGHT YEARS AFTER THE END OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD, A FINAL INSPECTION OF THE WORK WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE BIOLOGIST. PLANTS INSTALLED UNDER THIS CONTRACT THAT ARE DEAD OR IN OTHERWISE UNSATISFACTORY CONDITIONS AND BELOW THE 85% SURVIVAL RATE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND REPLACED AS DIRECTED BY THE BIOLOGIST. UPON COMPLETION OF THESE REQUIREMENTS, FINAL PLANT ACCEPTANCE WILL BE CERTIFIED IN WRITING BY BIOLOGIST. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING 1. SCHEDULE AND ATTEND A PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE CITY OF TUKWILA 2. CONTRACTOR WILL FLAG ALL MITIGATION AREAS AND TEMPORARY HAUL ROADS (IF NEEDED) FOR BIOLOGIST APPROVAL. CONTRACTOR WILL WALK THE SITE WITH THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST TO CLARIFY LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED. CONTRACTOR AND PROJECT BIOLOGIST SHALL AGREE ON WORK PLAN PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. 3. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS REQUIRED. BIOLOGIST SHALL APPROVE TEMPORY HALL ROAD LOCATION (IF NEEDED)I. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE WETLAND AREAS TO FINAL SUBGRADE ELEVATIONS. 1145 BIOLOGIST SHALL INSPECT FINAL SUBGRADE ELEVATION. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE AREAS TO FINISH GRADE ELEVATIONS. BIOLOGIST SHALL INSPECT FINISH GRADE ELEVATIONS. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BACKBLADE AND SEED TEMPORARY HAUL ROAD IF NECESSARY. 7 . CONTRACTOR SHALL LAYOUT NURSERY-GROWN PLANTS PER PLANS FOR APPROVAL BY BIOLOGIST. FOLLOWING LAYOUT APPROVAL, CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL PLANTS AS DIRECTED BY PLANS. BIOLOGIST W111. APPROVE PLANT INSTALLATION. 8. PLANT ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE, SUBMIT AS-BUILT DRAWING TO BIOLOGIST. 9. COMPLIANCE ACCEPTANCE BY CITY OF TUKWILA. 7■I'� == 1111111111 =° . TE ?'1L.= 111111 - 11111 W= HIIIJIIIl1 =11 a b iH= IIIHt= IINII °L ��1 III II = A ' 41=111111=111 1111- ° 111111 = 11111 - 111111=111111=== -g1111 -H(IH -1111 • 1» = _HIIH- 111111 1111° 111111= 111111= 111111E111H= ImIlE1Hi11= 1111E11111 111111E 1 =111111= 111111= IIIIIIE111111= 111111 =1111E 11111 =10111 =111 °AIWA -1111 = 11 A 1= • 1 =1 = 1 1 - 11 =l ®1 = 11= i 111111= 111111 CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE SHRUB 110 AC. COATNNA 6+DIM14 14.115 !1'.0'1:9011110V52) 58.1E 05 *14918(10 REWIRED u OSCAPC •aO10EC1 MAUDE 4c*ENZI CEmu1E NO. see RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5711 N.E. 63rd Street Seattle, WA 98115 L206)525 615* (206) 528.2880 8 0 8 0 m A 1z Y. 0 4 SHEET 1OAf10 Table 1: Compensatory mitigation ratios by Wetland Category and kind of mitigation provided. Based on Guidance on Wetland Mitigation - Part 1 (DOE 2004) Wetland Area (ac) Wetland DOE Rehab Enhance Create Rehab Enhance Creation Rehab Enhance Creation Impact Category ratio ratio ratio required required required provided provided provided (ac) 1 2.17 0.26 IV 3 6 1.5 0.78 1.56 0.39 0.78 2 0.09 0.09 III 2.5 4 2 0.23 0.36 0.18 0.23 3 0.03 0.03 III 4 8 2 0.12 0.24 0.06 0.12 3A 0.01 0.01 IV 1.875 3 1.5 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 4 0.04 0.00 IV 3 6 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 4A 0.04 0.04 IV 1.875 3 1.5 0.08 0.12 0.06 0.08 5 0.02 0.02 III 2.5 4 2 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.05 6 0.03 0.03 IV 1.875 3 1.5 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.06 7 3.07 3.07 III 2.5 4 2 7.68 12.28 6.14 7.68 8 1.50 1.50 III 2.5 4 2 3.75 6.00 3.00 6.00 9 2.71 2.71 III 2.5 4 2 6.78 10.84 5.42 6.78 10 16.38 0.91 II 8 12 3 7.28 10.92 2.73 3.07 4.35 0.51 11 21.70 0.00 IV 3 6 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 13 0.11 0.11 IV 3 6 1.5 0.33 0.66 0.17 0.33 14 0.01 0.00 IV 3 6 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 0.08 0.00 III 4 8 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 16 0.65 0.65 III 4 8 2 2.60 5.20 1.30 2.60 17 0.05 0.00 III 4 8 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 0.10 0.00 IV 3 6 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 Totals 48.79 Tukwila South Wetland Mitigation Plan 9.43 29.74 48.38 19.55 27.80 Raedeke Associates, Inc. April 20, 2005 4.35 0.51 Mitigation Provided 27.80 4.35 3.05 37 Wetland Function I Existing Conditions 1 Proposed Actions Water Quality Functions Potential for Removing Sediment Moderate to low functional scores due to small size of wetlands, lack of vegetative cover in agricultural wetlands, and depressional outflow hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification of most wetlands impacted by proposal. Rehabilitation and enhancement of wetlands will result in vegetated wetlands habitats providing greater opportunity to remove sediments. Proposed mitigation will increase WFWAM acre -point score by 26.17 Potential for Removing Nutrients Moderate to low functional scores due to small size of wetlands, lack of vegetative cover in agricultural wetlands and depressional outflow HGM classification of wetlands to be effected by the development. Rehabilitation and enhancement of wetlands will result in vegetated wetland habitats better suited to uptake and remove nutrients from water column. Increased residence time in long duration hydroperiod wetlands results in greater opportunity to remove nutrients. Proposed mitigation increases WFWAM acre - point score by 26.63 Potential for Removing Heavy Metals and Toxic Organics Moderate functional scores due to wetland locations in agricultural fields and nearby industrial activity. Rehabilitation and enhancement of wetlands will result in near duplication of WFWAM acre -point scores (net loss of 6.53). Discontinuation of agricultural and industrial activities on project site would eliminate existing untreated pollutant sources. DEIS concluded net project plus wetland alterations impact on water quality would be neutral to beneficial (DEIS Appendix C, Attachment A — Wetland Water Quality Function and Impact Assessment) Hydrologic Functions Potential for Reducing Peak Flows Moderate to low functional scores due to small size and depressional outflow HGM of most wetlands impacted. Rehabilitation and enhancement of wetlands will result in longer duration hydroperiod within mitigation wetlands. Increased woody vegetation will slow water, reducing peak flows. WFWAM acre -point score increase by 1.51. Potential for Reducing/Decreasing Downstream Erosion Moderate to low functional scores due to small wetland size and depressional outflow HGM of most wetlands affected by development. Loss of total wetland area will reduce overall storage capacity. WFWAM acre -point score decrease by 9.95. Required stormwater retention/detention will result in no real loss of water storage capacity. Potential for Groundwater Recharge Moderate to low functional scores due to depressional outflow HGM of most wetlands and lack of long duration hydroperiod. Rehabilitation and enhancement of wetlands will result in longer duration . hydroperiod, increasing potential to recharge groundwater. WFWAM acre -point score increases by 38.01. Biologic Functions Table 2: Wetland Functions and Values Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Conditions Tukwila South Wetland Mitigation Plan Raedeke Associates, Inc. April20, 2005 38 Wetland Function Existing Conditions Proposed Actions General Habitat Suitability Low functional scores due to small size, agricultural use, lack of connectivity to other habitats, and lack of vegetation in most wetlands proposed to be altered. Rehabilitation and enhancement will result in increased habitat through establishment of different vegetation strata, longer duration hydroperiods. WFWAM acre -point score increases by 100.67. Habitat suitability for Invertebrates Low functional scores due to agricultural practices and lack of vegetation in wetlands to be effected by development. Rehabilitation and enhancement will result in contiguous vegetated wetland habitats. WFWAM acre -point score increases by 82.07 Habitat suitability for Amphibians Low functional scores due to agricultural practices, short duration hydroperiod, and lack of vegetation in wetlands to be altered. Rehabilitation and enhancement will result in contiguous vegetated wetland habitats with long duration hydroperiods. WFWAM acre -point score increases by 71.03. Habitat suitability for Anadromous Fish Low functional scores due to lack of connectivity to fish bearing waters for many wetlands proposed to be affected. Rehabilitation and enhancement will result in improved flow to fish bearing waters. Increased vegetation diversity will improve food sources for fish WFWAM acre -point score increases by 77.41. Habitat suitability for Resident Fish Low functional scores due to lack of connectivity to fish bearing waters for many wetlands proposed to be affected. Rehabilitation and enhancement will result in improved flow to fish bearing waters. Increased vegetation diversity will improve food sources for fish WFWAM acre -point score increases by 45.54. Habitat suitability for Wetland Associated Birds Moderate to low functional scores due to lack of vegetation in agricultural wetlands. Flooded agricultural fields do provide wintering waterfowl habitat. Rehabilitation and enhancement will increase vegetation structure, provide greater nesting and forage opportunities for passerines. Longer duration hydroperiod portions of mitigation area provide some waterfowl habitat. WFWAM acre - point score increases by 13.94. Habitat suitability for Wetland Associated Mammals Moderate to low functional scores due to small wetland size. Agricultural fields do provide forage habitat for small mammals. Net loss of wetland area and conversion to woody vegetation will reduce habitat for mammals. WFWAM acre -point score decreases by 23.6. Native Plant Richness Low functional scores due to agricultural practices. Rehabilitation and enhancement will provide a diverse native plant community. WFWAM acre -point score increases by 152.18 Primary Production and Export Moderate functional scores due to depressional outflow HGM of wetlands to be altered. Rehabilitation and enhancement will result in increased vegetative cover in wetlands and direct output to fish bearing waters. WFWAM acre -point score increases by 6.36 Tukwila South Wetland Mitigation Plan Raedeke Associates, Inc. April 20, 2005 39 Table 3. Scientific and common names of plants with assigned Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) (Reed 1988, 1993) proposed for site. Scientific names from Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976), Pojar and MacKinnon (1994), and Hickman (1993). Scientific Name TREES: Fraxinus latifolia Picea sitchensis Prunus emarginata Salix lucida Salix scouleriana SHRUBS: Cornus sericea Crataegus douglasii Lonicera involucrate Malus fusca Physocarpus capitatus Ribes lacustre Rosa nootkana Rosa pisocarpa Rubus spectabilis Salix sitchensis HERBS: Alisma plantago- aquatica Carex obnupta Elocharis palustris Glyceria elata Juncus ensifolius Nuphar poysepalum Scirpus acutus Scirpus americanus Scirpus atrocinctus Scirpus microcarpus Sparganium emersum Common Name Oregon ash Sitka spruce Bitter cherry Pacific willow Scouler's willow Red -osier dogwood Western hawthorn Black twinberry Western crabapple Pacific ninebark Swamp gooseberry Nootka rose Clustered wild rose Salmonberry Sitka willow Water plantain Slough sedge Common spikerush Tall mannagrass Dagger -leaf rush Yellow pondlily Hardstem bulrush Three - square bulrush Wooly sedge Small- fruited bulrush Simple -stem burreed WIS' FAC FAC FAC FAC FACW FAC FAC FAC FAC FAC FAC FAC FAC FACW FACW OBL FACW- FACW FACW FACW OBL OBL OBL FACW FACW+ OBL ' = WIS ratings with a minus symbol are considered "drier ", while the plus symbol indicates "wetter" species. Plants not identified to the species were assigned the WIS range for the genus. Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 40 Table 4. Factors that may adversely affecting wetland creation or enhancement and potential contingencies to ensure success. Problem Plant Performance Undesirable Plant Community Vandalism Erosion Excessive soil water Tukwila South Wetland Mitigation Plan - low survival - low plant vigor - noxious weeds invade - predation by animals - dumping of debris - damaged plant material - foot or bike traffic Potential Remedial Action Replant, water, weed, replant with different species Amend soil Manual weed removal Fencing to be removed once plants are established Evaluate value, remove and replant, if necessary Evaluate source, whether one -time or continuing problem Remove debris & educate public Replant first year, post signs, fence access Replant first year, post signs, fence access Evaluate response and adaptability of plants, communities; replant with vegetation adapted to corresponding moisture regime, if needed. Raedeke Associates, Inc. April 20, 2005 41 Evaluate source, cause; install appropriate erosion control measures; plant with species which have dense root systems; regrade, if necessary. Table 4. Continued. Problem Potential Remedial Action' Inadequate soil water Evaluate conditions, cause; divert water to wetland, regrade, or irrigate as appropriate. Drought Irrigate The potential actions listed are those commonly employed. No contingency plan can foresee all problems and appropriate solutions. For each site, problems encountered need to be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. If a more effective remedy than those listed is identified, it will be considered. Tukwila South Raedeke Associates, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Plan April 20, 2005 42 APPENDIX Hydrologic and Soil Data Unavoidable Impacts AESI Well Data September 2003 - March 2005 Date OBW -7h OBW -8h OBW -9h OBW -10h 9/29/2003 11.63 12.43 12.90 12.89 10/17/2003 12.05 12.81 13.07 13.04 11/18/2003 13.23 14.53 15.35 15.03 12/11/2003 14.65 16.52 16.74 16.86 1/8/2004 13.85 15.52 16.12 16.10 2/12/2004 15.75 17.21 17.34 17.70 3/17/2004 14.96 16.22 16.53 16.71 4/14/2004 14.62 15.86 16.15 16.31 5/7/2004 13.74 15.14 15.51 15.59 6/9/2004 14.21 15.80 16.06 16.11 7/14/2004 12.58 13.86 14.37 14.37 8/13/2004 11.92 13.02 13.57 13.48 9/15/2004 12.29 13.66 13.99 13.95 10/21/2004 12.90 14.54 14.83 14.73 11/22/2004 12.27 14.37 15.01 14.84 12/17/2004 15.62* * * 1/28/2005 15.87 17.35 17.35 17.65 2/22/2005 13.62 15.14 15.86 15.89 3/11/2005 13.27 14.54 15.24 15.18 Ground Elevation NAVD29 30.17 17.04 16.04 17.48 TOC Elevation NAVD 29 32.36 21.51 20.09 21.59 Stickup 2.18 4.43 4.06 4.10 Total Depth 32.72 35.81 35.32 34.73 * No data recorded due to standing water at well Plot Number Soil Depth Soil Texture Wetland 10, SP1, Table B.25 DEIS 0 -3" Organic loam 3 -12" Silt loam 12 -16" Silt loam Wetland 10, WL10SP1, Table B.24 DEIS 0 -14" Silt loam 14 -16 +" Mucky peat Wetland 10, SP2, Table B.23 DEIS 0 -14" Organic silt loam 14 -20 +" Peaty muck Wetland 10, SP4, Table B.22 DEIS 0 -18" Layers of silt loam and fine sandy loam 18 +" Sandy loam Wetland 11, WL11SP1, Table B.10 DEIS 0 -16" Silt loam 16 -20" Peaty muck Wetland 11, WL11 SP2, Table B.11 DEIS 0 -12" Silt loam 12 -18" Silt loam 18 +" Peaty muck Soil Data from Raedeke Sample Plots in Wetland Mitigation areas EXPLANATION OF UNAVOIDABLE WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS This Section explains why wetland and stream impacts proposed under the Tukwila South Project Master Plan are unavoidable in order to meet Purpose and Needs objectives. Four main categories of unavoidable impact causes are explained, along with why such categories of impacts are proposed to meet the Project's Purpose and Need. The unavoidable cause for each proposed wetland and stream impact is summarized in Table 1 of this Appendix and described in detail in the Tukwila South Project DEIS. Categories of Unavoidable Impact The four categories of unavoidable impact causes based on Purpose and Need for the Project are the following: 1. Minimum contiguous area needed for a viable, large - scale campus master plan environment attractive to national and international emerging technology industries; 2. Campus area dimensional and circulation requirements (pedestrian and secondary road circulation, not by use of the Southcenter Parkway); 3. The minimum finished site elevation to provide sewer and stormwater service throughout the Project; and the 4. Minimum buildable area for supporting services and retail at the north and south entrances to the Project. 1. Minimum Contiguous Large -Scale Campus Master Plan Environment The Project is intended to create a viable employment and emerging advanced technology commercial hub. Market research shows these industries prefer large - scale campus settings that include a complementary array of companies or institutions, include a wide range of complementary retail, commercial, and residential uses, and can provide for future expansion. Individual campus environments are defined by spatially cohesive building settings with organized open spaces such as central plazas and public gathering places, where circulation is pedestrian oriented, and where vehicular circulation is simplified on secondary roads. This setting provides a contiguous secure common internal circulation that allows for very short transit times (measured in minutes) between campus areas. Large building footprints are required to accommodate research laboratories, interaction between offices, conference and meeting facilities, laboratories and associated supporting services, and close proximity between multidisciplinary ' For details please refer to the Tukwila South Project DEIS Purpose and Need Section of Chapter 2. facilities. Multiple, interconnected campus settings are necessary to form the advanced technology national and international center that is the Purpose and Need for the Project. Research demonstrates the contiguous developable area needed to support the intended Project, including future expansion, is at least 250 acres plus an additional 100 acres for supporting uses, not divided into street grids. The developable portion of the 498.3 -acre Tukwila South Project site under current conditions is approximately 275 acres, excluding open space, critical areas, and storm control area requirements. In large measure, the developable contiguous area is limited by a flood protection barrier dike which precludes development south of its location due to unavailability of flood insurance (necessary in the event of river levee failure upstream). Relocation of the flood protection levee from South 196th Street to the southern boundary of the site (north of South 204th Street) is essential to create contiguous buildable area of sufficient size to meet the Purpose and Need. Under SEPA Alternatives 1 and 2, the developable portion of the site would rise to approximately 368 acres, excluding open space, critical areas, and storm control area requirements. Approximately 78.55 acres of the gain in buildable area are due to relocation of the flood protection barrier dike and related impacts to wetlands and streams (see "Area D" in Exhibit 1). 2. Campus Area Dimensional and Circulation Requirements As shown in Exhibit 1, the site is long and narrow, constricted to the west by steep slopes and to the east by the Green River. The Green River meander creates one severe site constriction approximately 420 feet wide (east to west), and another sizeable area further south where the site width between the slopes and the river ranges from about 750 feet to about 1,200 feet. The City of Tukwila's planned extension of the Southcenter Parkway between South 180th Street and South 200th Street must pass through these constrictions. Through the northerly constriction, the Southcenter Parkway alignment becomes limiting to connecting campus -style development with secondary roads. Through the southerly constriction, and throughout the site, the Southcenter Parkway alignment establishes the contiguous area available for large -scale campus development between it and the river. The further to the west Southcenter Parkway is placed, the better the alignment becomes to meet the Project Purpose and Need for contiguous buildable area described above. At the northerly constriction, the Southcenter Parkway must be aligned as far west as feasible to allow room for a secondary road and campus connection from north to south along the river. Under both SEPA Alternatives 1 and 2, the minimum distance between the proposed Southcenter Parkway and the river levee would be approximately 360 feet. All of this space at the constriction 2 Source: Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. July 23, 2004 Tukwila South Master Plan No Action Alternative Developed Site Area Table. would be needed under Alternatives 1 and 2 for construction of an internal road that would likely require a 65 -foot right -of -way, office /research campus buildings, and approximately landscaped pedestrian walkways. The north to south internal roadway, campus -style pedestrian connections, and building orientations are required by the Project's Purpose and Need Extension of the Southcenter Parkway from South 180th Street to South 200th Street has independent utility to the City of Tukwila and is planned to occur regardless of whether the Tukwila South Project proceeds. The Southcenter Parkway extension is planned by the City to be a 5 -lane road having a roadway width (fill prism) of between 80 feet and 90 feet. Design geometrics (alignment, curvature, and grade) for Southcenter Parkway must meet the requirements for a Collector Arterial in accordance with the City of Tukwila and AASHTO The Southcenter Parkway must extend south from the existing fixed intersection at Southcenter Parkway and South 180th Street, which because of minimum turning radius requirements makes impacts to stream "E" near the fixed intersection unavoidable no matter what alignment the Parkway takes further south. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the Southcenter Parkway alignment is shifted west, relative to the no action Alternative 3, in order to meet the Purpose and Need objectives for total contiguous buildable area and minimum distance between the river and Parkway at the northerly constriction that are described above. To provide a minimum 360 -foot distance between the levee and the Parkway at the northerly constriction, the Parkway alignment must turn southwest once past the intersection's influence and then turn southerly again through the constriction area (see "Area B" in Exhibit 1). Lines of sight and maximum road curvature restrict the alignment adjustments necessary to provide the minimum 360 -foot distance at the constriction, making direct impacts to stream E near Segale Park C Drive unavoidable, along with the direct impacts to stream E at the northerly constriction itself. If the Parkway alignment were to be shifted east to avoid stream E impacts near Segale Park C Drive and at the northerly constriction, then (1) the ability to connect campus development with a secondary road is lost at the constriction, and (2) approximately 9.5 buildable acres would be removed from campus -style development (see Area B in Exhibit 1) which is contrary to Purpose and Need objectives. 3. The Minimum Finished Site Elevation to Provide Sewer and Stormwater Service 3 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. These requirements include a minimum radius curvature between 850 to 1,000 feet, minimum tangent lengths between curves of approximately 200 feet to 300 feet for transition of superelevations, and Washington State Department of Transportation standards for highway intersections at South 180 Street, Segale Park C Drive, and South 200 Street. The master plan for the site requires provision for one sewer system and three stormwater systems to serve the Project. Mass grading of the site south and west of the existing Segale Business Park is necessary to accomplish this purpose. The controlling elevation for the site sewer is determined by the City of Tukwila's planned elevation for sewer main improvements at the Southcenter Parkway and South 180th Street intersection (the current sewer main elevation at the intersection is about 5 feet higher and would require more fill throughout the site). The entire Project sewer would connect to the City's existing system at this point. Therefore, the Project grade must allow for that connection elevation, a 0.1 percent minimum sewer grade, and a minimum 4 -foot cover depth. The City of Tukwila strongly prefers sewer lift stations with gravity flow for reasons of long term City benefit through enhanced reliability, and reduced operating expense. The southern portion of the site (where most fill impacts to wetlands would occur) would be served by one stormwater treatment facility located at the southern end of the site. The pond surface of the southern stormwater facility is established by (a) Green River water surface elevations under a variety of conditions and the need for the pond to discharge to the river through a floodgate, and (b) site runoff conditions. The resulting backwater elevation from the pond establishes minimum elevation site grade. Taken in combination, the site grade needed to accommodate sewer and stormwater infrastructure, given fixed control points at the Tukwila sewer connection point and the Green River for stormwater, require developed grade elevations of between about 29 feet and 30 feet. Existing elevations in the southern portion of the site to be filled range between about 16 feet to 25 feet (see "Area D" in Exhibit 1). The grade requirements for utility infrastructure are the cause of the majority of the unavoidable wetland fill impacts. The northern portion of the site would be served by two stormwater systems, both draining north to existing connections to pump stations in the City of Tukwila. The north portion of the site, west of the existing Segale Business Park, drains stormwater to the South 180th Street pump station, and is included in its service area. Water quality treatment would need to be provided at the northern end of the site prior to connection to the South 180th Street pump station. The Segale Business Park would eventually be redeveloped under the Master Plan, but that is not likely to occur during the first phases of development, and the existing business park is in the "northeast" stormwater drainage area served by the P17 pump station. Consequently the stormwater pond for the north area must be placed west of the Parkway at the north end of the site in "Area A" (see Exhibit 1). This requires grading the area of wetland 16 down to an elevation suitable for stormwater pond discharge to the off -site connection to the South 180th Street pump station, and suitable for gravity flow of stormwater from the project to the pond. 4 Please reference the Tukwila South Project Master Drainage Plan for details. 4. Minimum Buildable Area for Supporting Services and Retail At the North and South Project Entrances As explained above, the Project is intended to create a viable employment and emerging advanced technology commercial hub on a national and international scale. This requires that the Project include, among other features, a range of complementary retail and commercial services readily accessible to those working in, living in, or visiting the site. Retail and commercial services within the Project would benefit from drawing customers from within and outside the site boundaries, which requires that they be placed at site entrances where the trip counts are high enough to generate drive -by recognition and business. The highest trip counts at the Tukwila South Project are at the intersections of Oriilia Road and South 200th Street, and at Southcenter Parkway and South 180th Street. In addition, these retail services are intended to compliment the surrounding area by forming a logical business transition between it and the Tukwila South Project. Market research indicates that an area about 100 acres in size for such retail /commercial /residential areas would serve the needs of an advanced technology center at this location. This placement of retail/ commercial services at the desired locations results in the fill of one wetland, wetland 13. Partial fill of wetland 10 and partial fill of wetland 16 is anticipated where cut for the north area stormwater pond is required (see "Area D4" and "Area A" in Exhibit 1). Specific Wetland and Stream Impacts The areas where the four categories of unavoidable impacts would occur are overlain with each proposed wetland and stream impact in Exhibit 1. All streams proposed for impact are currently used as irrigation drainage ditches and are regulated watercourses by the City of Tukwila. Descriptions of each affected wetland and stream and the proposed impacts are summarized in Table 1 to this Appendix. Detailed descriptions of impacts are located in the Tukwila South Project EIS and its appendices, as is the regulatory status of each affected wetland. 5 Raedeke Associates, Inc. March 28, 2005. Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan, Tukwila South; Raedeke Associates, Inc. March 29, 2005. Plants and Animals Assessment, Draft EIS Report; and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. February 16, 2005. Fisheries Technical Report, Tukwila South Project. Resource Exhibit 1 Area Reference( s) Unavoidabl e Impact Cause Category Size of Impact Description of Impact Specific Reason(s) the Impact is Unavoidable Wetland 16 Area A 3, 4 0.65 ac. (all of wetland) The area would be cut down in elevation, removing the wetland. The elevation of this area would be lowered in order to build a stormwater pond serving the north area of the project that would discharge to the S. 180th St. Pump Station immediately to the north. This portion of the site is within the pump station service area, and this specific location is nearest the pump station connection at the site boundary. A secondary reason is to develop retail /commercial services at the north entrance to the site, at the margins of the pond; however the elevation required by the stormwater pond is the reason for the impact. TABLE 1 Specific Stream and Wetland Unavoidable Impact Explanation (Table Order is Generally North to South through the Site; see Exhibit 1) Resource Exhibit 1 Area Reference( s) Unavoidabl e Impact Cause Category Size of Impact Description of Impact Specific Reason(s) the Impact is Unavoidable Stream E Area B 1, 2 2,807 linear ft. 0.42 ac. A portion of stream E would be placed in a culvert. The proposed alignment of the Parkway is necessary to minimize the northerly constriction between the Green River levee to the east and the steep slopes to the west. A width of about 300 feet is required for a secondary road, pedestrian connections, and campus -style development objectives. Significant highway design restrictions are identified in the text above. Note: The City's extension of Southcenter Parkway is independent of the Tukwila South Project. The extension of a S- lane collector arterial south from the existing intersection makes impacts to Stream E in the immediate vicinity of the Southcenter Parkway and S. 180th Street unavoidable. Wetland 1 Area C 1, 2 0.26 ac. (portion of 2.17 ac wetland) A portion of wetland 1 would be filled. The alignment of the Parkway through this area is necessary to maximize space between the Green River levee to the east and the steep slopes to the west along the southerly site constriction. This space is required for campus -style development objectives to be met. Resource Exhibit 1 Area Reference( s) Unavoidabl e Impact Cause Category Size of Impact Description of Impact Specific Reason(s) the Impact is Unavoidable Wetland 2 Area D (D- 1) 3 0.09 ac. (all of wetland) Filled from —25 ft to 30 -ft elev. The elevation of these areas must be raised in order to be served by sewer and stormwater utilities. Site grades are driven by control points at the sewer main connection to the City of Tukwila and, for stormwater in the southern portion of the site, by elevations of the Green River. If some or all of these wetlands were to be retained contrary to Purpose and Need, they would exist as closed depressions within the area of fill with no ability to drain by a surface route. The severity of the hydrologic impacts from this isolation would be so great that site functions and values are better served by mitigating the entire wetlands. Wetland 3 Area D (D- 2) 3 0.03 ac. (all of wetland) Filled from —20 ft to 30 -ft elev. Wetland 3 -A Area D (D- 2) 3 0.01 ac. (all of wetland) Filled from —20 ft to 30 -ft elev. Wetland 4 -A Area D (D- 2) 3 0.04 ac. (all of wetland) Filled from —20 ft to 30 -ft elev. • Resource Exhibit 1 Area Reference( s) Unavoidabl e Impact Cause Category Size of Impact Description of Impact Specific Reason(s) the Impact is Unavoidable Wetland 5 Area D (D- 2) 3 0.02 ac. (all of wetland) Filled from -16 ft to 30 -ft elev. Wetland 6 Area D (D- 3) 3 0.03 ac. (all of wetland) Filled from -22 ft to 29 -ft elev. Wetland 7 Area D (D- 3) 3 3.07 ac. (all of wetland) Filled from -16 ft to 29 -ft elev. Wetland 8 Area D (D- 3) 3 1.50 ac. (all of wetland) Filled from -16 ft to 29 -ft elev. Wetland 9 Area D (D- 3) 1, 3 2.71 ac. (all of wetland) The area would be filled from about elevation 16 to 18 ft to elevation 29 ft. Partially filled by relocated flood protection levee; the remainder filled to the minimum grade necessary for sewer and stormwater infrastructure as described above. Resource Exhibit 1 Area Reference( s) Unavoidabl e Impact Cause Category Size of Impact Description of Impact Specific Reason(s) the Impact is Unavoidable Wetland 10 Area D (D- 4) 1, 3, 4 0.91 ac. (portion of wetland) The area would be filled. Partially filled by the relocated flood protection levee in order to have the minimum developable area; the remainder filled to the minimum grade necessary for sewer and stormwater infrastructure as described above. A secondary reason is to develop retail /commercial services at a south entrance to the site. If this portion of the wetland were to be retained contrary to Purpose and Need, it would exist within an area 6 to 7 feet bellow finished grade and could not drain through the flood protection levee to the remainder of Wetland 10. The severity of the hydrologic impacts from this isolation would be so great that site functions and values are better served by mitigating the entire wetland impact area. Johnson Ck. Area D (D- 3) 1 1,346 linear ft. 0.30 ac. The stream would be relocated The stream would be partially filled by the relocated flood protection levee which would bisect it in order to have the minimum developable area; the remainder filled to the minimum grade necessary for sewer and stormwater infrastructure as described above. The stream would be relocated south of the new flood protection levee. Resource Exhibit 1 Area Reference( s) Unavoidabl e Impact Cause Category Size of Impact Description of Impact Specific Reason(s) the Impact is Unavoidable Stream J -1 Area D (D- 3) 1 875 linear ft. 0.04 ac. The stream would be placed in a culvert. The stream would be filled by the relocated flood protection levee in order to have the minimum developable area. Stream C Area D (D- 3) 1 852 linear ft. 0.10 ac. The stream would be placed in a culvert. The stream would be partially filled by the relocated flood protection levee which would bisect it in order to have the minimum developable area; the remainder filled to the minimum grade necessary for sewer and stormwater infrastructure as described above. Stream D Area D (D- 3) 1 1,247 linear ft. 0.21 ac. The stream would be placed in a culvert. The stream would be partially filled by the relocated flood protection levee which would bisect it in order to have the minimum developable area; the remainder filled to the minimum grade necessary for sewer and stormwater infrastructure as described above. Wetland 13 Area E 4 0.11 ac. (all of wetland) The wetland would be filled. The wetland would be filled to develop retail /commercial services at a south entrance as required by Purpose and Need. Total wetlands fill: 9.40 ACOE - regulated wetlands fill; 9.43 total wetlands fill (48.79 ac. total wetlands on- site). Total stream fill: 7,127 linear feet filed; 1.07 acres filed (13,338 linear feet, or 2.03 acres, total streams on- site). EXHIBIT 150 Comparison between King County Shoreline Master Program Rural Industrial Development and City of Tukwila Urban Designation Setback Requirements 75' SETBACK KING COUNTY FROM OHWM — NO PUBLIC ACCESS KING COUNTY 50' SETBACK / KING OHWM — LIMITED PUBLIC ACCESS 75' CITY OF TUKWILA 40' SETBACK FROM MEAN HIGH WATER ELEVA 50' — KING COUNTY SO' SETBACK I 1 / 20' FROM OHWM — FULL PUBLIC ACCESS 40 I X 40' PROPOSED SITE FILL ELEV. ±32 17 i l 7-A ' I ` i i� i� i� i? i��% �i ��i �i �i ��i�i�` i��i�i� / / • - j / \ / ^ : , �` ' p 7 `i�`i�`i�`i�i�� >`i % ! � \? �`1 \ /� / \ % / i.\ EXISTING LEVEE ,\ /\\ ,� � /j \ j / /� / / i , /j a PPROXIMATE 9.000 C F S i .1-..\ • ,1 MEAN HIGH WATER ELEV. 26 _\/.\ / \ \: / ,, / ! / . \� \ \ / \\f /� \� \\ / / \ \/ � i \�' j // " .k % e — 4 e- 44 44 - LOCATION — FAR' \ �j \ / \ , ASSUMED N. 4S OHWM ELEV 14 � \�j ` A Al[j J � •• // ZIII:d.. ' SECTION OF \ /% 1. - ' x. i ,, , �+ ..; -� \, I O -{II \� / // / • \ \ \i \ /�r'' f 1i rt>xes l q n+ 'sttf• L y,. ,{, i s i, � tt y- r x A r > ... - ..,._ --- -1 r- , i,., 1 i . 1 ifi: l' I._ .i.,..,j._. (0,- : \ ... I . . . . . . r�rY s N Any �^ l ' < 4 t+ I 1 .si s w y Yom ` SOLE I AERIAL SURVEY INFORMATION TO ELEVA1ON 14 WITH ASSUMED III SLOPE BELOW OHWM , 1r / e � � /`% / fi /�%, M ,u 1n 4: f � ,,� %% / %` % / M HOR. I t = 40 VER• I' = 10' 200 160 120 80 40 0 40 80 120 160 200 0 !GOLDSMITH (•' g 8c ASSCDCIATES2 121511441 Avenue SE, Belevue, WA 98004• P.O. Box 3565, Belem. wA98009 OFFICE. 14251462.108a FAX 1425) 462-7719, aWtt @goldsrsY4inrreetkg.com COMPARISON BETWEEN KING COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM RURAL / INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CITY OF TUKWILA URBAN DESIGNATION SETBACK REQUIREMENTS EXHIBIT 150 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION LOOKING NORTH ALONG GREEN RIVER ACAD DWG.: M: \ACAD \PLATS \03 \03102 \03102e150.dw PLOTTED: 03102e150.dwg LADAMS 03/01/05 11:26 RESPONSES TO THE 13 ITEMS LISTED IN ECOLOGY'S LETTER AND ONE ITEM VERBALALLY REQUESTED IN SUBSEQUENT TELEPHONE REQUEST Responses to Shoreline Amendment Application Ecology Requests Responses to the 13 Items Listed in Ecology's March 28, 2005 Letter and Verbal Request to the City of Tukwila for a Complete Shoreline Amendment Application (In addition to the SMP Checklist) May 6, 2005 To: Ms. Lisa Verner, City of Tukwila From: Sue Carlson, Director of Development, Segale Properties, LLC Responses to items 2 through 13 below provide the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) information requested in a March 28, 2005 letter to you from Betty Renkor with Ecology's Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program. Item 1 is the SMP Checklist included in this package. Item 14 was verbally relayed to Richard Settle with Foster Pepper & Shefelman by Betty Renkor and Jeannie Summerhays with Ecology after the March 28, 2005 letter. Most of the information provided in the responses below is taken from the Tukwila South Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (April 2005) and its associated appendices, especially the Water Quality Technical Report (Appendix C), Plants and Animals Technical Report (Appendix D), and the Fisheries Technical Report (Appendix E). The remainder is from the revised Wetlands and Fish Mitigation Plans (Attachment E to the SEPA Checklist in this package). Item 2 Inventory & Characterization Items a) Existing Structures, utilities, water- oriented uses, navigation, transportation, vegetation and shoreline modifications, shoreline and adjacent land use patterns (WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(a) and (3)(c) and (d)). See Attachments A and B to the SMP Checklist. b) Critical areas identification and boundaries See Attachment A to the SMP Checklist. c) Unusual areas- priority habitats, toxic waste sites, ect. See Attachment A to the SMP Checklist. Item 4 Shoreline Restoration Opportunities See Attachment D to the SMP Checklist. May 6, 2005 Item 3 Discussion of how the SMP amendment achieves no net loss of shoreline ecological functions (WAC 173-26-201 (2)). See Attachment C to the SMP Checklist. Segale Properties, LLC Page 1 Tukwila South Master Plan Responses to Shoreline Amendment Application Ecology Requests May 6, 2005 Item 5 Discussion of how the preferred uses are unique to or dependent upon a shoreline location (WAC 173-26 -201 (2)(d)). Not applicable to this shoreline amendment, with the exception of the mitigation projects specific to the master plan for the annexed area. The mitigation projects for the master plan are discussed in Attachment D to the SEPA Checklist. The proposed master plan would be consistent with Tukwila's "Urban" Shoreline Master Plan designation and the underlying zoning. The Green River adjacent to the project is non - navigable and generally is non - recreational, thus there are no economically productive water - dependent or water - related uses. Items 6 through 8 Process and Documentation. They.�C�.ty��of - �w` 1 suPY,�i�a�o Item 9 Amended Environment Designation Maps See Exhibit 1 to the SMP Checklist. Item 10 Written Justification for the amendment. The purpose and need for the SMP minor amendment/ predesignation is to accommodate the proposed Tukwila South Master Plan Development in the City of Tukwila. The proposed SMP minor amendment will bring shorelines now in King County's Urban Growth Area (UGA), mainly zoned for industrial development, into the City of Tukwila to be regulated under the City's SMP, after this portion of the City's planned annexation area is annexed. The Growth Management Act encourages annexation of unincorporated land in the UGA, and the scale and complexity of the Tukwila South Master Plan is more sensibly managed by containing it within, and regulating it by, the City of Tukwila. The City of Tukwila will predesignate the annexed shoreline of the Green River as Urban Environment under its SMP (See Exhibit 1 to the SMP Checklist). The Tukwila South Master Plan purpose and need is described in Chapter 2 of the DEIS and repeated below for your convenience. The purpose and need of the Tukwila South Master Plan is to accommodate the needs of national and international emerging technology industries and institutions for an integrated, large -scale campus environment that allows for campus security, is near a major international airport and supporting facilities and services, and is not far from existing biotech /bioscience clusters. The Puget Sound region is a national leader of emerging technology industries such as biotechnology and biosciences, applied and fundamental medical research, computer software and technology, and other similar advanced technology and research activities. Existing industry leaders include the University of Washington, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Segale Properties, LLC Page 2 Tukwila South Master Plan Responses to Shoreline Amendment Application Ecology Requests May 6, 2005 Virginia Mason Research Center, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and others. The biotechnology /bioscience industry in Washington State is comprised of more than 190 companies (90% of which are located in the Seattle metropolitan area), and the industry is growing at an increasing pace. These enterprises are focused on the research and development of therapeutic products, diagnostics, and genomics/ informatics, among other areas. There is a recognized need within this growing industry for a new, large -scale campus setting in an appropriate location to house a substantial number of companies and institutions that seek to co- locate, and that cannot readily be accommodated on smaller sites or on traditionally -sized city lots and street grids. There is a pressing need for a project site at least 250 acres in size for the core industry uses, plus an additional 100 acres of adjacent property for supporting facilities and services. This size is necessary to accommodate the estimated demand of 10 -14 million square feet of development over time. The project must be able to support a range of functions in applied research, development and manufacturing in an integrated campus setting. The campus must include complementary retail, hotel, residential, and other supporting uses. The campus must have physical characteristics to allow for effective campus security. It must be located in convenient proximity to an international airport to accommodate efficient and secure international transportation of scientists, research specimens, and materials It must also be located within a convenient drive time from existing biotech /bioscience clusters in Seattle (e.g., the University of Washington and South Lake Union). The Tukwila South property, as a whole has unique characteristics of size, security, and proximity to Sea -Tac airport and existing biotech /bioscience clusters. The property's attributes are unique within the Puget Sound region and the State of Washington and to some degree are unusual nationally and internationally. The property will accommodate integrated activities that do not physically fit anywhere else in the region, while providing sufficient room to grow over time. The property owner is committed to the necessary up -front infrastructure investment on the Tukwila South site as a whole to advance the long -term vision for biotech /bioscience development in our region. The property owner is also committed to plan comprehensively for sustainable development including appropriate mitigation of environmental impacts. To feasibly accomplish the integrated campus development and to create a development site as a whole of sufficient size, the flood protection barrier dike that protects the surrounding Tukwila area in the event of Green River levee failure must be relocated south of its current location. In addition, an efficient transportation network on site and in the site vicinity must also be provided to accomplish an economically viable development and fulfill the City's Segale Properties, LLC Page 3 Tukwila South Master Plan Responses to Shoreline Amendment Application Ecology Requests May 6, 2005 transportation goals as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. This includes: realignment of S. 178th St., and extension and expansion of Southcenter Parkway to support a campus -type development. These roadways will be designed and sited to improve public safety, minimize multiple access points, and maximize efficiency in circulation and capacity by aligning the road such that future secondary road connections are feasible. These improvements are intended to provide safer and more efficient connections to the local and regional road network than currently exists. A related purpose and need of the Tukwila South project is to stimulate economic development to create family -wage jobs in our community, wide - ranging economic benefits to the region, and new general tax revenues, all in a manner that is consistent with state and local growth management goals and that fully mitigates potential environmental impacts. It is estimated that full build -out of the Tukwila South project will attract approximately 25,000 direct jobs in an industry that includes a wide variety of personnel needs ranging from molecular biologists to hotel workers. The demographic area within which the Tukwila South project is located (much of Tukwila, Sea -Tac, Kent, and Renton) has a higher percentage of lower - income and less- educated residents than the rest of King County. The 1999 median household income in the area was $40,973, which was 23% less than the King County median ($53,157), 10% less than Seattle's median ($45,736) and 34% less than Bellevue's median ($62,338). Nineteen percent of persons aged 25 years and older in the study area have no high school diploma, which is a higher proportion than King County (10 %), Seattle (11 %), and Bellevue (6 %). Thus, economic development in this area has the added benefit of bringing new employment opportunities closer to disadvantaged populations. In addition, the Tukwila South property as a whole is located within the urban growth area as identified through regional, county, and city comprehensive plans adopted pursuant to the state Growth Management Act. The project is consistent with the Act's adopted goal of promoting urban in -fill development rather than exurban sprawl. Finally, the Tukwila South property as a whole is close enough to existing urban centers to allow for efficient transit service. Sound Transit is now studying the feasibility of developing a people mover system that would connect this site to the Link light rail line now under construction and to the Sounder commuter rail station, thus reducing reliance on SOV trips. Development at Tukwila South will include substantial environmental benefits to mitigate for potential project impacts. The proposed development concept calls for: creation of new valuable off - channel habitat for fisheries and other wildlife along the Green River; rehabilitation of degraded, low -value wetlands; and restoration of Johnson Creek from its current channelized condition. This Segale Properties, LLC Tukwila South Master Plan Page 4 Responses to Shoreline Amendment Application Ecology Requests May 6, 2005 comprehensive approach to natural resources will result in net benefits to anadromous fisheries and overall wetland, stream and fisheries habitat. Items 11 through 13 Summary of proposed amendments, evidence of SEPA compliance and copies of all public, agency, and tribal comments received. the" City of Tu la a( suppl yr this formti4n1 ? ✓ r13...-...ter am =v', Item 14 The affect of the SMP amendment on public access. Please see the SMP Checklist where this is addressed (pages 4,13,15, and 19). Segale Properties, LLC Page 5 Tukwila South Master Plan 7 10.0 - •A XCLUS P /PE TO EXISTING F LOOD R /I�ER PROTECTION L i 2 BARRIER DIKE SOUTH BASIN S. 200TH ST. P /PE ORA /NAG COL ECT /ON EXISTING JOHNSON • DITCH (DITCHED STREAM) CUL VERT L (REAM ✓2 , !GOLDSMITH 2 8c ASSOCIATESi �• amo. lime I Engineering - Land Use Planning - Sun/eying 12151141h Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98004, PA. Box 3565, Belem, WA 98009 OFFICE: (425) 462-1080. FAX (425) 462-7719, cam REV. NO. DESCRIP MADE BY CHECKED TREAM STREAM (D /TCHED STR EXISTIN S. 200 H ST. DRAINA E OUTF LL PLOTTED: 03IO2615Ldre LCARPE 04/19/013 132 SCALE: P • B00' DRAWN: LCA DESIGNED: LCA APPROVED: KJO FLD BK: PG ACAD DWG.: 03102e152 PSSF: XIST DITCH OF TUKWILA JOHNS QL -D /rP' H (D /TCHt D ST AN (EAST ORK/ RIV R MIL LA PIANTA EXISTING CONDITIONS TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT WASHINGTON JOB NO: 03102 N O O N 0 0 O ID LEGEND: OHM SITE PERIMETER CITY LIMIT BC UNDARY SEA -TAC EXCLUSIONARY ZONE BOUND TIN N BO NDAR PROLJECT=N CITY OF tUKWILA, ER 60 S HEET �1 r JOHNSON .. 1 CREEK SUB -BASIN (OFF SITE) NNEX 180C FIGURE 1 1 K/L , f7 \ _ BASIN i9L , :/8 STEAM /7 JOHNSON DircH /D /TCHED STREAM) ES T FORK) TREAM - STRE,4M (D /TCHED STR \`` SCALE LEGEND: S T�EA SITE PERIMETER CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY \\ SEA -TAC EXCLUSIONARY ZONE EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN BOU = = I PROJECT AREA WITHIN CITY OF TUKWI RIVER MILE MARKER 300 600 REV. NO. DATE DESCRP MADE BY CHECKED PLOTTED: 03102453.dwg LCARPE 04/19/05 10: SCALE: r • 600' DATE: DRAWN: LCA DESIGNED: LCA APPROVED: KJO FLO BK: O S •'.AM ORK) LA PIANTA LLC !GOLDSMITH g & ASSOCIATESk Planing - Surveying ACAD DWG.: 051028153 PSSF: STORM DRAIN OUTFALL FOR S. 200TH ST. TO BE REMOVED JOHNSON DITCH OUTFALL EW STORM POND GRAVITY ND P MP OUTFALLS OR S UTH BASIN / FLOODGATES , HN S ON dREE L W TH ;%- GREEN RIVER OUTFALL LOCATIONS CITY OF TUKWILA JOHNSON 1 , ' CREEK SUB -BASIN (OFF SITE) WASHINGTON JOB No: 03102 SHEET C4 N N FIGURE 2 APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Tukwila South Project LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. See Attached List Quarter: Section: Township: Range: See Attached List (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Address: Phone: Signature: Sue Carlson, Segale Properties 5811 Segale Park Dr C, Tukwila, WA 98188 206- 75-2000 FAX: 206 - 575 -1837 G: IAPPHAN \LANDUSE.APP\COMPAPP.doc, 06/28/00 • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan @ci. tkwila. wa. us 57r,p ® D Y'— /T. p) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS �- G P/ Date: fop /45 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P- CPA/P -ZCA Planner: L,(/Yzk f / (Date: File Number: LO — ©3 O Application Complete ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Tukwila South Project LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. See Attached List Quarter: Section: Township: Range: See Attached List (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Address: Phone: Signature: Sue Carlson, Segale Properties 5811 Segale Park Dr C, Tukwila, WA 98188 206- 75-2000 FAX: 206 - 575 -1837 G: IAPPHAN \LANDUSE.APP\COMPAPP.doc, 06/28/00 • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan @ci. tkwila. wa. us 57r,p ® D Y'— /T. p) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS �- G P/ Date: fop /45 • A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: Combination of LDR, MUO, HI, TUC & TVS Proposed: same B. ZONING DESIGNATION: Existing: Combinatckthn of LDR, MUO, HI, TUC & TVS Proposed: Tukwila South Overlay District C. LAND USE(S): Existing: Combination of agricultural and industrial Proposed: Proposed mixed use "Tukwila South Master Plan" (for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones) D. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES: Describe the existing uses located within 1,000 feet in all directions from the property or area for which a change is proposed. North side: A commercial /industrial mix, in Tukwila, zoned "Tukwila Urban Center" East side: Bounded by the Green River. Beyond, in Tukwila & Kent, is an industrial /commercial mix, along with one parcel in Kent zoned "OS" South side: Agricultural and low density residential in Kent West side: Bounded entirely by Orillia Rd & Interstate 5. To the west of Orillia is a small pocket of LDR in King County, and beyond 1 -5 in SeaTac is SFR. G :WPPHAMLANDUSE.APPNCGMPAPP.doc, 06/28/00 • • te Rezone Application TMC 18.80 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria (TMC 18.80.010) This application is for a rezone to establish the Tukwila South Overlay District. No Comprehensive Plan amendments are proposed as a part of this application. The Comprehensive Plan amendments associated with the Tukwila South Master Plan Area were addressed in 2004. 1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why; The proposal is to rezone the area addressed in the Tukwila South Master Plan, located within the City of Tukwila's Tukwila South planning area. The area is approximately 500 acres in size. The rezone will establish the Tukwila South Overlay District, which implements the Comprehensive Plan Tukwila South Master Plan Area designation and the Tukwila South Master Plan to accomplish the vision for a major new mixed use employment center containing high technology, light industrial, office, commercial, and residential uses. The Overlay District will provide for use, development, and permit process standards. 2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change; The general boundaries of the Tukwila South Overlay District are S 178 180 Street on the north, S. 204 Street on the south; Orillia Road and Interstate -5 on the west, and the Green River on the east. The creation of the Tukwila South Overlay District will allow for the type of development envisioned in the Tukwila South Master Plan Area. The area is currently a mix of low density industrial, recreational, and agricultural uses. Over time, this area will transition into a more intensive mix of uses than what exists today as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act; The proposed rezone implements the Comprehensive Plan Tukwila South Master Plan Area designation to allow for a new mixed use employment center with a range of industrial, office, commercial, and residential uses. The rezone is intended to implement the City's relevant Comprehensive Plan policies for the long -term development of the Tukwila South Master Plan Area and promotes the goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA) for managing growth and coordinating land use planning with the provision of infrastructure. The rezone addresses the general goals of the GMA and the policies contained within the City's Comprehensive Plan by facilitating the development of growth in designated urban growth areas, establishing development standards that support the type of development envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, supporting economic development consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, including provisions which allows for a variety of housing types and densities, and including provisions for the timing of public facilities and services necessary to support development. 6. A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in functional plans (i.e., the City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is adopted; The rezone implements the vision of the Tukwila South Master Plan, which outlines phased infrastructure improvements for the Overlay District. Major utility infrastructure would be extended through the site within the Southcenter Parkway right -of -way such as such as stormwater conveyance pipe, water transmission line, sewer trunk line, electricity, gas, and telecommunications. The Tukwila South Project Draft EIS (April 2005), Section 3.16 analyzes the proposed infrastructure improvements associated with the Tukwila South Master Plan including the extension of Southcenter Parkway right -of -way through the site, consistent with the Land Use policies for the Tukwila South Master Plan Area. Installation of utilities would be coordinated with the City of Tukwila, Highline Water District and Puget Sound Energy. Extensions to these major utility lines within Southcenter Parkway would be constructed as future development occurs. The City of Tukwila's wastewater service area includes the north portion of the Tukwila South Overlay District within the City limits. The southern portion of the site is not currently included in any municipal wastewater service area. It is assumed that the City would extend the boundary of its sewer service area to include the site, and that future wastewater service to the site would be provided by the City. This may require amendments to the City's 1991 Comprehensive Sewer System Plan and 1999 Addendum, which is currently being updated. It is anticipated that changes to the City's Shoreline Master Program will need to occur. The proposal to amend Tukwila's Shoreline Master Plan addresses the portion of the site subject to annexation and shoreline re- designation, currently designated "Rural" under the King County Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Designation of the newly annexed Tukwila South shoreline as "Urban Environment" would be consistent with the Shoreline Element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Since the use, setback, height restriction and other provisions of the existing King County and proposed Tukwila shoreline master program designations are similar, no net loss of shoreline ecological functions would be anticipated.. The comprehensive, permanent stormwater control system proposed as part of the Tukwila South Project would meet the requirements of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, adopted by the City of Tukwila, and would include a conveyance system of two major water quality treatment and runoff control facilities. Discharge of stormwater during construction would require a National Pollutant Discharge elimination system permit and an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification issued by the Department of Ecology. These permits will require a variety of measure for construction stormwater discharge that are intended to result in no adverse impacts to receiving waters. 7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, would be needed to support the proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the capital facilities plans of the City; See item 6 above. 8. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. Changes that are required in other City codes to implement the proposed changes include: the creation of the Tukwila South Overlay District (Chapter 18.41), amendments to binding site plan regulations (Chapter 17.16), and amendments to city zoning definitions (Chapter 18.06). Zoning Amendment Criteria (TMC 18.84.030) 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest; See item 4 above. The rezone proposal is in the public interest because it implements the City's Comprehensive Plan vision for the area which recognizes the "ability of the area to transition to a dynamic, urban, multi -use district." This includes the opportunity to create major new employment, commercial, and residential areas, economic development opportunities for the City, improve environmental protection of the site and its surroundings, and improve circulation network in the community. 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form. This rezone application is supported by the Tukwila South Master Plan. See the Master Plan for applicable plans. r • • City of Tukwila Shoreline ,daster Program Minor Amendment Application May 23, 2005 City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment Application Revised May 23, 2005 To: Ms. Lisa Verner, City of Tukwila From: Sue Carlson, Director of Development, Segale Properties LLC RE: Proposed Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment/Pre- designation to Accommodate the Proposed Tukwila South Master Plan Development in the City. A. 1. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? The proposal to amend Tukwila's Shoreline Master Plan addresses the portion of the site subject to annexation and shoreline re- designation, currently designated "Rural" under the King County Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Designation of the newly annexed Tukwila South shoreline as "Urban Environment" would be consistent with the Shoreline Element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Since the use, setback, height restriction and other provisions of the existing King County and proposed Tukwila shoreline master program designations are similar, no net loss of shoreline ecological functions would be anticipated.. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan in Goal 5.1, Policy 5.1.1 says " The following area shall be designated as the Urban — Open Space Environment: The entire shoreline zone from the Highway 99 bridge upstream extending to South 204 Street." The area under consideration lies within this described area. This application implements the intent of the City of Tukwila's adopted Comprehensive Plan. A. 2. Why is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? State law requires local governments to amend their Shoreline Master Program to include the annexed area within one year from the effective date of annexation. La Pianta submitted a notice of intent to annex the South Tukwila area to the city in November of 2004. This application pre- designates this area to conform to Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program. WAC 173 -26 -160 Local government annexation. " In the event of annexation of a shoreline of the state, the local government assuming jurisdiction shall notify the department of such annexation and develop or amend a master program to include the annexed area. Such master program development or amendment Segale Properties Tukwila South Project Page 1 City of Tukwila Shorelint. _.faster Program Minor Amendment Application May 23, 2005 shall be consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines and shall be submitted to the department for approval no later than one year from the effective date of annexation." The proposed Shoreline Master Program map amendment provides for the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Goals and Policies. Please see response to Question B.3. A. 3. Why will the proposed change be a net benefit to the community? The proposed Shoreline Master Program Map Amendment area, together with the portion of the Tukwila South Master Plan area currently within the City limits represent approximately 500 acres of property proposed as a master planned development to accommodate national and international corporations in an integrated campus environment. Additional types of develop may include residential, retail and service uses. This integrated planned community will provide economic and environmental benefits to the public in the form of jobs, increased tax revenues, shoreline restoration, open space, expanded public access to the Green River shoreline and wetland restoration and enhancement. B.1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why. The purpose and need for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) minor amendment/ pre- designation is to accommodate the proposed Tukwila South Master Plan Development in the City of Tukwila. The proposed SMP minor amendment will bring shorelines now in King County's Urban Growth Area (UGA), mainly zoned for industrial development, into the City of Tukwila to be regulated under the City's SMP (see Exhibit 1 attached to this application form — Tukwila South Shoreline Master Program Amendment), after this portion of the City's planned annexation area is annexed (see Exhibit 1 attached to this application form — Tukwila South Overlay District). The Growth Management Act encourages annexation of unincorporated land in the UGA, and the scale and complexity of the Tukwila South Master Plan is more sensibly managed by containing it within, and regulating it by, the City of Tukwila. The City of Tukwila will pre - designate the annexed shoreline of the Green River as Urban Environment under its SMP. Zoning within the annexed area and shoreline, and of adjacent areas, is shown in Exhibit 1- Tukwila South Overlay District. B.2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change. The proposed SMP annexation is contiguous with the southern half of the approximately 500 -acre Tukwila South Master Plan area, which includes lands south of the existing city limits between the Green River and the SeaTac/Tukwila boundary, south to South 204 Street. A petition to annex has been presented to Segale Properties Tukwila South Project Page 2 • Segale Properties Tukwila South Project City of Tukwila Shorelint .aster Program Minor Amendment Application May 23, 2005 the City and the annexation and incorporation of the area into the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is expected to occur in the Fall of 2005. Annexation and incorporation of the annexed Green River shoreline into the City's SMP are actions intended to enable and encourage future growth within the UGA of the City of Tukwila; specifically growth within the Tukwila South Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Without the major infrastructure improvements enabled by the SAMP, the action alternatives described in the Tukwila South Draft EIS (April 2004) would not be feasible. One aspect of the proposed master plan is a net increase in wetland functions and values for the site. The City's Urban SMP designation allows uses that are no more intensive than those allowed by the King County SMP Rural /Industrial provisions now applicable to these shorelines, and the City's SMP regulations are at least as environmentally protective as King County's SMP provisions. The entire shoreline affected by the proposed SMP minor amendment includes a levee separating most natural environmental functions of the Green River and its riparian zone from the upland area to be annexed. The proposed Urban Environment shoreline designation within the City of Tukwila would allow the zoning applied to the annexed shoreline as shown in Exhibit 1, and consistent with the County's current Rural /Industrial provisions. The proposed Urban Environment designation and zoning overlays shown in Exhibit 1 are consistent with surrounding property zoning and the UGA designation for the property. B.3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations are met (cite policy numbers and code sections that apply). Annexation and incorporation of the annexed Green River shoreline into the City's SMP are actions intended to enable and encourage future growth within the UGA of the City of Tukwila; specifically growth within the Tukwila South Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Major portions of the Comprehensive Plan elements are summarized below; all other relevant elements are described in detail in the Draft EIS. • Community Image Element: The proposed annexation to accommodate the Tukwila South Master Plan would promote community interaction by providing public and private amenities such as plazas, landscaped open space, and pedestrian bicycle pathways to link the campuses to adjacent areas. The communities' environmental heritage would be recognized through preservation of the western hillside, protection of open space, and a net gain in functions and values of fish and wetland habitat. Building design, construction and materials would be coordinated through comprehensive plan urban design principles. • Economic Development Element: The proposed annexation to accommodate the Tukwila South Master Plan would increase capital investments to encourage development that supports family -wage jobs, Page 3 City of Tukwila Shoreline ..faster Program Minor Amendment Application May 23, 2005 concurrent with substantial private actions, and provide capacity to meet Tukwila's employment targets. • Housing Element: The proposed annexation would accommodate creation of new housing within the Tukwila South area to help the City achieve its housing target. • Natural Environment Element: The proposed annexation would accommodate requirements of the Urban Environment designation under its SMP and be consistent with the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.160 (G)) as required to provide consistency with this element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. • Shoreline Element: Designation of the newly annexed Tukwila South shoreline as "Urban Environment" is consistent with the Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan. B.4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act. Consistent with the GMA (RCW 36.70A) and Countywide Planning Policies described in Section 3.7 of the Tukwila South Project Draft EIS (April 2005), the City's of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan (1995 and subsequently amended) guides future development to fulfill the City's responsibilities under GMA. Annexation and incorporation of the annexed Green River shoreline into the City's SMP are actions intended to enable and encourage future growth within the UGA of the City of Tukwila; specifically growth within the Tukwila South Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. B. 6. A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in functional plans (i.e., the City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is adopted; The Shoreline Master Program Map Amendment implements the vision of the Tukwila South Master Plan, which outlines phased infrastructure improvements for the Overlay District. Major utility infrastructure would be extended through the site within the Southcenter Parkway right -of -way such as such as stormwater conveyance pipe, water transmission line, sewer trunk line, electricity, gas, and telecommunications. The Tukwila South Project Draft EIS (April 2005), Section 3.16 analyzes the proposed infrastructure improvements associated with the Tukwila South Master Plan including the extension of Southcenter Parkway right - of -way through the site, consistent with the Land Use policies for the Tukwila South Master Plan Area. Installation of utilities would be coordinated with the City of Tukwila, Highline Water District and Puget Sound Energy. Extensions to these major utility lines within Southcenter Parkway would be constructed as future development occurs. Segale Properties Tukwila South Project Page 4 City of Tukwila Shoreline _ .tster Program Minor Amendment Application May 23, 2005 The SMP map amendment area is not currently included in any municipal wastewater service area. It is assumed that the City would extend the boundary of its sewer service area to include the site, and that future wastewater service to the site would be provided by the City. This may require amendments to the City's 1991 Comprehensive Sewer System Plan and 1999 Addendum, which is currently being updated. The comprehensive, permanent stormwater control system proposed as part of the Tukwila South Project would meet the requirements of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, adopted by the City of Tukwila, and would include a conveyance system of two major water quality treatment and runoff control facilities. Discharge of stormwater during construction would require a National Pollutant Discharge elimination system permit and an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification issued by the Department of Ecology. These permits will require a variety of measure for construction stormwater discharge that are intended to result in no adverse impacts to receiving waters. B.7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, would be needed to support the proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the capital facilities plans of the City; See item B.6 B.8. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. Following annexation, the City's SMP would be extended to include the annexed area under an Urban Environment designation. Segale Properties Page 5 Tukwila South Project IN hifill217111 h III Uhillummillw 11111111.w. mommun N I 1 1 1 m•NoLlall vatipirmuum MONIMUMMAL EMIIMMIPIMINIum PUM111111111111111111111 in e ilummunlummun rell 11 11 s zw irlitIlls EO Rita MI= RUI M gr EMU Zit NIFBIP Ininnlli mat nu 22 OE unix e n Jl . e 11 •-t- am I "' ml IWZ ms". ZZ ram 11 Bah 'a ra s anus u =end o shun 11 a =m .1142 in =mug mune 1 .0w Mr° L -Art 1 O 111 1 Ful 1111111 ■I IIIIIII IIIIIII [ III , 1, 11 Rilla aiiiiiilliiiii MitillEMP: warr =hi !AWN= 11 CI a on Inn MINIIII 1 16• 1 um num vairtripmuunnuommIlla Ed Alg EVIMEN., ela Mo ashafreabillednilffiksiiimi: F reMILIMINNI1111111111111m T siol moutrrimurrAMM " II um P121 111111 hill UMW •MMO Alts auf um. ANGLE LAKE k KENT 1 LI • . LTURAL 1 NIT .4TUKWILALI 0 !GOLDSMITH ••-• I aL ASSCDCIATESI •••••■•■••■ 0 KENT INDUST KENT SINGLE-FAMILY (SR IAL PARK LEGEND: 0 00 TM C.7 •• [3:31 ZONING BOUNDARY TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT TUKVV1LA SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT- EXHIBIT 1 TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TUKWILA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY AFTER LA PIANTA ANNEXATION TUKWILA SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION MAY 6, 2005 TAX PARS • 0 JURISDICTION S - T - R 1/4 SEC- 022204-9008 KING COUNTY 2 -22-4 EWM NW 022204 -9011 KING COUNTY 2 -22-4 EWM NW 022204 -9015 KING COUNTY 2 & 3 -22-4 EWM SW 2 - SE 3 022204 -9033 KING COUNTY 2 -22-4 EWM NW - NE 022204 -9036 KING COUNTY 2 -22 -4 EWM NW 022204 -9037 KING COUNTY 2 -22-4 EWM NW 022204 -9040 KING COUNTY 2 -22-4 EWM NW 022204 -9043 KING COUNTY 2 -22 -4 EWM NW 022204 -9057 KING COUNTY 2 -22 -4 EWM NW 022204 -9061 KING COUNTY 2 -22 -4 EWM NW 023900 -0352 KING COUNTY 3 -22-4 EWM NE 032204 -9006 KING COUNTY 3 -22 -4 EWM NE 032204 -9047 KING COUNTY 3 -22-4 EWM NE 032204 -9049 KENT & KING CO. * 2 & 3 -22-4 EWM SW 2 - SE 3 032204 -9056 KING COUNTY 3 -22-4 EWM SE 032204 -9062 KING COUNTY 3 -22 -4 EWM SE 032204 -9090 KING COUNTY 3 -22 -4 EWM NE 032204 -9092 KING COUNTY 3 -22 -4 EWM SE 032204 -9093 KING COUNTY 3 -22-4 EWM SE 032204 -9100 KING COUNTY 3 -22-4 EWM NE 032204 -9102 KENT 3 -22-4 EWM SE 032204 -9106 KING COUNTY 2 & 3 -22 -4 EWM NW 2 - NE 3 262304 -9065 TUKWILA 26 -23-4 EWM SW 352304 -9008 TUKWILA 35 -23 -4 EWM NW 352304 -9009 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM NW 352304 -9013 TUKWILA 35 -23 -4 EWM NW 352304 -9014 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM SW 352304 -9015 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM SW 352304 -9016 KING COUNTY 35 -23-4 EWM SW 352304 -9017 TUKWILA 35 -23 -4 EWM SW 352304 -9018 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM SE 352304 -9019 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM NW 352304 -9025 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM NW 352304 -9027 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM NW 352304 -9032 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM NW 352304 -9033 (Tukwila Portion Only) TUK. & SEATAC 35 -23-4 EWM NW 352304 -9034 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM NW - SW 352304 -9036 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM SW 352304 -9038 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM NW 352304 -9040 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM NW 352304 -9041 KING COUNTY 35 -23 -4 EWM SW - SE 352304 -9045 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM SW 352304 -9049 TUKWILA 35 -23 -4 EWM SW 352304 -9050 TUK. & KING CO. ** 35 -23-4 EWM SW 352304 -9051 TUKWILA 35 -23 -4 EWM SW 352304 -9055 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM NE 352304 -9065 KING COUNTY 35 -23-4 EWM SW 352304 -9066 KING COUNTY 35 -23-4 EWM SW 352304 -9068 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM SW 352304 -9078 KING COUNTY 35 -23-4 EWM SW ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION MAY 6, 2005 • * 352304 -9081 TUKWILA 35 -23 -4 EWM SW 352304 -9082 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM SW 352304 -9090 TUKWILA 35 -23 -4 EWM NW 352304 -9104 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM NE - SE 352304 -9108 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM NE - SE 352304 -9109 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM NW 352304 -9112 TUKWILA 35 -23 -4 EWM ALL FOUR 352304 -9115 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM SW - SE 352304-9116 TUKWILA 35 -23-4 EWM SW 352304-9117 KING COUNTY 35 -23-4 EWM SW 352304 -9118 TUKWILA 35 -23 -4 EWM NW - SW 352304 -9119 TUKWILA 35 -23 -4 EWM NE - SW - SE 352304 -9120 TUKWILA 35 -23 -4 EWM NE 352304 -9121 TUKWILA 35 -23 -4 EWM NE - SE * EST. 1/3 OF TAX LOT IN KENT - 2/3 IN KING CO. ** EST. 4/5 OF TAX LOT IN TUKWILA - 1/5 IN KING CO. ■ ',711111 ■ . 11 i l! E II' a 111111 1111111 11.111 RI:�IIIIIIII VIIIIiii i - i s tb 1 i■ II ''ail 11 _�. /.I JIitA� ■ „ 1111„1 7!" -q. X 1 ■ G at 111 1■ 1111■ 111 11511§ Fa Ix 11 11■1 NIL -.1 ii 1 I ■■ gi; 1 III �. �Illlli � -1 • - ■■ I � .. : Inman ■ 1 1 . .,....... m- 11111 11R■■■IIr:. 1111111111111111111 a1111111i !: :Ilili I 11 VA II :I II1111L " _ilI 6lo " , le A I " "a �11 1111111111111"1��'� 11111116 ■1111 II I:IIIoIIu& -1111111111111 1111111 n11 1 1 1111111111111111111 111 1111 Illiill■ - Ill llllllllllul : 111111111-1-1111 1111i1111111GIi v. I1 =111111 1.1111111111 111 IIII VIII 111J1 111 IIIIII111111 ..11141111111 mu, . : ■1�= � = b4 , 11 ' 1 • � •■ 1 • ,�ar1111 ■ ■ SW / / 11111111111 a 1■ l• 1 : ��11111111 il 3 . ho n p _ E _ 1'i - :111 P11II C : 1 1 11 1 111 1 4 OP g UN = - 1 1113 .111M ma 21111 L .rlr�1 - r1111� 1u11rr►i 11 S 188 ST jtl 1 • ■1t mom • • m` • • it 1 4 ■ ant 1 Km ANGLE LAKE ® (GOLDSMITH r 1 & ASSOCwresY - 1 LEGEND: 0 = 0 0 0 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY AFTER LA PIANTA ANNEXATION EXISTING TUKWILA / KING COUNTY LINE EXISTING TUKWILA SHOREUNE JURISDICTION AREA PROPOSED TUKWILA SHOREUNE JURISDICTION AREA ACTUAL ADDITIONAL SHOREUNE AREA WITHIN MANAGEMENT ZONE TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT TUKWILA SOUTH SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AMENDMENT - EXHIBIT 1 TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON lr \t--ri mu _ I I mum . _.i 'X -■ o u um I ...�11''��: 11111" IIIIp1 =iLITIZIE i I .■ ti HIV 1 WINO U IIIIIIIn ul_ = IIPI7i,II1: 1 • 1 p_ ■ 11111111111111111��1111 ki• PH. .v.in u11111inum 11 will:/11IPIIIH_m OJsmumw L11II11111111`11 uaji 0 ME1/l:lllili�u�: a :'ii1111m 11u ■ IIIIIIIIINIIIu.:: ►'11�1�' IIIII/IIIIIIIIIIIIIIU II 11lI.IiI11iJ •Inn .. - .. ■ .. �UUP nm1 /..1 1.. �� 1 nq 14. :111= = E r ♦1 1. /Inns . - o - 1 1 . lir - x1111. . INN 4N .. AI01 n w ►o os viii Qom` IA, .- at 11111n1111 tl■1l $ ♦ �i$ • 1111 wa :: 1111 1111►� �4 � .- 1 * IjjJ j& # ; ..\ 1 .. =m mil OC ay]. ' Elton 21 waning 111111 t'II "-- �� imitailICAN iro ATAC I ■.�.L Minn 1111111` Iee �e S ni LEGEND: I. - Ty., VIC INITY TUKWILA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY AFTER LA PIANTA ANNEXATION ZONING BOUNDARY TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT AREA 1000' OFFSET TO PROJECT AREA GOLDSMITH O TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT TUKWILA SOUTH 1000' RADIUS SURROUNDING LAND USE MAP TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON PUGET SOUND BURIEN NORMANDY PARK ® !GOLDSMITH 8c ASS•CIATES= • ( ` 7 • ‘v y l,�. IgS • Engineering - Land Use Planning - Surveying 1215114+h Avenue SE, Mime, WA 98004. P.O. Box 3565, Bellevue, WA 98039 OFFICE:1425) 462 -1080, FAX: (425)462.7719, sfolf @goldsmi4rengineedng.com DES MOINES PLOTTED: 5/6/05 SCALE: I • 5.000' DATE: 5/6/05 DRAWN: LADAMS DESIGNED: LADAMS PPROVED: LADAMS ACAD DWG.: 03102E157 SEA TAC SEATAC AIRPORT VIEW: DJ XREF: LSF: FLD BK: PD #: PSSF: cr TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT GREEN RIVER CITY OF TUKWILA LA PIANTA LLC VICINITY MAP TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT WASHINGTON RENTON SHEET ELLEVUE JOB NO: 03102 1 -1 J City of Tukwila Shorelinnaster Program Minor Amendment Application Ma y 23, 2005 City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment Application Revised May 23, 2005 To: Ms. Lisa Verner, City of Tukwila From: Sue Carlson, Director of Development, Segale Properties LLC RE: Proposed Shoreline Master Program Minor Amendment/Pre- designation to Accommodate the Proposed Tukwila South Master Plan Development in the City. A. 1. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? The proposal to amend Tukwila's Shoreline Master Plan addresses the portion of the site subject to annexation and shoreline re- designation, currently designated "Rural" under the King County Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Designation of the newly annexed Tukwila South shoreline as "Urban Environment" would be consistent with the Shoreline Element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Since the use, setback, height restriction and other provisions of the existing King County and proposed Tukwila shoreline master program designations are similar, no net loss of shoreline ecological functions would be anticipated.. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan in Goal 5.1, Policy 5.1.1 says " The following area shall be designated as the Urban — Open Space Environment: The entire shoreline zone from the Highway 99 bridge upstream extending to South 204 Street." The area under consideration lies within this described area. This application implements the intent of the City of Tukwila's adopted Comprehensive Plan. A. 2. Why is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? State law requires local governments to amend their Shoreline Master Program to include the annexed area within one year from the effective date of annexation. La Pianta submitted a notice of intent to annex the South Tukwila area to the city in November of 2004. This application pre- designates this area to conform to Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program. WAC 173 -26 -160 Local government annexation. " In the event of annexation of a shoreline of the state, the local government assuming jurisdiction shall notify the department of such annexation and develop or amend a master program to include the annexed area. Such master program development or amendment Segale Properties Tukwila South Project Page 1 City of Tukwila Shorelinlaster Program Minor Amendment Applicatio May 23, 2005 shall be consistent with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines and shall be submitted to the department for approval no later than one year from the effective date of annexation." The proposed Shoreline Master Program map amendment provides for the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Goals and Policies. Please see response to Question B.3. A. 3. Why will the proposed change be a net benefit to the community? The proposed Shoreline Master Program Map Amendment area, together with the portion of the Tukwila South Master Plan area currently within the City limits represent approximately 500 acres of property proposed as a master planned development to accommodate national and international corporations in an integrated campus environment. Additional types of develop may include residential, retail and service uses. This integrated planned community will provide economic and environmental benefits to the public in the form of jobs, increased tax revenues, shoreline restoration, open space, expanded public access to the Green River shoreline and wetland restoration and enhancement. B.1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why. The purpose and need for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) minor amendment/ pre- designation is to accommodate the proposed Tukwila South Master Plan Development in the City of Tukwila. The proposed SMP minor amendment will bring shorelines now in King County's Urban Growth Area (UGA), mainly zoned for industrial development, into the City of Tukwila to be regulated under the City's SMP (see Exhibit 1 attached to this application form — Tukwila South Shoreline Master Program Amendment), after this portion of the City's planned annexation area is annexed (see Exhibit 1 attached to this application form — Tukwila South Overlay District). The Growth Management Act encourages annexation of unincorporated land in the UGA, and the scale and complexity of the Tukwila South Master Plan is more sensibly managed by containing it within, and regulating it by, the City of Tukwila. The City of Tukwila will pre- designate the annexed shoreline of the Green River as Urban Environment under its SMP. Zoning within the annexed area and shoreline, and of adjacent areas, is shown in Exhibit 1- Tukwila South Overlay District. B.2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change. The proposed SMP annexation is contiguous with the southern half of the approximately 500 -acre Tukwila South Master Plan area, which includes lands south of the existing city limits between the Green River and the SeaTac/Tukwila boundary, south to South 204 Street. A petition to annex has been presented to Segale Properties Tukwila South Project Page 2 City of Tukwila Shorelinaster Program Minor Amendment Application® May 23, 2005 the City and the annexation and incorporation of the area into the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is expected to occur in the Fall of 2005. Annexation and incorporation of the annexed Green River shoreline into the City's SMP are actions intended to enable and encourage future growth within the UGA of the City of Tukwila; specifically growth within the Tukwila South Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Without the major infrastructure improvements enabled by the SAMP, the action alternatives described in the Tukwila South Draft EIS (April 2004) would not be feasible. One aspect of the proposed master plan is a net increase in wetland functions and values for the site. The City's Urban SMP designation allows uses that are no more intensive than those allowed by the King County SMP Rural /Industrial provisions now applicable to these shorelines, and the City's SMP regulations are at least as environmentally protective as King County's SMP provisions. The entire shoreline affected by the proposed SMP minor amendment includes a levee separating most natural environmental functions of the Green River and its riparian zone from the upland area to be annexed. The proposed Urban Environment shoreline designation within the City of Tukwila would allow the zoning applied to the annexed shoreline as shown in Exhibit 1, and consistent with the County's current Rural /Industrial provisions. The proposed Urban Environment designation and zoning overlays shown in Exhibit 1 are consistent with surrounding property zoning and the UGA designation for the property. B.3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations are met (cite policy numbers and code sections that apply). Annexation and incorporation of the annexed Green River shoreline into the City's SMP are actions intended to enable and encourage future growth within the UGA of the City of Tukwila; specifically growth within the Tukwila South Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Major portions of the Comprehensive Plan elements are summarized below; all other relevant elements are described in detail in the Draft EIS. • Community Image Element: The proposed annexation to accommodate the Tukwila South Master Plan would promote community interaction by providing public and private amenities such as plazas, landscaped open space, and pedestrian bicycle pathways to link the campuses to adjacent areas. The communities' environmental heritage would be recognized through preservation of the western hillside, protection of open space, and a net gain in functions and values of fish and wetland habitat. Building design, construction and materials would be coordinated through comprehensive plan urban design principles. Economic Development Element: The proposed annexation to accommodate the Tukwila South Master Plan would increase capital investments to encourage development that supports family -wage jobs, Segale Properties Tukwila South Project Page 3 City of Tukwila Shorelinlaster Program Minor Amendment Application ® Ma y 23, 2005 concurrent with substantial private actions, and provide capacity to meet Tukwila's employment targets. • Housing Element: The proposed annexation would accommodate creation of new housing within the Tukwila South area to help the City achieve its housing target. • Natural Environment Element: The proposed annexation would accommodate requirements of the Urban Environment designation under its SMP and be consistent with the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.160 (G)) as required to provide consistency with this element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. • Shoreline Element: Designation of the newly annexed Tukwila South shoreline as "Urban Environment" is consistent with the Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan. B.4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act. Consistent with the GMA (RCW 36.70A) and Countywide Planning Policies described in Section 3.7 of the Tukwila South Project Draft EIS (April 2005), the City's of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan (1995 and subsequently amended) guides future development to fulfill the City's responsibilities under GMA. Annexation and incorporation of the annexed Green River shoreline into the City's SMP are actions intended to enable and encourage future growth within the UGA of the City of Tukwila; specifically growth within the Tukwila South Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. B. 6. A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in functional plans (i.e., the City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is adopted; The Shoreline Master Program Map Amendment implements the vision of the Tukwila South Master Plan, which outlines phased infrastructure improvements for the Overlay District. Major utility infrastructure would be extended through the site within the Southcenter Parkway right -of -way such as such as stormwater conveyance pipe, water transmission line, sewer trunk line, electricity, gas, and telecommunications. The Tukwila South Project Draft EIS (April 2005), Section 3.16 analyzes the proposed infrastructure improvements associated with the Tukwila South Master Plan including the extension of Southcenter Parkway right - of -way through the site, consistent with the Land Use policies for the Tukwila South Master Plan Area. Installation of utilities would be coordinated with the City of Tukwila, Highline Water District and Puget Sound Energy. Extensions to these major utility lines within Southcenter Parkway would be constructed as future development occurs. Segale Properties Tukwila South Project Page 4 City of Tukwila Shorelinefitter Program Minor Amendment Application May 23, 2005 The SMP map amendment area is not currently included in any municipal wastewater service area. It is assumed that the City would extend the boundary of its sewer service area to include the site, and that future wastewater service to the site would be provided by the City. This may require amendments to the City's 1991 Comprehensive Sewer System Plan and 1999 Addendum, which is currently being updated. The comprehensive, permanent stormwater control system proposed as part of the Tukwila South Project would meet the requirements of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, adopted by the City of Tukwila, and would include a conveyance system of two major water quality treatment and runoff control facilities. Discharge of stormwater during construction would require a National Pollutant Discharge elimination system permit and an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification issued by the Department of Ecology. These permits will require a variety of measure for construction stormwater discharge that are intended to result in no adverse impacts to receiving waters. B.7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, would be needed to support the proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the capital facilities plans of the City; See item B.6 B.8. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. Following annexation, the City's SMP would be extended to include the annexed area under an Urban Environment designation. Segale Properties Tukwila South Project Page 5 • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300.Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: '.(206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E-mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.waus 0 `"m.Cl F COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS INFORMAT1OiN Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan policies, land use designations and zoning regulations are the result of extensive discussion by residents, business owners and community groups. The community developed these policies _ and regulations based on consideration of existing conditions and long -term, community- wide goals. When an amendment is considered, the burden is on the proponent to demonstrate that the change is justified. An amendment may be appropriate in light of new information that affects assumptions on which the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code were based, unanticipated changes in community conditions or goals, or in the interest of public safety and welfare. It is important for the City to review and revise the plan as conditions and community priorities change. The relevance of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code is based, in large part, on being up -to -date. The requirements and procedures are listed below. PROCEDURES: The Growth Management Act (GMA) allows a city's Comprehensive Plan to be amended no more than once each year except in an emergency or to amend the Shoreline Master Program (RCW 36.70A.130). Chapter 18.80 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) outlines a two -stage process for submittal and review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Amendment. All Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment applications are due by December 31. The City Council holds a public meeting the following spring for a threshold review of proposed Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Code Amendments received prior to the December 31 deadline. City Council may either: 1) reject the proposal; 2) defer consideration until a later date; or 3) refer the proposal for additional review. Additional review includes environmental analysis and a hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission. After the Planning Commission reviews an application and makes its recommendation, the proposed Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Code Amendment returns before the City Council for Public Hearing and final decision. The attached application and checklist must be completed in order for a Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Amendment request to be placed on the annual Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Amendment docket. An initial meeting with the City Council is scheduled for the month of March or April. To be considered for the annual Spring meeting, complete applications must be received by December 31 of the previous year. COMPRCUENSIVE PLAN /ZON'1N6 CODE EN ;DMENT iCRIT ARIA The burden of proof to demonstrate that a change to the trl.4:$L. .cede is warranted lies solely' upon the proponent: The greater the degree ;of" change • proposed, the greater will be the burden of showing . that. the .change ge is justified. The Planning Commission and the City Council will review your proposal , using the criteria listed below. It is essential that you describe in a clear and precise : manner why the amendment request should be approved. Attach additional sheet(s) with your responses to each criterion. You may submit other documentation in support of your proposal. A. CRITERIA (TMC Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a re -. esignation of your property or a change in existing Plan policies: B. 1. Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan: If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it? 2. Why is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? 3. Why will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what type of benefit can be expected and why? CRITERIA (TMC 18.80.010) In addition to the above question, a response to each of the following circumstances is also necessary: 1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why; 2. A statement . of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change; 3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive .plan or development regulations are deficient or should not continue in effect; (be specific; cite policy numbers and code sections that apply!) 4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the:goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act; A statement: of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable Countywide; Planning Policies; A statement of what changes, if any, would be required in functional plans (i.e., the ,;City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is adopted; A statement of what capital, improvements, if any, would be needed to" support the proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the capital facilities plans of the City; ?,. • 0 8. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. C. ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.84.030) Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a rezone of your property or a change in the existing Zoning Code. 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest; 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form. /66011- • 7lL-b. 6L- , - 3 r z?'._e S G: APPHANILANDUSE.APPICOMPAPP.doc, 06/28/00 Infotmation May 5e,warved it un usual ca.0e, upon approv j) adfi'Pubfic f'or`ks a nd Plann t, g 'h , • N a�rtrt;; ,.:�,� 1 ✓ - .'� r t 4 � � ' Yf r+ t : R X3 Ct f 3t ��.t� t tn. ` �. r � 'Y >i•i iV. ti!'� g ''3. , : i L A t ,�� M ,. � '� Y . t t. r : Inforination�_a s : ` 0 - -�' Warved , ( •PD'Wk /Ping`;t!, Office- UstOnlya •: ` o Comrrrent48rConditrons < ... ?fi : f ; + APPLICATION FORMS: 1. Application Checklist: one (1) copy, indicating items submitted with application. 2. Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Application Packet: eight (8) copies and one set of High Quality Photo Reductions of all plans. (See Project Description and Analysis, Site Plans and Evaluations). j _Q.GQ -p O t✓vd-1,0-W i1 I I 7. '3 3 `ti • ° `/ ,__. ,,,/ 7 � � - _ ' '"` V ,`Yrv`x-o 6- (...-/e 3. Application Code Amendment Fee ($1000). p. Ifs PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: 4. King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 feet of the subject lot. `-1 p 5.jjyts-(2f sets of mailing labels for all property owners and U "� tenants (residents or businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. ( Note: Each unit in multiple - family buildings - -e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks —must be included). pfel-4' �✓ `� 6. A 4' x 4' Public Notice Board will be required on site within 14 days of the Department determinin: that a complete application has been received. , teal- no . - ; , — KW" ,."- -. i PROPERTY INFORMATION: .•. -, 7. Vicinity Map with site location. tr 8. Surrounding Land Use Map for all existing land uses within a 1,000 foot radius from the lot's property lines. 9. Title Report — Clearly establish status as legal lot(s) of record, ownership, all known easements and encumbrances. - 10. Lot lines for 300 ft. from the site's property lines including right -of -ways. / V PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: 11. A written discussion of project consistency with each review criterion. (p O - e f1. ( 1 2, 3 4 9 12. Eight (8) complete sets and one (1) set of High Quality Photo Reductions of all plans which contain information listed in the table below. COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact the Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived, or should be submitted in a later timely manner for use at the public hearing (e.g., revised colored renderings). Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. Department staff is available to answer questions about application materials at 206 -431 -3670. COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST TABLE G:\ APPHANILANDUSE.APP\COMPAPP.doc. 09111/02 Inforniation.Required'4tay be waived in unusual cased upon • - a roval both ulic Works and Pnn:n b + PP 4.';-.:;Nt.':--.,,1 o Pb la f -• ; g nr , ,‘,,,,...,..*04 1�: : s, f , . f , y Information ' Warvgd 5 APKYPing Office Use Only \ ? d Comments & Conditions: 4 , at V' F yy s <r . SITE PLANS: 13. One set of all plans (including a landscape plan) that shall be stamped by a licensed professional surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer, and have an original signature. Additional copies of the signed set may be submitted to satisfy the total number of copies required. shall satisfy this criteria. IA) Revisions 14. A boundary and topographic survey (2 ft. contours including a minimum 20 ft. beyond the property line) with all structures, improvements, easements, encumbrances and right -of -way width/infrastructure. Elevations shall be City of Tukwila datum (NGV 1929 datum for 100 year flood elevation with equation to City of Tukwila datum). This shall be stamped by the surveyor. 15. Location of all sensitive areas (e.g., streams, wetlands, slopes over 20 %, coal mine areas and important geological and archaeological sites.). Provide sensitive area studies as needed per TMC 18.45. Also show trees over 4" caliper, indicating those to be saved. All proposed sensitive area and tree protection measures shall be shown. 4 16. 100 yr. flood plain boundary and elevation as shown on FEMA maps. 1 17. Proposed lot lines (solid), existing lot lines (dashed). G: \APPHAMLANDUSE.APP\COMPAPP.doc, 06/28/00 • a ‘4411 .--‘' STATE OF WASHINGTON • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E - mail: tukplan AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY ss COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: I . I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at Tukwila Sou Project for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. The City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days. 7. Non - responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at Tukwila (city), WA (state), on May 6 2005 NOT residi Mark A. Segale (Print Name) 5811 Segale Park Dr C, Tukwila, WA 98188 (Address) 206 - 575 -2000 (Phone Number (Signa On this day personally appeared before me 4 ' < 1 �� � 1s5 t. me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowled ed that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED d'ailiNifttitilllEFORE ME ON THIS � Y OF 011'°2'° P N A. /' ye to9 el a o • a t kA 0°4? 4'. o d ' ` rr;; d O <116,..P imp ; J m d f O -p� o Q _ p Q y 1 t'9 c • M /' I' Z. 0` �,J A $ d lo ' 40� D � y a � ry � >y� t k`� 4 DI� a \ . ' D� °u cau. My Commission expires on PUGET SOUND DES MOINES PLOTTED: 5 /6/05 SCALE: 1' • 0.000' DATE: 5/6/05 DRAWN: LADAMS DESIGNED: LADAMS PPROVED: LADAMS SEA TAC SEATAC AIRPORT VIEW: DJ XREF: LSF: FLD BK: PO # SEATTLE LAKE WASHINGTON 1 -405 c0 TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT �. GREEN RIVER LA PIANTA LLC JOB NO: 03102 ® !GOLDSMITH 8c ASSOCIATES �• / ` - • ♦� since Ives 1 Engineering - Land Use Planning - Surveying 12151141P Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98004, P.O. Box 3565, Bellevue, WA 98009 OFFICE: (425) 462 -1080, FAX: (425) 462 - 1719, statt @goldsmithengineedng.com ACRD DWG.: 03102E157 PSSF: VICINITY MAP TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON RENTON SHEET ELLEVUE J 1 -1 VAST , „..,.,.. = " AN : •••• ••• ••••• ••■••••••••••••••■••• A • •••••• paa I. • • A.. AA A. AO VII Al A AA And •-• ARLAS 011iff RCM A• • AA AA. rm. he A* AA A. • A • .1. A AA me 11.10.0.0•10 •0■12.4 EV; ELV •••• .•••• •••• ■••• ••• • ••■••. •••• maw • ••••• • ••••• x••■ •••••• LEGEND «I ANA AA AY WA AA AL A Mo.. As, tom o. Awn ‘At A. AN •Add. 1..•••• Dom. C> 4•■ 1•• PAI ••••• • Nei emo• 11A17 x •••••• •••••• • IA •••••• •••Awc•••••• ••• 11•07 Arra AA. tomo. MI OA VI MOTES A A • A • AAA Ss IAA NA AEA • •••• • •••••••••••• • ••• •••• • ••••• AA* r• ••• ••••• •••• •••• •• • • •••••• a.•• A:47r ▪ ••••••••••••••• ••• Am ...At MA. CAM • LA RA IA. A. A .6 ANA I. A.A. N.A. As ASA •• AdA low mml ADA AAA A •Al Arra A A As amt AA • A Ad AA OA diew 7 A AAT • AA 11••• A. A AA Age AAA AB MS OA AAA•••■••••••••••••••••••••••A aNA .A to IA.: 4 AT7 . 7 Am h... ttla• •■■•.. EN A A ow A.* AA* WA ■•■• NP09701.■ Am AAA, U•Al• ••••• MGM OILIT 01 034.0•ACIE ROOD Mu.. MI M.: Ammo. •■•• EIFECtikt 0■15.610f af•••0101TO MO: AA A IL A • Am AP A. ::.::•••• • •••■ • Art =E ••• • ATIOS•A•11 SCALE RE ste tiMML MAIIONI1 17D1111 DISIJIAKC1 MGM FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP RING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS NOEL 653 6 1725 •••• Pia ••••./ m/V Won= AWA .M = : MAP MUMMA 5,1=C0859 F MAP RIM= MAY 16,1295 Federal Emergency blenagesnem Agency A .1.1 PO 14 1 •1 04. R OP POC•744.1 ... ..... ... "'" ...... ". ::".::. .. :■ . "" " '" .. 7::" 1:::""" " :■"■:: ...... l•••• " " 1.t: 1.: . .......... . . .. .. . dot.• ....... •■••• ..... "*". ...... 1.14•4 bir C14. E F 7 • 7 G 4 4 4 4 1 1 I LEGEND WOO PIMP 1•44.10:1 .1.3111.0.7117 1104.1 fl.4.100 4.4 ma .1.0 nr0S.117 "" roma w Om. G. ...go .40 [2221 1 ARDS ZOOM AP OPMIO FLOOD MAP ONO • m OP. POW NY • 1.7.44 00.44 o ..4■44 ■INDOOPPOISD COAST. 0.0111.5 I ' •••4 1.4 Pam. wow. ow. • 44.4 1.4 No. sr 40.741.4: rm. 4444. 4144.4 Fa. - 0 O. 1..1. RMl 1EL 11M71 Ye ft. 1.4•41. kw • PCP 11.1.104 11.1. """."' . 1.4.. NOTES ▪ ••• • g• id. • • • • • • • • Mo. 014.1...• Paw. le mie Cz....1••■ 11. 4.04. by ow 11.4.0 War .0.44. vas • •• • .. nes 44.■ 4.414. 144 O ma or* we. mi.. • mi. No. 4.4 ••••• • so 4.441 maw. • ••• ••■•• amim en 11•• 0011 ^ • - .1 b. woo aro 1100041170117 11114....... or .40 ••••• FirfC1707 .74 Of C01.111.04100 1 14451.141...(1 WOE YAP 101..31 MOM OPPECI.E.11111110P11.1740.970 1 woo OPPIC071.74 MOE DI PEP 030 4 NEM ROOD INKIIWICE PRO= FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS tS1 BF 1725 .11 4. •OCOK WO. POP TOM. MAP NUMBER 5311331;0951 F MAP IFYISEk MAY 16,1955 51.1,55.55M A5.1.1 2 0 3 s CU a, 0 0 , 11111 NM II jar i.aL 1!•Mm. mit nNIIIIII.. mu NIII•_ li 0•01111. OM INN ■■1 II Inunalo. wit mannium_. Elf MIMI IT L �I _ I� -,�, W IF II J.200 'S FTI T ll Ti I r I r✓- r r r ' 1! I i I ,_ I I L I_L ' I -1 - -I i L - S 188 ST " — — ANGLE LAKE =_ }- •7! •f 1I —2-1_1—, /( 1 1 II.L _ dL1 ! II [HP._ ) 1 1 F - -- - _, —, - I, I 1 I I I / I a LEGEND: T3 1=3 C=t G=I CI •_............ I' I I, I1 , I VICINITY TUKWILA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY AFTER LA PIANTA ANNEXATION EXISTING TUKWILA / KING COUNTY LINE EXISTING TUKWILA SHORELINE JURISDICTION AREA PROPOSED TUKWILA SHORELINE JURISDICTION AREA ACTUAL ADDITIONAL SHORELINE AREA WITHIN MANAGEMENT ZONE 4 0 !GOLDSMITH TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT TUKWILA SOUTH SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AMENDMENT - EXHIBIT 1 TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ILII ,e . MMIrt -zwinimum ,oriao-A,-,,wafg. MN ..simmlun r- MEW LI malliMIEMBIEfkzumss VIIII ICAO Ii ....... Mill MU HUM 111110 1= .1 1111 111 1 0111 11 erAgItirl ani AIM In uip=vilileuiphipm.rzernias MB Ile lonflemnilhdluallirlasse • n mribm. ianimpu r e9= N INIM POJIIIIIIIIMP gn Hi 111 I 11111111V11111 dinffinl 111111'... IIIIIIIMEMPLINIUMMION 1111111 ima-t 1 1 1 = essv gpmumeasaumpunnummun mot Nom MIIIIMIIIMIIVA" IMMUNE RC " ,. .. 0 1111111111M I NC6 lkii IINSIBM101:1111 IN n 111111 111111 PUMUMMIIMMIL 1119111PII 0 111 y. dummumumna iclumilidu OM I LI II .1 JL / _L SI. 1 PM ..., I Ns llumuu ma ii MI ga la: muumuu 1 2 al un ii: a unn tr. ER 112 r „al, im 4 ... gg, -.... MI an :Mir n I' I ANGLE LAKE y MN: gm Nig Bri ir • u Lin M N Minim ria 91, Ir MN owning [ITEM I m • . GOLDSMITH oi •• a Associa•Ea 111111111111111 1 111 1 LEGEND: as =0 Gs. oses TUKWILA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY AFTER LA PIANTA ANNEXATION EXISTING TUKWILA / KING COUNTY UNE EXISTING TUKWILA SHOREUNE JURISDICTION AREA PROPOSED TUKWILA SHOREUNE JURISDICTION AREA ACTUAL ADDITIONAL SHORELINE AREA WITHIN MANAGEMENT ZONE 111CDETY TUKWILA SOUTH PROJECT TUKWILA SOUTH SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AMENDMENT - EXHIBIT 1 TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON