HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDN 2019-06-11 Item 2A - Binder - Shoreline Master Program Update
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Development and Neighborhoods
FROM: Jack Pace, DCD Director
BY: Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: June 11, 2019
SUBJECT: Shoreline Master Program Update
ISSUE
The City of Tukwila is required to periodically update its Shoreline Master Program and
associated regulations for compliance with changes to the Shoreline Management Act,
Department of Ecology guidelines, and legislative rules.
BACKGROUND
The Green/Duwamish River flows over 93 miles from the Cascade Mountains to Elliott Bay.
Approximately 13 miles of the river meanders through Tukwila’s industrial district, urban center
and residential neighborhoods. The river system has undergone extensive changes over the
years as the population has increased dramatically, forests have been logged, levees have been
built, streams and rivers rerouted, and freeways, homes, shopping and manufacturing centers
constructed. As the impacts of human development have been recognized, State and Federal
agencies have developed regulations that require local jurisdictions to provide better
protection for remaining habitat, to control the collected storm water flowing directly into the
river, and to identify and restore areas where habitat restoration can succeed. This took on new
urgency when salmon were listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act in 1999.
The Green/Duwamish River in Tukwila is categorized as a Shoreline of the State. In response to
the State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and Federal requirements, Tukwila has adopted
three documents related to the river – the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), Shoreline Element
in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and zoning regulations in TMC Chapter 18.44 Shoreline
Overlay.
Most construction, grading or clearing within 200 feet landward of the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit which is reviewed by the
Washington State Department of Ecology after issuance by the City. The City’s shoreline
development regulations balance economic interests, flood control, and residential
development with enhancement and stewardship of the ecological functions of the river.
The City of Tukwila completed a comprehensive update to its Shoreline Master Program in
2009, with additional revisions made in 2011. Washington state law requires jurisdictions to
periodically review and update their SMPs every eight years for compliance with changes to the
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
Z:\Council Agenda Items\DCD\Shoreline Update\SMP Council Info Memo 6-11-19.docx
SMA and Department of Ecology guidelines and legislative rules. The current update is due on
June 30, 2019.
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC UPDATE
This update process is being undertaken jointly with the Department of Ecology using the joint
review process. By coordinating closely with DOE from the start we will streamline the review
timeline and ensure that we are addressing all required topics. The current update will focus
on:
Reviewing relevant legislative updates since 2009 and incorporating any applicable
amendments per the Gap Analysis Report (available on the Shoreline Management page
of the City website).
Ensuring consistency with recently adopted regulations for critical areas and flood hazard
areas.
Streamlining and eliminating duplication in the documents.
Addressing a limited number of policy questions.
This periodic update will not:
Re-evaluate the ecological baseline which was established as part of the 2009
comprehensive update.
Extensively assess no net loss criteria other than to ensure that proposed amendments do
not result in degradation of the baseline condition.
Change shoreline jurisdiction or environment designations.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff began implementing the Public Outreach Plan with an all-city mailing advertising an open
house last October in addition to mentions in the citywide Stormwater mailer, the September
2018 eHazelnut newsletter, and on the City’s web site. The PC hearing was advertised through
an additional postcard to property owners and tenants within the shoreline jurisdiction and
email notices to interested parties and agencies with jurisdiction.
Staff developed a set of proposed edits to the SMP and TMC Chapter 18.44 and released them
as public review drafts on the City’s web site. The changes include the mandatory consistency
updates, housekeeping changes to streamline the document, and staff’s recommended policy
changes. The PC reviewed these, held a public hearing, considered the public comments and
forwarded their recommended versions on to the City Council. Staff then conducted SEPA
environmental review and issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the update. These
materials are available on the Shoreline Management page of the City’s website,
https://www.tukwilawa.gov/departments/community-development/shoreline-management/.
DISCUSSION
The main areas of change are listed below.
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
Z:\Council Agenda Items\DCD\Shoreline Update\SMP Council Info Memo 6-11-19.docx
Consistency with State Regulations
As documented in the Gap Analysis report there are areas where the City’s regulations do not
reflect recent changes to State law. These include updates to definitions, new shoreline
exemptions, and updated references to RCW and WAC sections. These changes are mandatory
for consistency across jurisdictions. The proposal also includes language for revisions and time
extensions for issued shoreline permits in accordance with State requirements.
Streamlining/Eliminating Duplication
The current SMP includes policies and regulations that were subsequently also adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. This duplication has given rise to inconsistencies and
requires duplicate amendments whenever changes are made. The proposal is to create a multi-
part SMP that spans these documents and includes the Shoreline Element and Chapter 18.44 by
reference without repeating policy or regulation language.
The current Chapter 18.44 Shoreline Overlay duplicates the environmental regulations found in
Chapter 18.45 Sensitive Area Ordinance for sensitive areas within the shoreline jurisdiction.
After discussion with our DOE reviewer the proposal is to eliminate this duplication, reference
the regulations in 18.45 that are currently being updated, and add additional language about
applicability and limitations of that chapter. This does mean that adoption of the environmental
regulation update will need to occur concurrently with the adoption of the shoreline update.
Another proposal is to combine the shoreline use matrix and narrative list of uses into a single
table for clarity. Similarly, the narrative discussion of shoreline buffers has been put into a
table. Tree protection standards and penalties for tree unauthorized removal are proposed to
be updated to match the standards required outside of the shoreline under the new Tree
Ordinance. During review of the Critical Areas update the PC recommended some additional
consistency edits to how trees and vegetation are regulated under shoreline, critical areas,
landscape and tree chapters. Staff is proposing some additional edits to the PC recommended
SMP in section 18.44.060 to address that issue.
Renumbering
Some of the code sections in TMC 18.44 are quite long and therefore code citations can be 4 or
5 layers deep. This can be confusing and hard to use. Staff proposes to break up some of these
long sections and renumber in the final ordinance format after the policy work is completed on
the strikeout/underline version.
Additional Flexibility for Levee Profile
The current SMP contains a minimum levee profile with a mid-slope bench that is required
throughout the City. In practice this has not always been the chosen solution for a given
location and has required a shoreline variance even for designs with better environmental
performance. The proposal is to retain the minimum levee profile as an example but allow
flexibility to address site conditions and environmental opportunities without the variance
process as long as criteria such as an overall 2.5:1 river bank slope (red line below) and native
plantings are met.
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 4
Z:\Council Agenda Items\DCD\Shoreline Update\SMP Council Info Memo 6-11-19.docx
Additional Flexibility for Floodwalls
This update is happening alongside a discussion about flood protection measures in the Lower
Green River Corridor Flood Hazard Management Plan. There are multiple alternatives under
consideration including the question of whether future levees should be built to protect against
500 year rather than 100 year flood events. This could require levees to be between 3.5 and 5.5
feet higher, which requires between 20 and 30 additional feet of width with a front and back
slope of at least 2.5:1 or adding 3.5 to 5.5 feet of height to a flood wall configuration without
the need for an additional 20 to 30 feet of width.
The current Flood Control District access road standard is 15’, not the 10’ built into our current
buffer calculation so the total width of the levee footprint could increase by up to 35 feet.
Allowing an alternative flood wall configuration to substitute for the back slope, especially
where site constraints exist, would reduce the width needed and lessen the impact on adjacent
property owners. Levees are so expensive to build and the consequences of a levee failure are
so significant that the need to allow site specific design solutions may be desirable to reach life
safety and economic goals.
Increased Height Incentives
The proposal is to provide increased building height incentives for property owners who
provide shoreline restoration or shoreline public access above that required by code. The PC
opted to increase the current shoreline foot height limit from 45 to 65 feet and allow another
15 foot increase on properties that restore shoreline buffers or build shoreline public access
amenities. These incentives would not allow heights greater than that permitted by the
underlying zoning district.
Non-Conforming Structures
In response to a public comments the PC recommends removing the cost limitation on
alterations or improvements to non-conforming structures within the shoreline buffer if the
buffer covers most of the parcel. If a non-conforming structure is demolished the footprint may
be incorporated into an adjacent parking lot.
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 5
Z:\Council Agenda Items\DCD\Shoreline Update\SMP Council Info Memo 6-11-19.docx
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No direct impacts are expected due to these changes. The Department of Ecology has provided
Tukwila with a $20,000 grant to offset the cost of hiring a consultant to assist with the update.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked to hold a public hearing on the proposed changes at the June 24 th
Committee of the Whole meeting. Staff will then return with a comment matrix for the City
Council to review at the July 8 Committee of the Whole and revised ordinances at the July 15
Regular Meeting.
ATTACHMENT
A. Summary of Recommended Shoreline Edits
The separately distributed binders also contain:
1. An annotated, strikeout/underline version of Chapter 18.44 showing the bulk of the
proposed changes
2. A clean version of Chapter 18.44
3. A clean version of the SMP (strikeout/underline is available on the City’s Shoreline
Management website) containing an explanation of where the goals, policies and
regulations for the shoreline are located
4. A matrix showing the PC’s responses to the public comments on the SMP and TMC
18.44
5. Initial Determination letter from DOE
PC Recommended Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Edits
Topic Description
Consistency Updates
Update dollar thresholds, update State Code references, update definitions
(development, floodway), reference new exemptions in WAC, update history of
SMP, reference rather than repeat Comprehensive Plan policies
Critical Areas
Replace with a reference to the City-wide critical area regulations in 18.45 which
will be updated to reference 2014 wetland rating system, 2011 federal
delineation manual and buffers to meet Dept. of Ecology guidance, wetland
mitigation banking
Levee Profile
Allow flexibility in the City's preferred levee profile including use of floodwalls to
allow for varying site conditions and 500-year flood protection.
PC Recommended Shoreline Overlay Edits - Zoning Code Chapter 18.44
Topic Description
Housekeeping
Add a purpose and applicability section to the Chapter, streamline for usability,
remove duplication
Permitted Uses
Remove the use list and replace it with a use matrix for greater consistency
between shoreline environments
Recreational Structures Remove 15' height and 25 SF area limit to allow more flexibility, greater usability
Commercial Fences Increase allowed height in shoreline from 4 to 6 feet for safety and security
Shoreline Buffers Place written standards into a table for ease of use
Consistency Updates
Add references to the Shoreline Design Guidelines, updated tree protection
regulations, updated tree removal penalties, align inconsistent definitions,
clarify that consistency with the SMA and WAC is required
Mitigation Monitoring
Require 5 years of maintenance and monitoring for plant survival in mitigation
projects, 3 years survival for tree replacement
Vegetation Management
Clarify that removal of invasive species or noxious weeds is exempt from
permitting, limit pruning and topping
Trail Width
Standard for 14' trail with 2' shoulders is inconsistent with County and City Park
standards which require 12' with 2' shoulders
Overwater Structures
Require proof of submittal rather than approval for state and federal permits
and a demonstrated need for any new docks.
Bridges Clarify that bridges are regulated as overwater structures
Shoreline Redesignation Include a process to change a shoreline environment designation
Permit Revisions Include a process to review changes to shoreline permits
Permit Timelines Amend to include a reference to WAC 173-27-090 for time extensions
Non-conformities
Clarify use regulations per new WAC section, no limit on repairs to non-
conforming buildings where most of site is within shoreline buffer
Height Incentives
Increase building height limit from 45' to 65' and increase incentive for shoreline
restoration or public access from 15% to 15'
TUKWILA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
December 14, 2009
Revised Per Ecology Letter March 24, 2011
PC Recommended Draft 4-25-2019
Prepared by Tukwila Department of Community Development
with the assistance of ESA Adolfson and The Watershed Company
This report was funded in part through a grant, G0600234, from the Washington State
Department of Ecology.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose and Background ......................................................................1
1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction.............................................................................1
2.1 SMP Components .................................................................................5
2.2 SMP Elements .......................................................................................5
.3 History of SMP Planning in Tukwila....................................................5
2.4 Current SMP Update Process................................................................7
3. DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................7
4. SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION - SUMMARY ..8
4.1 Watershed Context and Shoreline Modifications .................................8
4.2 Biological Resources and Shoreline Functions.....................................9
4.3 Land Use ..............................................................................................10
4.4 Restoration Opportunities and Potential Use Conflicts .......................12
4.5 Conclusions .........................................................................................14
5. SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN - SUMMARY ...................................16
5.1 Background ..........................................................................................16
5.2 Assessment of Shoreline Functions .....................................................16
5.3 Plans, Programs, and Completed Projects ..........................................18
5.4 Restoration Opportunities ...................................................................18
5.5 Potential Projects and Priorities ..........................................................19
6. SHORELINE GOALS AND POLICIES .........................................................20
7. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS .......................................20
7.1 Pre 2009 Regulatory Framework .........................................................20
7.2 Key Findings of the Shoreline Inventory / Characterization Report and
Restoration Plan ...................................................................................21
7.3 State Environment Designation System ...............................................22
7.4 Environment Designations ...................................................................23
SMP Public Review Draft Clean ii 6/3/2019
7.5 Determination of Shoreline Buffers .....................................................29
7.6 Shoreline Residential Environment .....................................................34
7.7 Urban Conservancy Environment .......................................................36
7.8 High Intensity Environment .............................................................40
Section 7.9 Aquatic Environment ...................................................................42
8. SHORELINE USE REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
..........................................................................................................................42
9. ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS WITHIN THE SHORELINE
JURISDICTION. .............................................................................................43
9.1 Applicable Critical Areas Regulations................................................43
9.2 Purpose .................................................................................................43
10. PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE SHORELINE .....................................................46
11. SHORELINE DESIGN GUIDELINES ...........................................................48
12. SHORELINE RESTORATION.......................................................................48
13. ADMINISTRATION .......................................................................................49
13.1 Applicability of Shoreline Master Program and Substantial
Development Permit ............................................................................49
13.2 Relationship to Other Codes and Regulations ....................................50
14. APPEALS ........................................................................................................51
15. MASTER PROGRAM REVIEW AND AMENDMENTS .............................51
16. LIABILITY ......................................................................................................51
SMP Public Review Draft Clean iii 6/3/2019
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Pre 2009 Tukwila SMP Shoreline Management Zones (1974 SMP; TMC
18.44) .................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2. Briscoe Levee Profile ........................................................................................... 33
Figure 3. Schematic of Shoreline Residential Environment and Buffer ......................... 36
Figure 4. Schematic of Shoreline Jurisdiction and Buffers for the Urban Conservancy
Environment in Areas without Levees .............................................................. 38
Figure 5. Schematic of Shoreline Jurisdiction and Buffers for the Urban Conservancy
Environment in Areas with Levees ................................................................... 39
Figure 6. Schematic of Buffer Reduction Through Placement of Fill on Levee Back
Slope ..................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 7. Schematic Showing the Proposed Shoreline Jurisdiction and Buffer for the
High Intensity Environment .............................................................................. 41
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. General Restoration Potential within the Shorelines of Tukwila ..................... 17
Table 2. State Recommended Environment Designation System - WAC 173-26-211 (5)
............................................................................................................................... 23
Table 3. Summary of Buffer Widths for Land Use Zones and Shoreline Ecological
Conditions ............................................................................................................ 25
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1. Potential Annexation Areas and Annexation History……………………………….. 5
Map 2. Transition Zone……………………………………………………………………. 29
Map 3. Shoreline Environments…………………………………………………………….
.55
Map 4. Shoreline Armoring……………………………………………………………..... ...87
Map 5. Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline………………………………………………… ...109
Map 6. Shoreline Public Access…………………………………………………………... 137
APPENDICES
A. Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report
B. Shoreline Restoration Plan
SMP Public Review Draft - Strikeout 1 6/3/2019
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Background
This document presents the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) for the City of Tukwila. It is
an update to Tukwila’s existing SMP, originally adopted in 1974. The SMP is intended to
guide new shoreline development, redevelopment and promote reestablishment of natural
shoreline functions, where possible. It was prepared in conformance with the Washington
State Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) and its implementing regulations
(WAC 173-26).
This Shoreline Master Program reflects changes in local conditions and priorities and the
evolving State regulatory environment.
This Shoreline Master Program presents background information on the Shoreline
Management Act, describes shoreline jurisdiction in Tukwila, summarizes the amendment
process carried out to date, presents a summary of the Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization, presents a summary of the Shoreline Restoration Plan, proposes shoreline
environments, and establishes goals, policies and regulations, which apply to all activities on
all affected lands and waters within the shoreline jurisdiction. In addition, there is a chapter
that establishes design guidelines. Maps are provided to illustrate shoreline jurisdiction and
environments. The Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report is provided in Appendix
A. The Restoration Plan is provided in Appendix B. A Cumulative Impacts Analysis is
provided as a stand-alone document.
1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction
A. Jurisdiction under the Shoreline Management Act
The Shoreline Management Act, or SMA, (RCW 90.58) establishes regulations for the
management and protection of the state’s shoreline resources and requires planning for
reasonable and appropriate uses. The Act calls for a joint planning effort between state and
local jurisdictions, requiring local government to develop its own Shoreline Master Program
based on state guidelines.
The SMA requires that local governments establish shoreline jurisdiction for those bodies
of water and lands that are considered to be "shorelines of the state" or “shorelines of
statewide significance.” Shorelines of the state include rivers with a mean annual flow of
at least 20 cubic feet per second (cfs). Shorelines of statewide significance in western
Washington include rivers with a mean annual flow of at least 1,000 cubic feet per second
(cfs). The minimum shoreline environment required by the SMA includes all lands 200
feet from the "ordinary high water mark" or floodway of a state shoreline, whichever is
Commented [NG1]: This narrative has been updated to reflect
the current SMP.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 2 6/3/2019
greater, and all wetlands associated with these state shorelines and located within the 100-
year floodplain. The following graphic illustrates the jurisdiction of the Shoreline
Management Act.
B. Shoreline Jurisdiction in Tukwila
The Green/Duwamish River is the only "shoreline of statewide significance” in the city
(RCW 98.58.030). A small portion of the Black River, a shoreline of the state, is also
located in Tukwila. Throughout the SMP document, the term “Shoreline Jurisdiction” is
used to describe the water and land areas subject to shoreline jurisdiction in Tukwila.
Based on SMA guidelines for shoreline jurisdiction, Tukwila's Shoreline Jurisdiction is
defined as follows:
The Tukwila Shoreline Jurisdiction includes the channel of the
Green/Duwamish River and the Black River, its banks, the upland
area which extends from the ordinary high water mark landward for
200 feet on each side of the river, floodways and all associated
wetlands within its floodplain. For the purpose of determining
shoreline jurisdiction only, the floodway shall not include those
lands that have historically been protected by flood control devices
and, therefore, have not been subject to flooding with reasonable
regularity.
The Tukwila SMP applies to all development activity occurring within the Shoreline
Jurisdiction, which corresponds to the Shoreline Overlay District as established by Chapter
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 3 6/3/2019
18.44 of the Tukwila Municipal Code.
All proposed uses and activities under its jurisdiction must be reviewed for compliance with
the goals, policies and regulations referenced herein. 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.
This Master Program includes the two proposed annexation areas indicated in the
Comprehensive Plan (Map 1). The north annexation area is located between the
Green/Duwamish River on the east, Military Road to the west, and from S. 128th Street north
to S. 96th Street. The south annexation area is located between I-5 and the Green River, south
of the City limits to S. 204th Street. Adoption of shoreline policies and environment
designations for newly annexed areas would require an amendment to the Shoreline Master
Program. To avoid having to amend the SMP later, these potential annexation areas are
considered here and the environmental designations and regulations will apply upon
annexation.
In response to regional policies of the King County Growth Management Planning Council,
Tukwila designated two key areas as its Urban Center and its Manufacturing Industrial Center
(MIC). The Southcenter area, from I-405 south to S. 180th Street was designated the "Urban
Center," and the Duwamish Corridor, an area where existing industrial-employment is
concentrated, was designated as Tukwila's "Manufacturing Industrial Center." Both of these
areas have lands adjacent to the Green River and are identified on Map 1.
The City Council adopted a Strategic Implementation Plan for the MIC on November 2, 1998.
The Plan includes an analysis of existing conditions along the shoreline, narratives of various
habitats, current regulations, proposed requirements and prototypes for future development
along the shoreline in the MIC. The Strategic Plan was prepared in conjunction with a
Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement that analyzed development alternatives in
the MIC area and streamlined SEPA review for development in that corridor for the past 20
years. Where changed circumstances dictate, the SMP will provide updated guidance and
regulations for the MIC area. The MIC area has significant potential for redevelopment.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 4 6/3/2019
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 5 6/3/2019
2. TUKWILA’S SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
2.1 SMP Components
To comply with the SMA, Tukwila has included the following components in this Shoreline
Master Program (SMP):
Outreach including a citizen participation process, coordination with state
agencies, Indian tribes, and other local governments (see Section 2.4 below)
Inventory, analysis and characterization of shoreline conditions, environmental
functions and ecosystem-wide processes
Analysis of potential shoreline restoration opportunities
Establishment of shoreline environments
Goals and policies that have been adopted in the Shoreline Element of the
Comprehensive Plan
Development regulations that have been codified in TMC 18.44 and 18.45
Shoreline Design Guidelines that have been codified in TMC 18.44
Evaluation and consideration of cumulative impacts
2.2 SMP Elements
The SMA includes eight main issues, or "elements," to be addressed in each local shoreline
master program (RCW 90.58.100). To implement these elements, shoreline policies and
regulations are to be developed for each. The policies are found in the Shoreline Element of
the Comprehensive Plan and the regulations in Chapters 18.44 and 18.45 of the Zoning Code.
The elements required by the SMA are:
Economic Development
Public Access
Recreation
Circulation
Shoreline Uses
Conservation
Historical, cultural, educational and scientific element
Preventing or minimizing flood damage
Consistent with the Growth Management Act requirement to integrate the SMP and the
Comprehensive Plan, the City incorporated the required elements of a SMP noted above into
its Plan. Further direction for implementation of the required elements of SMPs is provided
through Zoning Code and Design Review requirements.
2.3 History of SMP Planning in Tukwila
Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was first adopted in 1974, in response to the
Commented [NG2]: This reflects the elimination of duplicate
language between this SMP and the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Code. Removing the duplicate language will streamline this
document and prevent inconsistencies.
Commented [NG3]: The background information has been
condensed now that we have moved to the next update cycle.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 6 6/3/2019
passage of the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58). The SMP was later updated through
minor amendments in 1982 and 1987, none of which required the adoption of a new SMP.
In 1992-93, as part of the preparation for a major revision to the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
the City completed a Shorelines Background Report (1993), with the participation of the
Tukwila Tomorrow Citizen’s Committee. This report established the basis for the shoreline
comprehensive plan goals and policies adopted in 1995.
Staff began the process to prepare a new SMP in 1999, based on the draft shoreline
guidelines that were in the process of adoption by the Department of Ecology at the time.
A grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology provided funding for a
Shoreline Inventory of all parcels within the 200 foot Shoreline jurisdiction and a Shoreline
Design Manual.
New shoreline regulations approved by Ecology in 2000 were immediately appealed and
ultimately invalidated by the Shoreline Hearings Board in 2001. As a result, the City opted
to defer completing its SMP update process until new guidelines were issued by Ecology,
which occurred in 2003.
In 2005, Tukwila received a grant (SMA Grant No. 0600234) to complete a comprehensive
update, including new technical analyses of shoreline conditions, restoration planning, and
the preparation of revised SMP goals, policies, and regulations.
In order to capitalize on previous citizens’ involvement in the planning process, the City
decided to start the SMP update with the work begun in 1999, with revisions to address new
Ecology regulations and guidance, as well as changed conditions in the City’s shoreline area.
The development of any SMP, as required by new shoreline regulations, involves three
specific steps
Shoreline inventory and characterization, preparation of a restoration plan,
preparation of a cumulative impacts analysis;
Citizen involvement in development of policies and regulations; and
Review by interested parties, including adjacent jurisdictions.
As part of this 2009 SMP update process, the City:
Continued the previously started citizen involvement program utilizing the
Planning Commission, which serves as the City’s permanent citizen advisory
body for land use issues, holding Open Houses and public hearings
Coordinated and shared information with neighboring jurisdictions
Updated and expanded the Shoreline Inventory and mapping (included as
Appendix A to this document)
Prepared a Shoreline Restoration Plan (Appendix B)
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 7 6/3/2019
Proposed shoreline environment designations
Proposed shoreline development policies
Proposed shoreline development regulations
Prepared a draft Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Coordinated with Department of Ecology, submitting a staff draft SMP for review
and comment and meeting with Ecology staff
2.4 Current SMP Update Process
The City of Tukwila completed a comprehensive update to its Shoreline Master Program
in 2009, with additional revisions made in 2011. Washington state law requires
jurisdictions to periodically review and update their SMPs every eight years in
accordance with the SMA and its current guidelines and legislative rules to attain state
approval. The City of Tukwila’s update started with an open house the fall of 2018 and
will be complete in 2019.
This periodic update is focused on:
Reviewing relevant legislative updates since 2009 and incorporating any applicable
amendments.
Ensuring consistency with recently adopted regulations for critical areas and flood
hazard areas.
Streamlining and eliminating duplication in the documents.
Addressing a limited number of policy questions such as a required levee profile,
use of flood walls and incentives for public access.
This periodic update will not:
Re-evaluate the ecological baseline which was established as part of the 2009
comprehensive update.
Extensively assess no net loss criteria other than to ensure that proposed
amendments do not result in degradation of the baseline condition.
Change shoreline jurisdiction or environment designations.
3. DEFINITIONS
Definitions used in the administration of the Shoreline Master Program and are
incorporated into the Definitions Chapter of the Zoning Code, TMC 18.06.
Commented [NG4]: The level of detail about the 2009 update
process is no longer needed
Commented [NG5]: Updates to the definition of substantial
development and other changes to match current State regulations
are found in the ordinance updating TMC 18.44.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 8 6/3/2019
4. SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION -
SUMMARY
Local jurisdictions updating their Shoreline Master Program (SMP) are required to prepare
an inventory and characterization of the shoreline resources within their boundaries. As
part of the City’s prior SMP update, a Draft Inventory and Characterization Report and
Map Folio was prepared in December 2006, and finalized in the spring of 2007 following
technical review by Ecology and King County. The final report and map folio are included
as Appendix A to this SMP. While the report has been finalized, the City continues to
utilize the most recent information available, such as the recently updated FEMA Revised
Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM), which were issued after the
completion of the Inventory and Characterization report.
The purpose of the inventory and characterization report was to conduct a baseline
inventory of conditions for water bodies regulated as “shorelines of the state” located in
the City of Tukwila. The area regulated under Tukwila’s SMP is approximately 12.5 linear
miles along the banks of the Green/Duwamish River.
For the baseline inventory, the river shoreline was divided into four reaches: 1) Reach G1-
PAA (southern Potential Annexation Area); 2) Reach G1 (from the southern City boundary
downstream to the Black River/Green River confluence); 3) Reach G2 (from the Black
River/Green River confluence downstream to the northern City limits); and 4) Reach G2-
PAA (the northern Potential Annexation Area). The reaches are depicted on Map 3.
The shoreline characterization identifies existing conditions, identifies current uses and
public access, evaluates functions and values of resources in the shoreline jurisdiction, and
explores opportunities for conservation and restoration of ecological functions. The
findings are intended to provide a framework for updates to the City’s shoreline
management goals, policies, and development regulations. Key findings of the inventory
and characterization are summarized below.
4.1 Watershed Context and Shoreline Modifications
The City of Tukwila includes approximately 12.5 miles of the Green/Duwamish River and
is situated in the Puget Sound Lowlands at the transition from the fresh water Green River
to the tidally influenced Duwamish estuary ecosystem. The Green River basin is part of
the Green/Duwamish Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 9).
Historically, the Green/Duwamish River drained a significantly larger area than it does
today. The Green/Duwamish River has undergone extensive modifications in the past to
reduce channel migration and limit the extent and duration of valley flooding. The
modifications include both natural river course changes and major engineering projects in
the early part of the 20th century that diverted the White, Black and Cedar Rivers to
neighboring basins. As a result, the overall freshwater discharge in the Green/Duwamish
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 9 6/3/2019
River has been reduced to around a third of the pre-diversion era.
Seven pump stations also modify flows into the Green and Duwamish Rivers. Three of the
pump stations, Black River, P-17, and Segale, are operated by the Green River Flood
Control District, and four stations, Lift Stations 15, 17, 18, and 19 are operated by the City
of Tukwila. The Black River pump station is the largest station discharging flows to the
Duwamish River. This station is approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the Green – Black
River confluence, and is intended to both block floodwaters from the Green from
inundating the Black River and Springbrook Creek in the City of Renton, and also regulates
flows from Springbrook Creek into the Duwamish River. The P-17 pump station drains
the P-17 Pond that collects surface water from a majority of the Urban Center. The Segale
pump station was installed to regulate soil saturation and piping during high river events
but does not add new flows to the river. The remaining City pump stations only operate
when gravity discharge to the river is prevented by high river events.
Levees and/or revetments were constructed along much of the Green/Duwamish River
through the City of Tukwila to increase bank strength and reduce flooding. In addition,
flows within the Green/Duwamish River were greatly modified by the construction of the
Howard A. Hansen Dam and installation of water diversions. These modifications
significantly reduced the severity of floods that historically covered much of the valley
bottom. The condition of the current system of levees and revetments is a growing source
of concern for King County and the cities involved, as many of the levees are aging and
do not meet current standards for either flood conveyance or stability. Aside from tThe
Tukwila 205 certified levee on the left bank of the river in the Urban Center is not certified
and areas protected by this levee have been designated as “secluded” and regulated as
outside of the 100-year Special Flood Hazard on the proposed 9/15/2017 FEMA Revised
Preliminary Digital Flood Hazard Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM)., oOther levees in the
City also do not meet COE standards and are mapped as floodplain. These include portions
of the newly annexed Tukwila South area and levees along the right bank of the river.
Current development proposals in Tukwila South include the relocation of the cross-valley
levee and reconstruction of the non-certified levees to meet COE standards. The permitting
for this work is on-going.
4.2 Biological Resources and Shoreline Functions
The Green/Duwamish River within the City of Tukwila provides important habitat for
several fish and some wildlife species, such as osprey. The aquatic environment within the
channel is an important corridor located at the transition from the freshwater riverine
environment to tidal estuarine environment of Elliott Bay. Almost every species of
anadromous fish migrates through this transition zone. The entire length of the
Green/Duwamish River within the City of Tukwila has been declared “critical habitat” for
Chinook salmon, Steelhead trout and bull trout. Both These species are listed as threatened
under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Commented [NG6]: This section updated by the PC based on a
public comment.
Commented [NG7]: This section updated by the PC based on a
public comment.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 10 6/3/2019
One particularly important feature of Tukwila’s shorelines is the habitat functions provided
by the transition zone between fresh and salt water associated with the Duwamish estuary.
In Tukwila, this area generally extends from the East Marginal Way bridge to the city’s
northern limits. The transition zone between fresh and salt water has effectively been
pushed upstream from its historic location due to: (1) a significant reduction (70%) of fresh
water flowing into the Duwamish estuary (owing to the diversion of the White and
Cedar/Black Rivers), (2) channel dredging, and (3) reduction of flows as a result of the
construction of the Howard A. Hanson Dam. The establishment of heavy industrial uses
in the transition zone has replaced wetlands with impervious surfaces, and the stream banks
have been replaced by levees and other armoring, eliminating edge habitat which slows
flows and creating unrestrained rapid downstream flows. Spatial structure, residence time,
and the habitat available for fish refugia and rearing functions in the Duwamish estuary
have therefore been reduced and constrained. High densities of fish have been observed
utilizing what is left of this specific habitat. At the watershed scale, overall increases in
salmonid survival rates are dependent on the availability of sufficient transition zone
habitat to accommodate fish while they adjust from fresh to salt water (WRIA 9 Steering
Committee, 2005).
Modifications to the river system have resulted over time in reduced levels of ecosystem
functioning, including hydrology, water quality, riparian habitat, and in-stream habitat.
Changes to hydrology are the result of modified flow regime due to dam construction,
diversion, and urban development. River management, piping of streams including the use
of tide-gates, pumped storm discharges, and levees have reduced the connection between
the rivers and their floodplains, changing the spatial extent of habitats, and increasing the
potential for negative water quality impacts. Disturbances to the channel banks have
resulted in areas that are dominated by non-native invasive species and generally devoid
of sufficient riparian vegetation. Wood, in the form of riparian trees and in-channel wood,
is generally lacking throughout the system, which negatively impacts riparian and aquatic
habitats as well as river temperatures that periodically exceed state standards and create
lethal and sublethal conditions for adult salmon.
4.3 Land Use
A. A History of the Green/Duwamish River and Tukwila’s Shoreline: Origins of Land
Development Patterns
The Green River drains 492 square miles extending from the western Cascade Mountains to
Elliott Bay. The City of Tukwila lies at the lower ¼ of the overall watershed. As the Green
River flows into the southern boundary of the City of Tukwila, it has drained approximately
440 square miles, or about 78 percent of its total drainage basin. Approximately 12.5 river
miles of the Green/Duwamish River are included within the City of Tukwila, from about River
Mile (RM) 16 to RM 3.7.
The Green/Duwamish River channel has been highly modified during the last 150 years.
Commented [NG8]: This section updated by the PC based on a
public comment.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 11 6/3/2019
Modifications range from the installation of levees and revetments to straightening and
dredging for navigation purposes. In general, the level of physical modification to the system
increases with distance downstream, culminating at the artificial Harbor Island that supports
industrial activities at the Port of Seattle. Several turning basins are maintained by periodic
dredging throughout the straightened reach. The highly modified portion of the
Green/Duwamish has also been the location of significant discharge of pollutants, resulting in
portions of the river being designated as Federal Superfund sites. Remediation, source control
and disposal activities are ongoing throughout the area.
Prior to European settlement of the Lower Green River Valley, the floodplain likely consisted
of a highly interspersed pattern of active and temporarily abandoned meandering channels,
secondary channels, logjams, riparian forest, and scrub-shrub wetlands. The proportion of
open channel to forest in the floodplain appears to have varied depending on the severity and
timing of floods. High flows resulted in wider channels and the creation of new channels
across the floodplain. Accounts of the channel systems indicate that major floods resulted in
channel avulsion (abrupt change in the course of a river), rerouting around logjams, and the
formation of new logjams. The area presently occupied by the City of Tukwila appeared
historically to contain oxbow channels, secondary and backwater channels, and extensive
floodplain wetlands.
As part of regional flood control and river management efforts, significant watershed-scale
changes occurred to the major river drainages south of Elliott Bay, including changes to the
alignments and discharge points of the Cedar, Black, Green and White Rivers. In general,
these changes have reduced the amount of water flowing through the Green/Duwamish River
to about approximately one third of historic conditions and have impacted fish habitat.
Land use changes between European settlement and the current day have occurred in two
general phases. From the mid 1800s to World War II, agriculture and timber harvesting
dominated the Lower Green River Valley. Population densities in the Lower Green River
Valley remained low until the Howard A. Hanson Dam project was completed in 1962,
providing flood protection for the valley. Levees have also been constructed along the banks
of the Green/Duwamish River, ranging from federally-certified levees to non-engineered
agricultural berms. Since the dam and levee systems have significantly decreased the extent
of flooding within the Lower Green River Valley, land development and urbanization have
occurred. For more discussion on the character of the Green/Duwamish River and an
inventory of river conditions, see the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report,
prepared by ESA/Adolfson, May, 2007 found in Appendix A.
Historically, the Green/Duwamish River valley was known for its farmland. Farming was
established in the early 1900's after forested areas were cleared and transportation to the area
was improved. In 1906, construction of the Lake Washington ship canal eliminated flows of
the Black River into the valley, reducing valley flooding. As a result, the river valley
developed into highly productive farmland for the region.
In the early 1950's, the Port of Seattle proposed to convert much of the Green/Duwamish
Commented [NG9]: This section updated by the PC based on a
public comment.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 12 6/3/2019
River valley to intensive industrial uses. These plans included converting the river into a
shipping canal, possibly reaching as far south as the City of Auburn. Valley landowners
countered this proposal by annexing large tracts of land into Tukwila to retain more control
over future land use decisions. With the construction of Howard Hanson Dam in 1962 on the
upper Green River, flooding in the valley was further reduced. Much of the river is now
contained within levees and surrounded by commercial and industrial development.
The Port's actions in the northern part of the River and drastic reduction in river flooding have
had a major influence on the development of the river valley. Today, Tukwila's portion of the
Green/Duwamish River is known as a center for retail, commercial and industrial uses. The
river remains inaccessible to shipping activity south of the Turning Basin, where it can be
accessed primarily by small water craft, kayaks and canoes only. Land uses along the river
are mostly commercial and industrial activities, with a few residential areas. With the
designation of the Southcenter area as an Urban Center and the Duwamish Corridor as a
Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC), this development pattern is expected to continue, and
to intensify as redevelopment occurs.
B. Riverbank Vegetation
The natural environment along the river has been significantly altered from its original
riparian corridor by intense urban development and river bank modification due to the
construction of levees, revetments or other shoreline armoring. Most native stands of trees
are gone, but have been replaced by new trees and plants in some areas. Landscaping with
native and non-native plantings have also been completed in conjunction with new
development along the corridor. Birds and small mammals are supported in both habitats.
While more natural habitat is found up stream, re-development of the shoreline has the
potential to provide appropriate landscaping and restoration of habitat that are more attractive
to wildlife, people and a more environmentally sensitive form of development
C. Public Access
The regional Green River Trail provides public access to existing shoreline amenities and
plans anticipate future linkages to Seattle’s system. As redevelopment occurs, there will be
opportunities to provide other types of public access, including viewing platforms, boat ramps
and fishing areas.
4.4 Restoration Opportunities and Potential Use Conflicts
Past restoration work focused on the Green\Duwamish River (in Water Resource Inventory
Area 9) has resulted in good data collection and identification of potential restoration
opportunities. Significant restoration activities along the Green\Duwamish River are
already underway in the form of the multi-agency Green River Ecosystem Restoration
Project. Several opportunities have been identified on the river as part of the recently
adopted King County Flood Hazard Management Plan. Restoration opportunities focus on
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 13 6/3/2019
several key elements:
Removing non-native, invasive plant species and re-vegetating with native riparian
forest species;
Removing artificial debris and walls that harden channel banks;
Integrating the reconnection of floodplains, levee setbacks, and other ecosystem
restoration techniques with future flood and river management efforts; and
Property acquisition to allow for levee setbacks, side channel reconnection, and
channel migration.
Two key issues illustrate constraints to implementing restoration and potential use conflicts
in Tukwila: 1) levee maintenance and management; and 2) existing development patterns
and anticipated redevelopment.
Discussion of shoreline planning for the Green River in Tukwila must acknowledge the
fact that, in light of the existing system of levees (including the federally certified
authorized “205” levees) and revetments, the City cannot act alone. There are a variety of
regulatory jurisdictions outside of the City with different responsibilities for maintenance,
and management, and regulating of the levee system, including the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (the Corps), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), King
County River and Floodplain Management Unit (acting as part of the Green River Flood
Control Zone District (KCFCD), and private property owners. The City of Tukwila Public
Works Department has overall responsibility for maintenance of all levees, including the
federally certified authorized Tukwila 205 levee, which extends from about the I-405
crossing to the south City limitsapproximately S. 196th Street. The actual maintenance
work on this public levees is contracted by the City to King Countyperformed by KCFCD.
The restoration of native tree and shrub species along the levees would increase riparian
habitat ecological functioning of this reach of the Green/Duwamish River, benefiting
salmonids as well as other species. However, the Corps of Engineers (responsible for
certifying the federal levee) believes that the root system of these trees could destabilize
levees, resulting in water piping (e.g., water infiltrating into and through levees along root
pathways at higher rates than it could through root free soil) at high flows, and potential
levee failure if trees fall. For the Vegetation Free Zone of the levee, current Corps guidance
only allows grass as vegetative cover on the levees (USACOE, Engineering Manual 1110-
2-301). Current guidance also specifies a root-free zone where plantings can occur, but
roots will generally not penetrate this structural zone. Therefore, under current regulations,
to meet the requirements for federal levee certification, some vegetation was recently
removed and ongoing vegetation management will be required to maintain the levee
certification.
Under the SMA, removing trees and vegetation from the riparian zone of shoreline of the
state is in conflict with policies for vegetation conservation and enhancement. A possible
Commented [NG10]: This section updated by the PC based on a
public comment.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 14 6/3/2019
solution is to step back and re-slope the levees to create mid-slope benches where
vegetation can be planted that will not interfere with the levee prism as the levee system is
reconstructed to improve its stability. This would require additional easement area beyond
the existing maintenance easements that have been acquired along the length of the system.
The existing development pattern also represents constraints to implementing restoration
projects, including levee setbacks, off-channel habitat restoration, wetland and stream
restoration, and riparian zone enhancements. Most of Tukwila is fully developed, with
portions having a dense, urbanized land use pattern. The City’s first SMP, in place since
1974, established a 40-foot setback from the mean high water line. In places that have not
been redeveloped under current regulations there is little more than this 40-foot zone that
is not intensely developed. Some places have somewhat more open space and less
development and thus have greater flexibility to accommodate potential habitat restoration
actions. The City’s vision for future land use, based on its comprehensive plan, includes
maintenance and further development of its urban character, particularly its identity as a
regionally significant center for manufacturing, industrial, and commercial development.
A challenge lies ahead in determining how best to accommodate new and redevelopment
near the shoreline in a manner consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the
Shoreline Master Program in order to achieve “no net loss” of shoreline function.
4.5 Conclusions
Like many rivers in the Puget Sound region, the course and dynamics of the
Green/Duwamish River has changed significantly as a result of development and alteration
of its watershed over the past century or so. Characteristic of many cities in the region,
Tukwila has grown and become highly urbanized. Continued growth is anticipated and the
City is planning for that growth. To a significant degree, the City has envisioned and
maintained a development pattern that preserved public access to the Green River and
assured setbacks of new buildings from the shoreline. Issues of concern today are focused
on reconstructing existing levees and revetments to protect existing development from
flood hazards, an effort that will take place over a number of years in coordination with the
King County Flood Control Zone District, King County and state and federal agencies.
There are many opportunities for conservation and restoration actions in the City to restore
or replace habitat while managing natural hazard areas.
Commented [NG11]: The current map is outdated, the
transition zone was expanded to river mile 9 in the Duwamish
Blueprint based on new understanding of the use of the upper
reach by larger juveniles later in the year.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 15 6/3/2019
Revised Map 2 – Duwamish River Transition Zone
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 16 6/3/2019
5. SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN - SUMMARY
5.1 Background
The state guidelines require that local governments develop SMP policies that promote
"restoration" of impaired shoreline ecological functions and a “real and meaningful”
strategy to implement restoration objectives. The City’s shoreline inventory and
characterization report identifies which shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem
processes have been impaired. Local governments are further encouraged to contribute to
restoration by planning for and supporting restoration through the SMP and other
regulatory and non-regulatory programs. As part of the SMP update process, the City
developed a Draft Shoreline Restoration Plan in February 2007. The draft plan was
finalized in May, 2008 following technical review by King County and Ecology and has
since been updated to include additional potential projects, address Ecology comments and
refocus priorities to projects within the Transition Zone. It is included as Appendix B to
the SMP.
The restoration plan builds on the Inventory and Characterization Report and provides a
framework to:
Identify primary goals for ecological restoration of the Green/Duwamish
ecosystem;
Identify how restoration of ecological function can be accomplished;
Suggest how the SMP update process may accomplish the restoration of
impaired shoreline functions associated with the Green/Duwamish ecosystem;
and
Prioritize restoration projects so that the highest value restoration actions may
be accomplished first.
5.2 Assessment of Shoreline Functions
As summarized in the previous section, the Inventory and Characterization analysis
examined riverine and estuarine ecosystem processes that maintain shoreline ecological
functions, and identified impaired ecological functions. The inventory report identified
key ecosystem processes, and provided a qualitative assessment of their levels of
functioning at both a watershed and city reach scale. Key ecosystem functions identified
in the inventory, their level of alteration, and potential restoration actions are summarized
in Table 1.
As noted in the Inventory and Characterization Report and summarized in the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization Summary Section, many of the alterations to shoreline
functions and ecosystem processes in the Green/Duwamish River are due to watershed
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 17 6/3/2019
scale issues within the upper watershed which cannot be fully restored or addressed in the
lower river section through Tukwila. However, hydrologic, water quality, and habitat
restoration measures in the City do have the potential to improve the overall functioning
of this important section of the Green/Duwamish River ecosystem that includes the
transition zone from fresh to salt water.
Table 1. General Restoration Potential within the Shorelines of Tukwila
Function
Category Function Alterations to natural functioning Potential Restoration Action within the
City
Hydrologic Channel -Floodplain
Interaction
Presence of flood protection structures
(e.g., levees, river bank revetments,
flood gates) and significant fill and
development along the shoreline limit
channel-floodplain interactions in
Tukwila.
1. Modify current levees and revetments to
increase channel and floodplain interaction;
2. Excavate back or side channels;
Hydrologic Upland sediment
generation
Fine sediment contribution to the river is
increased due to build-up and wash-off
from surrounding urban land uses.
Implement enhanced stormwater BMPs for
fine sediment removal in stormwater runoff.
Water
Quality
Retention of
particulates and
contaminants
Levees and revetments are virtually
continuous along the riverbanks,
limiting the potential to retain
particulates or contaminants contained
in stormwater sheet flows in the fluvially
dominated reaches. Particulates,
including sediment, are retained in the
tidally dominated reaches, as evidenced
by the need to dredge the estuary turning
basin.
1. Modify current levees and revetments to
increase channel and floodplain area;
2. Install native riparian species to increase
bank roughness.
Water
Quality Nutrient cycling
As channel-floodplain interaction was
reduced, the channel became a conduit
for nutrients, offering little opportunity
for contact time with soils.
1. Increase riverine wetland area;
2. Install native riparian plant species.
3. Set back banks (revetments and levees).
Large Woody
Debris
(LWD) and
Organics
Maintain
characteristic plant
community
The majority of the shoreline within the
City of Tukwila is currently dominated
by non-native invasive weed species
(Himalayan blackberry, reed canary-
grass, and Japanese knotweed). Some
higher quality areas of cottonwood,
alder, and willow exist in riparian areas
bordering open space, parkland, and
residential zones.
1. Remove invasive plants and install native
riparian species;
2. Incorporate LWD into bank stabilization
and restoration projects;
3. Institute programmatic weed control
activities along shoreline.
4. Promote bioengineering techniques for
shoreline stabilization projects.
LWD and
Organics: Source of LWD
Despite the lack of many sources for
LWD, there are some large cottonwoods
and big leaf maples occur along the
levees and revetment system.
1. Install native riparian species;
2. Incorporate LWD into bank stabilization
and restoration projects.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 18 6/3/2019
5.3 Plans, Programs, and Completed Projects
The importance of the Green/Duwamish ecosystem within the Puget Sound has resulted in
significant focus on this area in terms of restoration potential. With the federal listing of
Chinook and bull trout as endangered species, watershed planning in the region (e.g.,
WRIA 9) has focused on developing a Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9, 2005), to which the
City of Tukwila is a party. The plan establishes goals, objectives, and programmatic and
site specific actions to address restoration of habitat critical to salmon species in the
Green/Duwamish watershed.
Tukwila has already engaged in the greater regional restoration effort for the
Green/Duwamish River. The City Council has ratified the WRIA 9 Plan and contributes
resources to maintain operating staff. Tukwila has worked within the larger
Green/Duwamish River Ecosystem restoration project to acquire or donate properties that
are either currently functioningfor restoration (Cecil B. Moses Park, Codiga Farm,), or
have the potential for restoration (North Winds Weir, Duwamish Gardens). WRIA 9 and
other regional partners are currently working together to monitor baseline conditions.
Several projects from the WRIA 9 Plan are included on the City’s Capital Improvement
Program list; other projects will be added as CIP projects are completed and funds are
identified for new projects.
The restoration plan identifies several projects that have already been completed in the
Green/Duwamish River. These projects provide an excellent opportunity to learn about
what river restoration measures are the most effective. For example, it appears that the
back channel that was excavated at Codiga Farm provides important habitat for migrating
juvenile fish.
5.4 Restoration Opportunities
Based on the key ecosystem functions that are currently altered, there appear to be five
specific types of restoration actions that will most benefit the Green/Duwamish ecosystem
in Tukwila. These actions are intended to boost the levels of ecosystem functioning as part
of a self-sustaining ecosystem that will limit the need for future manipulation. While these
projects are intended to restore many ecosystem functions, the restoration activities will
occur in the highly urban valley bottom, and as a result, cannot fully achieve pre-
disturbance channel conditions. In addition, some restoration actions must occur at the
watershed scale, which will restore ecosystem functions that cannot be addressed solely
within Tukwila or as part of the SMP.
Enlarging channel cross-sectional area. This action could include setting back levees
and re-sloping banks to reduce steepness. These actions will increase flood storage,
allow for more stable levees, restore some floodplain area, provide a larger intertidal
zone in this important transitional area, and provide a more natural transition from
aquatic to upland habitats. The Transition Zone is identified in Map 2.
Commented [NG12]: This section updated by the PC based on a
public comment.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 19 6/3/2019
Enhancing existing habitats. These actions could include the removal of non-native
invasive vegetation, installation of native riparian vegetation, and installation of LWD
below Ordinary High Water. This action will improve the functioning of the aquatic,
riverine wetland, and riparian habitats that currently exist along the Green/Duwamish
River.
Creating off-channel habitat areas. This action would create off channel areas
through the excavation of historic fill or floodplain materials to create back channels
as fish foraging and refugia areas.
Reconnecting wetland habitat to the river. This action would reconnect an old
oxbow wetland to the river, allowing for off-channel habitat (Nelson Side Channel).
Removing fish barriers where tributary streams discharge to the river. This
action would remove flap gates and install fish-friendly flap gates at the mouths of
Tukwila’s three major streams (Gilliam, Southgate and Riverton) and possibly restore
habitat area at these locations in the shoreline jurisdiction.
5.5 Potential Projects and Priorities
The restoration plan summarizes 26 potential projects as specific restoration projects within
the shorelines of Tukwila. Most of the restoration projects are part of ongoing restoration
planning through the WRIA 9 watershed planning process. Additionally, opportunities
exist to enhance riparian vegetation along the majority of the Green/Duwamish River.
The restoration plan provides a preliminary qualitative (high, medium, low) project ranking
system. Within this ranking system, the highest priority location for restoration projects is
within the transition zone. The Transition Zone is mapped in Map 2.
High priority projects will typically:
Address both hydrologic and habitat ecosystem functions;
Have opportunity for multiple funding sources;
Include freshwater tributary channels; and/or
Not require additional property acquisition.
Medium priority projects will typically:
Address limited ecosystem functions; and
Be eligible for multiple funding sources, and/or require property acquisition.
Low priority projects will typically:
Only focus on habitat enhancement;
Will be used as mitigation to offset impacts elsewhere; or
Not be eligible for multiple funding sources.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 20 6/3/2019
6. SHORELINE GOALS AND POLICIES
The goals and policies that lead and inspire Tukwila’s shoreline actions are found in the
Shoreline Element of the City’s 2015 Comprehensive Plan. These, along with the narrative
in that Chapter, were updated based on the 2009 SMP and 2011 revisions approved by the
Department of Ecology.
7. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS
The City of Tukwila’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) establishes a system to classify
shoreline areas into specific “environment designations.” This system of classifying
shorelines is established by the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and Master
Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-211). The purpose of shoreline environment
designations is to provide a uniform basis for applying policies and use regulations within
similar shoreline areas. Generally, shoreline designations should be based on existing and
planned development patterns, biological and physical capabilities and limitations of the
shoreline, and a community’s vision or objectives for its future development.
7.1 Pre 2009 Regulatory Framework
Tukwila’s first SMP adopted in 1974, designated all shorelines as “Urban.” At the time the
1974 SMP was developed, all of the land in Tukwila’s shoreline jurisdiction was either
zoned commercial/industrial or was developed with urban uses. The SMP defined the
Urban Environment as “areas to be managed in high intensive land uses, including
residential, commercial, and industrial development and accessory uses, while providing
for restoration and preservation to ensure long-term protection of natural and cultural
resources within the shoreline” (Tukwila, 1974). The SMP further stated that the
management objectives for the shoreline “are directed at minimizing adverse impacts on
the river and shoreline ecology, maximizing the aesthetic quality and recreational
opportunities of the river shore, and recognizing the rights and privileges of property
owners” (Tukwila, 1974). Within the Urban Environment, Tukwila’s SMP employed a
tiered system of regulations based on the distance from the Green/Duwamish River mean
high water mark (MHWM). These tiered management zones are generally described below
and illustrated on Figure 1:
River Environment/Zone: a 40-foot wide zone extending landward from
MHWM and having the most environmentally protective regulations;
Low-Impact Environment/Zone: the area between the River Environment and
100 feet from the MHWM; and
High-Impact Environment/Zone: the area between 100 and 200 feet from the
MHWM.
The City also administered the King County Shoreline Master Program for the areas which
Commented [NG13]: The proposal is to delete the duplicate
listing of goals and policies from the Shoreline Element.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 21 6/3/2019
had been annexed since the adoption of the City’s SMP in 1974. These areas were
designated Urban and the setbacks from Ordinary High Water Mark varied from 20 feet to
50 feet depending on whether the use was water dependent, single family or
commercial/industrial. See Annexation History, Map 1 for an identification of the areas
where the City administered the County’s SMP.
Figure 1. Pre 2009 Tukwila SMP Shoreline Management Zones (1974 SMP; TMC
18.44)
7.2 Key Findings of the Shoreline Inventory / Characterization Report and
Restoration Plan
This section summarizes findings from the Inventory and Characterization Report and
Restoration Plan elements of the SMP update (Appendices A and B). These findings
inform the goals, policies, regulations, and the development and application of
environment designations. In this context, the key findings can be summarized as follows:
The Green/Duwamish River throughout Tukwila is a critical resource, particularly
in the Transition Zone portion of the river that extends from river mile 10 upstream
from the Interstate 5 bridge through the north City limits (see Map 2), where
juvenile salmon adjust from fresh to salt water habitat. The river provides
migratory habitat for numerous fish species, as well as riparian habitat for a variety
of wildlife.
The entire Greek/Duwamish river and its tributaries is a critical resource for
federally protected Muckleshoot Indian Tribe fishing.
The river is a critical resource for some water dependent uses north of the Turning
Basin.
The river is an important recreational resource for sport fishing, small water craft
and Green River Trail users.
At an ecosystem scale, the habitat is largely homogenous throughout the city. In
addition, many ecosystem processes are largely controlled by up-river
characteristics, particularly the Howard Hanson Dam and are little affected by
Commented [NG14]: This section updated by the PC based on a
public comment.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 22 6/3/2019
actions in the City, except for such functions as water quality (especially fine
sediment capture and filtering of contaminants in stormwater), local surface
hydrology (stormwater from increasing amounts of impervious surfaces and
contribution to peak flows of the river), riparian habitat, and temperature control
(shading from riparian habitat).With the exception of the functions provided by
the transitional mixing zone from salt to fresh water, habitat conditions and
functions are relatively similar throughout the shoreline. The transition zone
needs greater protection and restoration focus than other sections of the shoreline
in the city.
Restoration opportunities are numerous and spatially distributed throughout
Tukwila’s shoreline. Activities that provide restoration of both floodplain
functions and habitat functions should be prioritized, particularly those projects in
the transition zone. Policies should promote and regulations should enable the
City to accomplish restoration goals and actions.
7.3 State Environment Designation System
State Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-211) establish the environment
designation system for shorelines regulated by the Shoreline Management Act. The
guidelines (WAC 173-26-150 and 176-26-160) give local jurisdictions the option to plan
for shorelines in designated Urban Growth Areas (UGA) and Potential Annexation Areas
(PAA) as well. The City can “pre-designate” shoreline environments in its designated PAA
as part of this planning process. However, shorelines in the PAA would continue to be
regulated under the provisions of the King County SMP until the City annexes those areas.
The County’s SMP designates the City’s North PAA and the South PAA as High Intensity.
The guidelines (WAC 173-26-211(4)(b)) recommend six basic environment designations:
high intensity; shoreline residential; urban conservancy; rural conservancy; natural; and
aquatic. Local governments may establish a different designation system, retain their
current environment designations and/or establish parallel environments provided the
designations are consistent with the purposes and policies of the guidelines (WAC 173-26-
211(4)(c)). The guidelines also note that local shoreline environment designations should
be consistent with the local comprehensive plan (WAC 173-26-211(3)).
For each environment designation, jurisdictions must provide a purpose statement,
classification criteria, management policies and environment specific regulations. Table 2
describes the purpose for each of the recommended designations in the state guidelines.
For each designation, the potential applicability to Tukwila is noted.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 23 6/3/2019
Table 2. State Recommended Environment Designation System - WAC 173-26-211 (5)
Environment
Designation
Purpose Applicability to Tukwila
Aquatic
The purpose of the "aquatic" environment is to
protect, restore, and manage the unique
characteristics and resources of the areas
waterward of the ordinary high-water mark.
This designation will be used for the area
waterward of the ordinary high water mark
which includes the water surface along
with the underlying lands and the water
column.
Natural
The purpose of the "natural" environment is to
protect those shoreline areas that are relatively
free of human influence or that include intact
or minimally degraded shoreline functions
intolerant of human use.
While the Green River shorelines in
Tukwila provide some important
ecological functions, the river and
adjacent uplands throughout Tukwila have
been significantly altered by dense urban
development and are generally armored or
otherwise modified.
Rural
Conservancy
The purpose of the "rural conservancy"
environment is to protect ecological functions,
conserve existing natural resources and
valuable historic and cultural areas in order to
provide for sustained resource use, achieve
natural floodplain processes, and provide
recreational opportunities.
Not applicable to Tukwila. All of the
City’s shorelines are urbanized. Potential
annexation areas are either urbanized or
proposed for intensive development.
Urban
Conservancy
The purpose of the "urban conservancy"
environment is to protect and restore
ecological functions of open space, floodplain
and other sensitive lands where they exist in
urban and developed settings, while allowing
a variety of compatible uses.
This designation is applicable in that the
Green River is an important natural
resource. The most significant shoreline
function provided in Tukwila is related to
fish and wildlife habitat. Open space is
limited by the existing development
pattern and floodplains are largely
disconnected by a series of levees,
revetments, and other infrastructure.
Shoreline
Residential
The purpose of the "shoreline residential"
environment is to accommodate residential
development and appurtenant structures that
are consistent with this chapter. An additional
purpose is to provide appropriate public access
and recreational uses.
This designation is most applicable for
those portions of Tukwila’s shorelines
where the existing and planned
development pattern is for low density
(i.e., predominantly single-family)
residential uses or public recreation uses.
High-Intensity
The purpose of the "high-intensity"
environment is to provide for high-intensity
water-oriented commercial, transportation,
and industrial uses while protecting existing
ecological functions and restoring ecological
functions in areas that have been previously
degraded.
This designation is applicable along only
part of Tukwila’s shorelines, in the
Manufacturing and Industrial Center
(MIC) north of the Turning Basin. Water-
dependent uses are currently limited, as
only a small portion of the river in Tukwila
is navigable for commercial purposes, and
much of the river has levees, thus
restricting use immediately adjacent to the
river.
7.4 Environment Designations
The Natural and Rural Conservancy Environments are not well suited to a highly
developed, urbanized river that is navigable for only a small portion of the system and is
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 24 6/3/2019
significantly constrained by levees for flood management, such as the Green/Duwamish
River in Tukwila. The City’s Shoreline Environments, which are identified on Map 3,
are:
Shoreline Residential Environment
Urban Conservancy Environment
High Intensity Environment, and
Aquatic Environment
The City designated a buffer to replace the prior system of parallel shoreline management
zones. Instead of the prior River Environment, a minimum buffer was established for each
shoreline environment and allowed uses were designated for the buffer area along the river
and the remaining shoreline jurisdiction. This system is intended to facilitate the City’s
long-range objectives for land and shoreline management, including:
Ensuring no net loss of ecological shoreline functions;
Providing for habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration to improve
degraded shoreline ecological functions over time and protection of already
restored areas;
Allowing continued and increased urban development in recognition of
Tukwila’s role as a regionally significant industrial and commercial center; and
Providing for improved flood control in coordination with King County and the
Army Corps of Engineers.
Table 3, on the following page, provides a summary of the characteristics of the river
shoreline in Tukwila to set the stage for the discussion in Section 7.5 on the determination
of shoreline buffers.
SMP Public Review Draft - Strikeout 25 6/3/2019
Table 3. Summary of Buffer Widths for Land Use Zones and Shoreline Ecological
Conditions
Area Characteristics Environment Buffer Modification
MIC/H &
MIC/L
Zoned
property
from North
City Limits
to EMWS
Bridge, and
North
Potential
Annexation
Area
Fresh/Salt water
Transition Zone,
Lower flooding
risk, Less than 20’
difference from
OHWM to top of
bank, tidal
influence
High Intensity 100’ The Director may reduce the
standard buffer on a case-by-case
basis by up to 50% upon
construction of the following cross
section:
- 1. reslope bank from OHWM
(not toe) to be no steeper than
3:1, using bioengineering
techniques
- 2. Minimum 20’ buffer
landward from top of bank
- 3. Bank and remaining buffer
to be planted with native species
with high habitat value
Comment: Maximum slope is
reduced due to measurement from
OHWM and to recognize location in
the Transition Zone where
pronounced tidal influence makes
work below OHWM difficult.
Any buffer reduction proposal must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Director that it will not result in
direct, indirect or long-term adverse
impacts to the river. In all cases a
buffer enhancement plan must also
be approved and implemented as a
condition of the reduction. The plan
must include using a variety of
native vegetation that improves the
functional attributes of the buffer
and provides additional protection
for the shoreline ecological
functions.
LDR
Zoned
property
w/o levees
from
EMWS to
I-405
Moderate flooding
risk, Less than 25’
difference from
OHWM to top of
bank, tidal
influence on
northern section
Shoreline
Residential
Distance
required
to set
back
slope
from toe
at 2.5:1
plus 20’
setback,
Min. 50’
width
Removal of invasive species and
replanting with native species of
high habitat value voluntary unless
triggered by requirement for a
Shoreline Substantial Development
permit
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 26 6/3/2019
LDR Zoned
property with
levees from
EMWS to I-
405
Moderate flooding
risk, Less than 25’
difference from
OHWM to top of
bank, tidal
influence on
northern section
Shoreline
Residential
125’ Upon reconstruction of levee in
accordance with City levee standards,
the Director may reduce the buffer to
actual width required.
Comment: this applies to City-owned
property at Fort Dent.
Commercially
zoned
property from
42nd Ave S.
Bridge to I-
405
Moderate flooding
risk, Less than 25’
difference from
OHWM to top of
bank
Urban
Conservancy
100’ The Director may reduce the standard
buffer on a case-by-case basis by up to
50% upon construction of the
following cross section:
reslope bank from toe to be
no steeper than 2.5:1 using
bioengineering techniques
Minimum 20’ buffer
landward from top of bank
Bank and remaining buffer
to be planted with native
species with high habitat
value
Any buffer reduction proposal must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Director that it will not result in direct,
indirect or long-term adverse impacts
to shoreline ecological functions. In all
cases a buffer enhancement plan must
also be approved and implemented as a
condition of the reduction. The plan
must include using a variety of native
vegetation that improves the functional
attributes of the buffer and provides
additional protection for the shoreline
ecological functions.
West River
bank from I-
405 to South
City Limit,
Tukwila 205
Levee and
South
Annexation
Area
High flooding risk,
Federally certified
and County levee,
large water level
fluctuations
Urban
Conservancy
125’ Upon construction or reconstruction of
levee in accordance with City levee
standards the Director may reduce the
buffer to the actual width required. In
no case shall the buffer be less than 50
feet.
Commented [NG15]: The proposal was to change this from
2.5:1 to 3:1 to provide greater slope stability and ease of planting.
This can be accommodated within the existing 100’ buffer width.
Commented [NG16R15]: The PC opted to retain the current
slope standard.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 27 6/3/2019
East River
bank without
levee from I-
405 south to
City Limits
Moderate flooding
risk, 20 to 25’
difference from
OHWM to top of
bank, Moderate
slumping risk,
large water level
fluctuations
Urban
Conservancy
100’
The Director may reduce the standard
buffer on a case-by-case basis by up to
50% upon construction of the
following cross section:
- 1. reslope bank from toe to be
no steeper than 2.5:1, using
bioengineering techniques
- 2. Minimum 20’ buffer
landward from top of bank
- 3. Bank and remaining buffer to
be planted with native species
with high habitat value
Any buffer reduction proposal must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Director that it will not result in direct,
indirect or long-term adverse impacts
to shoreline ecological functions. In all
cases a buffer enhancement plan must
also be approved and implemented as a
condition of the reduction. The plan
must include using a variety of native
vegetation that improves the functional
attributes of the buffer and provides
additional protection for the shoreline
ecological functions.
East River
bank with
levee from I-
405 to South
City Limit
Moderate flooding
risk, 20 to 25’
difference from
OHWM to top of
bank, Moderate
slumping risk,
large water level
fluctuations
Urban
Conservancy
125’ Upon reconstruction of levee in
accordance with City levee standards
the Director may reduce the buffer to
the actual width required for the levee.
In no case shall the buffer be less than
50 feet.
Any
shoreline
environment
where street
or road runs
parallel to the
river through
the buffer
End buffer on river side of existing
improved street or roadway.
Commented [NG17]: The proposal was to change this from
2.5:1 to 3:1 to provide greater slope stability and ease of planting.
This can be accommodated within the existing 100’ buffer width.
Commented [NG18R17]: The PC opted to retain the current
slope standard.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 28 6/3/2019
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 29 6/3/2019
7.5 Determination of Shoreline Buffers
The determination of the buffer distances for each shoreline environment was based on
several factors including the analysis of buffer functions needed for protecting and
restoring shoreline ecological function (as presented in the Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization Report) and the need to allow space for bank stability and for protecting
human life and structures from damage from high flows, erosion and bank failures. Safety
of residents and people who work in buildings along the shoreline has become even more
important in recent years due to the increase in stormwater entering the river from
increasing impervious surfaces throughout the watershed and increasing frequency and
intensity of flows during high rain events. These higher and more frequent flows will put
more stress on over-steepened banks all along the river, increasing the possibility of bank
erosion, levee failures, and bank failures. Thus, ensuring that new structures are not built
too close to the river’s edge is crucial to avoid loss of human life.
Staff also reviewed the rationale for the buffer widths established for watercourses under
TMC 18.45, the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, as well as buffer widths recommended by
resource agencies, such as the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of
Natural Resources and the recent Biological Opinion issued by National Marine Fisheries
Service in relation to FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program.
The final buffer widths proposed by staff for each shoreline environment attempted to
balance shoreline ecological function needs, human life and property protection needs
(including future levee repair/reconstruction), existing land use patterns, and state and
federal agency policies.
The following information summarizes the analysis carried out and the rationale used for
determining buffer widths.
A. Buffer Functions Supporting Shoreline Ecological Resources, Especially
Salmonids
Buffers play an important role in the health of any watercourse and an even more important
role when considering the health of salmonids in the Green/Duwamish River system. The
key buffer functions for the river are summarized below.
The Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology regulations require
evaluation of ecological functions and that local SMPs ensure that the policies and
regulations do not cause any net loss of shoreline ecological function. In addition, the SMP
must identify mechanisms for restoration of lost ecological functions.
The crucial issue for the Green/Duwamish River is the presence of salmonids that are on
the Endangered Species list. To protect and restore ecological functions related to these
species it is important to provide for the installation of native vegetation along the
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 30 6/3/2019
shoreline. Such vegetation provides shade for improving temperature conditions in the
river and habitat for insects on which fish prey. Trees along the shoreline also provide a
source of large woody debris (tree trunks, root wads, limbs, etc. that fall into the water),
which in turn provides pooling and areas of shelter for fish and other animals. In order to
allow for planting of native vegetation, banks need to be set back to allow for less steep
and more stable (requiring less armoring) slopes, so that they can be planted which is
crucial for improving shoreline ecological functions that are needed in the river.
The buffer widths needed to achieve a particular buffer function vary widely by function
type from as little as 16 feet for large woody debris recruitment (assuming the buffer has
large trees) to over 400 feet for sediment removal. The Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recommends a riparian buffer width of 250 feet for shorelines
of statewide significance (this applies to the Green/Duwamish River). The Washington
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) recommends a riparian buffer of 200 feet for
Class 1 Waters (the Green/Duwamish River is a Class 1 Water under the WDNR
classification scheme). The National Marine Fisheries Service (responsible at the federal
level for overseeing protection of endangered salmonids under the Endangered Species
Act) has recommended a buffer of 250 feet in mapped floodplain areas to allow for
protection of shoreline functions that support salmonids.1 Tukwila’s Sensitive Areas
Ordinance (TMC 18.45) has established a 100 foot buffer for Type 2 watercourses in the
city (those that bear salmonid species).
The key buffer functions for the river are summarized below.
1. Maintenance of Water Quality
Salmonid fish require water that is both colder and has lower nutrient levels
than many other types of fish. Vegetated shoreline buffers contribute to
improving water quality as described below.
a. Water Temperature: The general range of temperatures required to
support healthy salmonid populations is generally between 39 degrees
and 63 degrees. Riparian vegetation, particularly forested areas can
affect water temperature by providing shade to reduce exposure to the
sun and regulate high ambient air temperatures.
b. Dissolved Oxygen: dissolved oxygen is one of the most influential
water quality parameters for aquatic life, including salmonid fish. The
most significant factor affecting dissolved oxygen levels is water
temperature – cooler streams maintain higher levels of oxygen than
warmer waters.
1 Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation, Final Biological Opinion and Magnuson –Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation, Implementation of the Flood
Insurance Program in the State of Washington, Phase One Document, Puget Sound Region, September, 2008.
Commented [NG19]: While the current profile requires a mid-
slope bench for plantings they can also occur outside of the levee
prism when designed using flood walls or shallower slopes.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 31 6/3/2019
c. Metals and pollutants: Common pollutants found in streams,
particularly in urban areas, are excessive nutrients (such as phosphorous
and nitrogen), pesticides, bacteria and miscellaneous contaminants such
as PCBs and heavy metals. Impervious surfaces collect and concentrate
pollutants from different sources and deliver these materials to streams
during storm events. The concentration of pollutants increases in direct
proportion to the total amount of impervious area. Undisturbed or well
vegetated riparian buffer areas can retain sediment, nutrients, pesticides,
pathogens and other pollutants, protecting water quality in streams.
Elevated nitrogen and phosphorus levels in runoff are a typical problem
in urban watersheds and can lead to increased in-stream plant growth,
which results in excess decaying plant material that consumes oxygen
in streams and reduces aquatic habitat quality.
2. Contributing to in-stream structural diversity
a. Large woody debris (LWD) refers to limbs and tree trunks that naturally
fall into the stream bed from a vegetated buffer. LWD serves many
functions in watercourses. LWD adds roughness to stream channels,
which in turn slows water velocities and traps sediments. Sources of
LWD in urban settings are limited where stream corridors have been
cleared of vegetation and developed and channel movement limited due
to revetments and levees. Under natural conditions, the normal
movement of the stream channel, undercutting of banks, wind throw,
and flood events are all methods of LWD recruitment to a stream
channel.
b. LWD also contributes to the formation of pools in river channels that
provide important habitat for salmonids. Adult salmonids require pools
with sufficient depth and cover to protect them from predators during
spawning migration. Adult salmon often hold to pools during daylight,
moving upstream from pool to pool at night.
3. Providing Biotic Input of Insects and Organic Matter
a. Vegetated buffers provide foods for salmonids and other fish, because
insects fall into the water from overhanging vegetation.
b. Leaves and other organic matter falling into stream provide food and
nutrients for many species of aquatic insects which in turn provide
forage for fish.
B. Bank Stability and Protection of Human Lives and Structures
The main period of runoff and major flood events on the Green River is from November
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 32 6/3/2019
through February. The lower Green and Duwamish levees and revetments form a nearly
continuous bank protection and flood containment system. Farmers originally constructed
many of these levees and revetments as the protection to the agricultural lands of the area
and this original material is still in place as the structural core. In particular, these
protection facilities typically have over-steepened banks, areas with inadequate rock
buttressing at the toe, and lack habitat-enhancing features such as overhanging vegetation
or in-water large woody debris. Because of these design and construction shortcomings,
the protection to river banks has not always performed as intended. Instead, there have
been bank failures that have threatened structures and infrastructure; erosion of banks –
making them even steeper; and damage to levees that has required a series of repair
projects.
The damage to the levee system in storm events lead to discussions among the City, US
Army Corps of Engineers and the King County Flood Control District to determine the
best levee design to prevent the recurring problem of continued levee repairs. The criteria
used to design a levee profile are:
Public Safety;
Maintaining levee certification;
Solutions that eliminate or correct factors that have caused or contributed to the
need for the levee repair;
Levee maintenance needs; and
Environmental considerations.
To overcome the existing problems and to reduce future maintenance and repair costs, the
Corps chose to lessen the overall slope to a stable grade. This selected method is consistent
with recommendations set forth in the Corps of Engineers’ Manual for Design and
Construction of Levees (EM 1110-2-1913) for slope stability. It also is consistent with the
levee rehabilitation project constructed on the nearby Briscoe School levee that has proven
to be a very effective solution to scour problems – the design slows the river down, provides
additional flood storage and allows a vegetated mid-slope bench for habitat improvements.
This profile was used to repair two areas of the federally-certified levee in Tukwila – the
Lily Point project and the Segale project, which were about 2,000 linear feet of repairs.
Costs of these repairs were around $7 million dollars, not including any costs of land
acquisition for laying back the levees. It is expected that the use of this levee design or an
environmentally superior solution will reduce the need to continually repair the levee in
those areas, thus avoiding such high expenditures in the future and saving money in the
long run.
The profile discussed above is illustrated in Figure 2 below:
Commented [NG20]: However, the Briscoe profile was not
used in the more recent levee reconstruction in Kent.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 33 6/3/2019
Figure 2. Briscoe Levee Profile
Because of the similarities in the soil conditions and taking into consideration the tidal
influence, the Green/Duwamish River can be divided into three areas – South of I-405;
North of I-405; and areas around residential neighborhoods. Looking at the slope geometry
and the difference in height between the ordinary high water mark and the 100-year flood
elevation for these three areas, it was found that 125-feet of setback distance (buffer) is
needed to accommodate the “lay back” of the levee in the area south of I-405 and around
Fort Dent Park.2 During high flow events, the water surface can be as much as 16 feet
above the OHWM in these areas. At locations further downriver, the water surface
elevation difference is much less pronounced due to the wider channel and proximity to
Puget Sound. For areas without levees, north of I-405 and those areas south of I-405 on
the east side of the river (right bank), a 100-foot setback distance is required to
accommodate the slopes needed for bank stability. Within residential neighborhoods, a
minimum 50-foot setback is justified because of the less intense land use associated with
single-family home construction and the estimated amount of space needed to achieve the
natural angle of repose for a more stable slope.
Even though the above explanation for determining appropriate buffer distance used levee
design as the example, the same problems exist where there are no levees. The river makes
no distinction between an over-steepened slope associated with a levee or a riverbank.
Scouring within the river will cause sloughing and slope stability will be weakened,
potentially resulting in the loss of structures. In fact, the non-leveed riverbank can be more
2 The 125 foot distance includes a slope no steeper than 2.5:1 with a mid-slope bench incorporated, 18 feet
at the top of the levee and 10 feet on the back side of the levee for access and inspection.
1.5
1
Typical Shoreline Buffer in Leveed Areas-Width Will Vary
Willows
Reconfigured Levee
Vegetated Bench
10'
2*1
2
1
2*
1
Ordinary High
Water Mark
OHWM
Existing Levee
Maintenance Easement
* Reconfigured Slope averages 2.5:1 with bench
18'
Minimum Levee Profile
Not To Scale
15'
Commented [AMS21]: Figure should be renamed Briscoe
Levee Profile
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 34 6/3/2019
prone to these problems since they tend to be steeper and consist mainly of sand and silt.
This makes them susceptible to erosion. Because the non-leveed riverbanks are for the
most part privately owned, they are not actively monitored for damage by the City or
County.
C. Conclusions
The determination of buffer widths was based on two important criteria: the need to
achieve bank stability and protect structures along the shoreline from damage due to
erosion and bank failures and to protect and enhance shoreline ecological function.
Applying the 200 to 250 foot buffer widths recommended by WDFW and WDNR would
not be practical given the developed nature of the shoreline. It was also felt that a buffer
less than that already established for Type 2 Watercourses under the City’s SAO would not
be sufficiently protective of shoreline functions, unless those functions were enhanced
through various restoration options. Therefore, 100 feet was established as the starting
point for considering buffer widths from the standpoint of shoreline ecological function in
each of the Shoreline Environments. Between 100 and 125 feet was the starting point for
buffer widths from the standpoint of bank stability and property protection.
Thus buffers were established taking into account (as explained in the following sections)
the characteristics of each Shoreline Environment, needs for protection/restoration of
shoreline ecological functions, and needs for stable banks and human life and property
protection.
7.6 Shoreline Residential Environment
A. Designation Criteria: All properties zoned for single-family use from the ordinary
high water mark landward two-hundred (200) feet. In addition, those areas zoned for single
family use but developed for public recreation or open space within 200 feet of the
shoreline shall also be designated Shoreline Residential, except Fort Dent Park.
B. Purpose of Environment and Establishment of River Buffer: The purpose of the
Shoreline Residential Environment is to accommodate urban density residential
development, appurtenant structures, public access and recreational activities. However,
within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction in the Shoreline Residential Environment there
will be a protective buffer along the river, where development will be limited to protect
shoreline function.
The purpose of the river buffer in the shoreline residential environment is to:
Ensure no net loss to shoreline ecological functions;
Help protect water quality and habitat function by limiting allowed uses;
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 35 6/3/2019
Protect existing and new development from high river flows by ensuring
sufficient setback of structures;
Promote restoration of the natural character of the shoreline environment; and
Allow room for reconstructing over-steepened river banks to achieve a more
stable slope and more natural shoreline bank conditions and avoid the need for
shoreline armoring.
C. Analysis of Development Character of Residential Shoreline: An analysis was
prepared that looked at the residential properties along the shoreline and identified the
number of parcels with structures within 50 feet and 100 feet of the OHWM. This analysis
showed the following:
ZONE
Number
of parcels
within 50
feet of
OHWM
Number
of vacant
parcels
within 50
feet
Number of
parcels
with
structures
within 50
feet/%
Number
of parcels
within
100 feet
of
OHWM
Number
of vacant
parcels
within
100 feet
Number of
parcels
with
structures
within 100
feet/%
LDR 135 12 67/49% 201 25 165/82%
As can be seen from the chart above, almost half of the parcels in the residential
neighborhoods have a structure within 50 feet of the OHWM – a direct result of the current
King County regulations. To apply a buffer width that is consistent with the City’s
Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) of 100 feet would create a situation where 82% of the
properties along the river would have nonconforming structures as they relate to the
proposed shoreline buffer.
Expansion of single family nonconforming structures in the proposed SMP buffer would
be governed by Section 14.5 of the SMP, which permits an expansion of only 50% of the
square footage of the current area that intrudes into the buffer and only along the ground
floor of the structure. For example, if 250 square feet of a building extended into the
proposed buffer, the ground floor could be expanded a maximum of 125 feet in total area
along the existing building line.
A buffer of 100 feet was considered for the shoreline residential properties, with the
potential of a property owner applying for a buffer reduction of 50%, however, under the
Shoreline Management Act, this would have required an application for a shoreline
variance for each requested buffer reduction, a process that requires review and approval
both at the local and state level (Ecology must review and approve the variance in addition
to the City of Tukwila). This did not seem a reasonable process to require of so many
property owners.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 36 6/3/2019
The river bank in the Shoreline Residential Environment is typically in a modified and
degraded state but generally not stabilized with revetments, dikes or levees. Based on an
analysis of the river elevations and existing banks, a 50 foot minimum buffer in the
Shoreline Residential Environment would allow room to achieve a 2.5:1 bank slope with
an additional 20 foot setback from the top of the slope – a distance that will allow for bank
stability and in-turn, protection of new structures from high flows, and bank failures. A
schematic of the shoreline jurisdiction showing the buffer is provided in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Schematic of Shoreline Residential Environment and Buffer
The proposed buffer area for the Shoreline Residential Environment will allow for removal
of invasive plants, planting of native vegetation in the riparian zone and inclusion of other
features to improve shoreline habitat. It also will prevent the placement of any structures
in an area that could potentially prove unstable. In the event of bank erosion or slope
failures, the buffer will provide sufficient space for re-sloping the bank to a more stable
2.5:1 slope, either through bank stabilization projects or through natural bank failures that
result in the natural angle of repose (2.5:1 or greater).
7.7 Urban Conservancy Environment
A. Designation Criteria: This environment will be designated in the area between the
Ordinary High Water Mark and 200 feet landward as regulated under the Shoreline
Management Act and applied to all shorelines of the river except the Shoreline Residential
Environment and the High Intensity Environment. The Urban Conservancy Environment
areas are currently developed with dense urban multifamily, commercial, industrial and/or
transportation uses or are designated for such uses in the proposed south annexation area.
This environment begins at the southern end of the Turning Basin and includes portions of
the river where levees and revetments generally have been constructed and where the river
is not navigable to large water craft. Uses will be restricted immediately adjacent to the
river by establishment of a minimum protective buffer.
B. Purpose of Environment: The purpose of the Urban Conservancy Environment is to
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 37 6/3/2019
protect ecological functions where they exist in urban and developed settings, and restore
ecological functions where they have been previously degraded, while allowing a variety
of compatible uses.
C. Establishment of River Buffers: The Urban Conservancy environment will have two
different buffers, depending on the location along the river and whether or not the shoreline
has a flood control levee. The purpose of Urban Conservancy River Buffers is to:
Protect existing and restore degraded ecological functions of the open space,
floodplain and other sensitive lands in the developed urban settings;
Ensure no net loss of shoreline function when new development or re-
development is proposed;
Provide opportunities for restoration and public access;
Allow for adequate flood and channel management to ensure protection of
property, while accommodating shoreline habitat enhancement and promoting
restoration of the natural character of the shoreline environment, wherever
possible;
Avoid the need for new shoreline armoring; and
Protect existing and new development from high river flows.
Buffer in Non-Levee Areas:
A buffer width of 100 feet is established for the Urban Conservancy Environment for all
non-residential areas without levees. This buffer width is consistent with that established
by the City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance for Type 2 streams that support salmonid use,
which is based on Best Available Science. In addition, as noted above, looking at the slope
geometry and the difference in height between the ordinary high water mark and the 100-
year flood elevation for these areas, it was found that a 100-foot setback distance is required
to accommodate the slopes needed for bank stability.
The buffer width of 100 feet allows enough room to reconfigure the river bank to achieve
a slope of 2.5:1, the “angle of repose” or the maximum angle of a stable slope and allow
for some restoration and improvement of shoreline function through the installation of
native plants and other habitat features. The actual amount of area needed to achieve a
2.5:1 slope may be less than 100 feet, depending on the character of the river bank and can
only be determined on a site-by-site basis.
As an alternative to the 100 foot buffer, a property owner may re-slope the river bank to
be no steeper than 2.5:1, provide a 20 foot setback from the top of the new slope and
vegetate both the river bank and the 20 foot setback area in accordance with the standards
in the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. Any buffer reduction proposal
must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that it will not result in direct, indirect
or long-term adverse impacts to shoreline ecosystem functions. In all cases a buffer
enhancement plan must also be approved and implemented as a condition of the
Commented [NG22]: The proposal is to change the standard for
buffer reductions from 2.5:1 to 3:1 to provide greater slope stability
and ease of planting. This can be accommodated within the existing
100’ buffer width.
Commented [NG23R22]: The PC opted not to make this
change
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 38 6/3/2019
reduction. The plan must include removal of invasive plants, and plantings using a
variety of native vegetation that improves the functional attributes of the buffer and
provides additional protection for the watercourse functions. In no case shall the buffer
be less than 50 feet.
In areas of the river where this condition currently exists or where the property owner has
constructed these improvements, the buffer width will be the actual distance as measured
from the ordinary high water mark to the top of the bank plus 20 feet.
The shoreline jurisdiction and buffers for the Urban Conservancy Environment are
depicted in the schematic in Figures 4 and 5 below.
Figure 4. Schematic of Shoreline Jurisdiction and Buffers for the Urban
Conservancy Environment in Areas without Levees
Buffer in Levee Areas:
For properties located behind the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Certified 205 levee
and County constructed levees, the buffer will extend 125 feet landward from the ordinary
high water mark, determined at the time of development or redevelopment of the site or
when levee replacement or repair is programmed. This buffer width is the maximum
needed to reconfigure the river bank to the minimum levee profile and to achieve an overall
slope of 2.5:1, the “angle of repose” or the maximum angle of a stable slope. The
establishment of the 2.5:1 slope along the Corps certified 205 levee in the Tukwila Urban
Center will allow for incorporating a mid-slope bench that can be planted with vegetation
to improve river habitat. The mid-slope bench also will allow access for maintenance
equipment, when needed. An fifteen foot easement necessary to allow access for levee
inspection is required on the landward side of the levee at the toe.
Commented [NG24]: The PC opted not to require a fixed
easement width, it will be determined by the standards of the agency
providing maintenance of the levee at the time a levee is constructed.
Commented [NG25]: The Briscoe profile was not used in the
more recent levee reconstruction in Kent as other engineering
solutions can also provide environmental enhancement and flood
protection.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 39 6/3/2019
Figure 5. Schematic of Shoreline Jurisdiction and Buffers for the Urban
Conservancy Environment in Areas with Levees
As an alternative to the 125 foot buffer for leveed areas, a property owner may construct
levee or riverbank improvements that meet the Army Corps of Engineers, King County
Flood Control District, and City of Tukwila minimum levee standards. These standards at
a minimum shall include an overall slope no steeper than 2.5:1 from the toe of the levee to
the riverward edge of the crown, 16’ access across the top of the levee, a 2:1 back slope,
and an additional 15 foot no-build area measured from the landward toe for inspection and
repairs. In instances where an existing building that has not lost its nonconforming status
prevents achieving an overall slope of 2.5:1 the slope should be as close to 2.5:1 as possible.
A floodwall is not the preferred back slope profile for a levee but may be substituted for
all or a portion of the back slope where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to a
structure legally constructed prior to the date of adoption of this Master Program which has
not lost its nonconforming status and to preserve access needed for building functionality.
The floodwall shall be designed to provide 15’ (fifteen foot) clearance between the levee
and the building or to preserve access needed for building functionality while meeting all
engineering safety standards. A floodwall may also be used where necessary to avoid
encroachment on a railroad easement or to provide area for waterward habitat restoration.
In areas of the river where the property owner or a government agency has constructed a
levee with an overall waterward slope of 2.5:1 or flatter, the buffer will be reduced to the
actual distance as measured from the ordinary high water mark to the landward toe of the
levee or face of a floodwall, plus 15 feet. In the event that the owner provides the City
and/or applicable agency with a 15-foot levee maintenance easement measured landward
from the landward toe of the levee or levee wall (which easement prohibits the construction
of any structures and allows the City and/or applicable agency to access the area to inspect
the levee), then the buffer shall be reduced to the landward toe of the levee, or landward
edge of the levee floodwall, as the case may be.
In cases where fill is placed along the back slope of the levee, the shoreline buffer may be
further reduced to the point where the ground plane intersects the back slope. The area
between the landward edge of the buffer and a point fifteen (15) feet landward of the
Commented [NG26]: The PC opted not to require a fixed
easement width, it will be determined by the standards of the agency
providing maintenance of the levee at the time a levee is constructed.
Commented [NG27]: The PC opted not to require a fixed
easement width, it will be determined by the standards of the agency
providing maintenance of the levee at the time a levee is constructed.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 40 6/3/2019
underground levee toe shall be covered by an easement prohibiting the construction of any
structures and allowing the City and/or applicable agency to access the area to inspect the
levee and/or floodwall and make any necessary repairs. See Figure 5 below.
Figure 6. Schematic of Buffer Reduction Through Placement of Fill on Levee Back
Slope
7.8 High Intensity Environment
A. Designation Criteria: The High Intensity Shoreline Environment area is currently
developed with high intensity urban commercial, industrial and/or transportation uses or is
designated for such uses in the proposed north annexation area. This environment begins
at the Ordinary High Water Mark and extends landward 200 feet and is located from the
southern edge of the Turning Basin north to the City limits and includes the North PAA.
This Environment is generally located along portions of the Duwamish River that are
navigable to large watercraft. Uses will be restricted immediately adjacent to the river by
establishment of a minimum protective buffer.
The transition zone is located partly in the High Intensity Environment. The transition
zone is the location where freshwater from a river and saltwater from the marine salt wedge
mix creating brackish conditions. Often it is also where the river widens, stream velocities
decrease and estuarine mudflats begin to appear. Habitat associated with the transition
zone is critically important for juvenile Chinook and chum smolts making the transition to
salt water. The transition zone moves upstream and downstream in response to the
combination of stream flow and tidal elevations and as a result varies over a twenty-four
hour period and seasonally. The transition zone is a crucial habitat for salmonids.
B. Purpose of Environment and Establishment of River Buffer: The purpose of the
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 41 6/3/2019
Urban High Intensity Environment is to provide for high intensity, commercial,
transportation and industrial uses and to promote water dependent and water oriented uses
while protecting existing shoreline ecological functions and restoring ecological functions
in areas that have been previously degraded.
The purposes of the High Intensity River Buffer are to:
Protect existing and restore degraded ecological functions of the open space,
floodplain and other sensitive lands in the developed urban settings;
Ensure no net loss of shoreline function when new development or re-
development occurs;
Provide opportunities for shoreline restoration and public access;
Allow for adequate flood and channel management to ensure protection of
property, while accommodating shoreline habitat enhancement and promoting
restoration of the natural character of the shoreline environment, wherever
possible;
Avoid the need for new shoreline armoring; and
Protect existing and new development from high river flows.
A buffer of 100 feet is established, which allows enough room to reconfigure the river bank
to achieve a slope of 3:1, (starting at the OHWM rather than the toe) the “angle of repose”
or the maximum angle of a stable slope and allow for some restoration and improvement
of shoreline function through the installation of native plants and other habitat features.
The actual amount of area needed to achieve a 3:1 slope may be less than 100 feet,
depending on the character of the river bank and can only be determined on a site-by-site
basis.
Figure 7. Schematic Showing the Proposed Shoreline Jurisdiction and Buffer for
the High Intensity Environment
As an alternative to the 100 foot buffer, a property owner may re-slope the river bank to a
maximum 3:1, provide a 20 foot setback from the top of the new slope and vegetate both
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 42 6/3/2019
the river bank and the 20 foot setback area in accordance with the standards in the
Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. The property owner must also
demonstrate that this approach will not result in a loss of ecological functions of the
shoreline. In areas of the river where this condition currently exists or where the property
owner has constructed these improvements, the buffer width will be the actual distance as
measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark to the top of the bank plus 20 feet. In no
case shall the buffer be less than 50 feet.
In any shoreline environment where an existing improved street or road runs parallel to the
river through the buffer, the buffer would end on the river side of the street or road.
Section 7.9 Aquatic Environment
A. Designation Criteria: All water bodies within the City limits and its potential
annexation area under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act waterward of the
ordinary high water mark. The aquatic environment includes the water surface together
with the underlying lands and the water column.
B. Purpose: The purpose of this designation is to protect the unique characteristics
and resources of the aquatic environment by managing use activities to prioritize
preservation and restoration of natural resources, navigation, recreation and commerce
and by assuring compatibility between shoreland and aquatic uses.
8. SHORELINE USE REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Uses that are permitted outright, permitted as a Conditional Use, or prohibited altogether
for each Shoreline Environment are provided in TMC 18.44.030 along with special
conditions and general requirements controlling specific uses. These regulations are
intended to implement the purpose of each Shoreline Environment designation adopted
with this SMP. Development standards such as setbacks, height limitations, water quality
regulations, flood hazard reduction, shoreline stabilization, protection of archaeological
resources, environmental impact mitigation, parking and over water structures
requirements are codified in TMC Chapter 18.44.
The Administrative procedures codified in TMC Chapter 18.44 are designed to:
Assign responsibilities for implementation of the Master Program and
Shoreline Permits.
Establish an orderly process by which to review proposals and permit
applications.
Ensure that all persons affected by this Master Program are treated in a fair and
equitable manner.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 43 6/3/2019
These procedures include permit application requirements, conditional use approval
criteria, variance approval criteria, and regulations for non-conforming development.
9. ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS WITHIN THE SHORELINE
JURISDICTION.
9.1 Applicable Critical Areas Regulations
A. The following critical areas shall be regulated in accordance with the
provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance TMC Chapter 18.45, adopted [Date to be
added], which is herein incorporated by reference into this SMP, except for the provisions
excluded in subsection B of this Section:
1. Wetlands
2. Watercourses (Type F, Type Np, Type Ns)
3. Areas of potential geologic instability
4. Abandoned mine areas
5. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
Such critical area provisions shall apply to any use, alteration, or development within
shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption
is required. Unless otherwise stated, no development shall be constructed, located,
extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided without full compliance with the
provision adopted by reference and the Shoreline Master Program. Within shoreline
jurisdiction, the regulations of TMC Chapter 18.45 shall be liberally construed together
with the Shoreline Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the
provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. If there is
a conflict or inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline
Master Program, the most restrictive provisions shall prevail.
B. The following provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45 do not apply within the
Shoreline jurisdiction:
1. Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC Section 18.45.160)
2. Reasonable Use Exception (TMC Section 18.45.180).
C. Critical areas comprised of frequently flooded areas and areas of seismic
instability are regulated by the Flood Zone Management Code (TMC Chapter 16.52) and
the Washington State Building Code, rather than by TMC Section 18.44.090.
9.2 Purpose
A. The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) requires protection of critical areas
(sensitive areas), defined as wetlands, watercourses, frequently flooded areas, geologically
hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife conservation areas, and
abandoned mine areas.
B. The purpose of protecting environmentally critical areas within the shoreline
Commented [NG28]: The proposal is to adopt the revised
critical areas regulations by reference rather than duplicating them in
the SMP and Zoning Code.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 44 6/3/2019
jurisdiction is to:
1. Minimize developmental impacts on the natural functions and values of these
areas.
2. Protect quantity and quality of water resources.
3. Minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and fish-bearing waters and
maintain wildlife habitat.
4. Prevent erosion and the loss of slope and soil stability caused by the removal of
trees, shrubs, and root systems of vegetative cover.
5. Protect the public against avoidable losses, public emergency rescue and relief
operations cost, and subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide,
subsidence, erosion and flooding.
6. Protect the community’s aesthetic resources and distinctive features of natural
lands and wooded hillsides.
7. Balance the private rights of individual property owners with the preservation
of environmentally sensitive areas.
8. Prevent the loss of wetland and watercourse function and acreage, and strive
for a gain over present conditions.
9. Give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to
protect or enhance anadromous fisheries.
10. Incorporate the use of best available science in the regulation and protection of
critical areas as required by the state Growth Management Act, according to
WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and WAC 365-190-080.
C. The goal of these critical area regulations is to achieve no net loss of wetland,
watercourse, or fish and wildlife conservation area or their functions. Critical areas
currently identified in the shoreline jurisdiction are discussed in the Shoreline Inventory
and Characterization Report, which forms part of this Shoreline Master Program. The
locations are mapped on the Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline Jurisdiction Map – Map 5.
This map is based on assessment of current conditions and review of the best available
information. However, additional sensitive areas may exist within the shoreline
jurisdiction and the boundaries of the sensitive areas shown are not exact. It is the
responsibility of the property owner to determine the presence of sensitive areas on the
property and to verify the boundaries in the field. Sensitive area provisions for abandoned
mine areas do not apply as none of these areas is located in the shoreline jurisdiction.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 45 6/3/2019
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 46 6/3/2019
10. PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE SHORELINE
Public access to the shorelines of the state is one of the key goals of the Shoreline
Management Act – of the seven uses identified in RCW 90.58.020 as having preference in
the shoreline, two relate to public access and recreational opportunities along the shoreline.
The City of Tukwila is fortunate to have a number of public access sites already along the
Green/Duwamish River in addition to the Green River Trail, which runs along almost the
entire length of the river through the City. Other public access points are available at the
North Winds Wier, the Tukwila Community Center, Codiga Park, Bicentennial Park at
Strander Boulevard and parking available on Christianson Road and at S. 180th Street. A
habitat restoration project is underway at Duwamish Riverbend Hill, on South 115th Street,
which also includes public access to the river. The Public Access Map (Map 6) identifies
several street ends that could be improved or to which amenities could be added that would
offer opportunities for neighborhood access to the river and/or the Green River Trail.
The Shoreline Public Access Map identifies several potential trail sites on the river to
supplement the existing Green River trail system. The largest stretch of potential trail runs
from S. 180th on the left bank to the end of south annexation area. A pedestrian bridge to
link the area south of S. 180th Street to the existing trail on the right bank is being discussed
as well. A second area where improvement is needed in public access relates to boat
launches for small hand launched boats. Several potential sites have been identified in the
Tukwila Parks Department Capital Improvement Program to address this need at City-
owned sites. A comprehensive regional inventory of public access points to the River
should be completed to identify gaps and opportunities.
Requirements for public access to shorelines have been codified in TMC Chapter 18.44.
Commented [NG29]: This section updated by the PC based on a
public comment.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 47 6/3/2019
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 48 6/3/2019
11. SHORELINE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Green/Duwamish River is an amenity that should be valued and celebrated when
designing projects that will be located along its length. The river and its tributaries support
salmon runs and resident trout, including the ESA-listed Chinook salmon, Bull Trout and
Steelhead. If any portion of a project falls within the shoreline jurisdiction, then the entire
project will be reviewed under the shoreline specific guidelines codified in TMC Chapter
18.44 as well as the relevant sections of the Design Review Chapter of the Zoning Code
(TMC Chapter 18.60). The standards of TMC Chapter 18.60 shall guide the type of review,
whether administrative or by the Board of Architectural Review.
The standards apply to development, uses and activities in the Urban Conservancy and
High Intensity Environments and non-residential development in the Shoreline Residential
Environment.
12. SHORELINE RESTORATION
The Shoreline Restoration Plan, found in Appendix B, identifies the sites that have been
identified to-date as possible locations for habitat restoration along the Green/Duwamish
River. The City will continue to add sites to the Restoration Plan as they are identified and
will include them in the City’s Capital Improvement Program for acquisition and
improvement. Project sites in the Transition Zone have the highest priority for acquisition.
Amendments or revisions to the Restoration Plan do not require an amendment to the
Shoreline Master Program.
Commented [NG30]: Administrative procedures have been
codified in TMC 18.44.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 49 6/3/2019
13. ADMINISTRATION
The Administrative procedures below are designed to:
Assign responsibilities for implementation of the Master Program and
Shoreline Permit
Establish an orderly process by which to review proposals and permit
applications
Ensure that all persons affected by this Master Program are treated in a fair and
equitable manner.
13.1 Applicability of Shoreline Master Program and Substantial Development
Permit
A. Development in the Shoreline Jurisdiction
Based on guidelines in the Shoreline Management Act for a minimum shoreline
jurisdiction, Tukwila's Shoreline Jurisdiction is defined as follows:
The Tukwila Shoreline Jurisdiction includes the channel of the
Green/Duwamish River, its banks, the upland area which extends
from the ordinary high water mark landward for 200 feet on each
side of the river, floodways and all associated wetlands within its
floodplain. The floodway shall not include those lands that have
historically been protected by flood control devices and therefore
have not been subject to flooding with reasonable regularity.
B. Applicability
The Tukwila Shoreline Master Program applies to uses, change of uses, activities or
development that occurs within the above-defined Shoreline jurisdiction. All proposed uses
and development occurring within the shoreline jurisdiction must conform to chapter 90.58
RCW, the Shoreline Management Act and this Master Program whether or not a permit is
required. Except that requirements to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional
use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other review to implement the Shoreline
Management Act do not apply to the following described in WAC 173-27-044 and WAC
173-27-045:
1. Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a
remedial action at a facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order
issued pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW, or to the department of ecology when it
conducts a remedial action under chapter 70.105D RCW.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 50 6/3/2019
2. Boatyard improvements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to
RCW 90.58.355, any person installing site improvements for storm water treatment
in an existing boatyard facility to meet requirements of a national pollutant
discharge elimination system storm water general permit.
3. WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Washington State
Department of Transportation projects and activities meeting the conditions of
RCW 90.58.356 are not required to obtain a substantial development permit,
conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other local review.
4. Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement
pursuant to RCW 90.58.045. (v) Projects authorized through the Energy Facility
Site Evaluation Council process, pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW.
13.2 Relationship to Other Codes and Regulations
1. Compliance with this Master Program does not constitute compliance with
other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may
apply. The applicant is responsible for complying with all other applicable
requirements.
2. Where this Master Program makes reference to any RCW, WAC, or other
state or federal law or regulation, the most recent amendment or current
edition shall apply.
3. When any provision of this Master Program or any other federal, state, or
local provision conflicts with this Master Program, the provision that is most
protective of shoreline resources shall prevail, except when constrained by
federal or state law, or where specifically provided otherwise in this Master
Program.
4. Relationship to Sensitive Areas Regulations.
A. For protection of critical areas where they occur in shoreline jurisdiction,
this Master Program adopts by reference the City’s Critical Areas
Ordinance, which is incorporated into this Master Program with specific
exclusions and modifications in Section 10 of this SMP.
B. All references to the Critical Areas Ordinance are for the version adopted
[SAO adoption date]. Pursuant to WAC 173-26-191(2)(b), amending the
referenced regulations in the Master Program for those critical areas under
shoreline jurisdiction will require an amendment to the Master Program
and approval by the Department of Ecology.
C. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the Critical Areas Ordinance shall be
liberally construed together with this Master Program to give full effect to
the objectives and purposes of the provisions of this Master Program and
Chapter 90.58 RCW. Commented [NG31]: Permit requirements and non-conforming
standards have been codified at TMC 18.44.
SMP Public Review Draft Clean 51 6/3/2019
14. APPEALS
Any appeal of a decision by the City on a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,
Shoreline Conditional Use, Unclassified Use or Shoreline Variance must be appealed to
the Shoreline Hearing Board.
15. MASTER PROGRAM REVIEW AND AMENDMENTS
15.1. This Master Program shall be periodically reviewed and adjustments shall be made as
are necessary to reflect changing local circumstances, new information or improved
data, and changes in State statutes and regulations. This review process shall be
consistent with WAC 173-26 and shall include a local citizen involvement effort and
public hearing to obtain the views and comments of the public.
15.2 Any provision of this Master Program may be amended as provided for in RCW
90.58.080 and WAC 173-26-090. Amendments or revisions to the Master Program,
as provided by law, do not become effective until 14 days following written approval
by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
15.3 Proposals for shoreline environment re-designations (i.e. amendments to the shoreline
maps and descriptions) must demonstrate consistency with the criteria set forth in
WAC 173- 26-040 and this program.
16. LIABILITY
16.1. Liability for any adverse impacts or damages resulting from work performed in
accordance with a Permit issued on behalf of the City within the City limits, shall be
the sole responsibility of the owner of the site for which the Permit was issued.
16.2 No provision of or term used in the Master Program is intended to impose any duty
upon the City or any of its officers or employees that would subject them to damages
in a civil action.
Commented [NG32]: Enforcement provisions have been
codified in TMC 18.44.
Page 1 of 60
CHAPTER 18.06
DEFINITIONS
18.06.210 Development
“Development” means the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or
enlargement of any structure that requires a building permit. “Development” does not include dismantling or
removing structures if there is no other associated development or re-development.
18.06.330 Floodp Plain “Flood plain” means that land area susceptible to inundation with a one percent chance
of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (synonymous with 100-year flood plain). The limit of this area
shall be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or a reasonable method that meets the objectives of the
Shoreline Management Act.
18.06.338 Floodway
“Floodway” means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved
in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one
foot
"Floodway" means the area that has been established in effective federal emergency management
agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps. The floodway does not include lands that can
reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or
maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the
state.
18.06.425 High-Impact Environment “High-impact environment” means the area between the lowimpact
environment and a point 200 feet landward from the mean high water mark. (Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995)
18.06.550 Low-Impact Environment “Low-impact environment” means the area between the River
Environment and a point 100 feet landward from the mean high water mark having environmentally protective
land use regulations as established in the Shoreline Overlay District chapter of this title.
18.06.494 Levee, Minimum Profile
“Levee, minimum profile” means the minimum levee profile for any new or reconstructed levees is the King
County “Briscoe Levee” profile—2.5:1 overall slope with 15-foot mid-slope bench for maintenance access and
native vegetation plantings.
18.06.691 River Channel “River channel” means that area of the river environment lying riverward of the mean
high water mark. (Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995)
18.06.695 River Environment “River environment” means the area between the mean high water mark and a
point 40 feet landward from the mean high water mark, having the most environmentally protective land use
regulations as established in the Shoreline Overlay District chapter of this title.
18.06.755 Shoreline “Shoreline” means the line at mean high water surrounding any body of water of 20 acres
or larger or where the mean flow is 20 cubic feet per second or greater. (Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995)
18.06.757 Shorelines or Shoreline Areas “Shorelines” or “Shoreline areas” means all "shorelines of the state"
and "shorelands" as defined in RCW 90.58.030. (Ord. 2347 §33, 2011)
Commented [NG1]: This is a term from the prior SMP and no
longer used
Commented [NG2]: This is a term from the prior SMP and no
longer used
Commented [NG3]: The recommendation is to move away
from a specific levee design and instead give parameters such as
overall 2.5:1 or flatter slope from the toe.
Commented [NG4]: This is a term from the prior SMP and no
longer used
Commented [NG5]: We now regulate at Ordinary High Water
Mark (OHWM)
Page 2 of 60
18.06.817 Substantial Development.
“Substantial development” means any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds
$5,0007,047.00 or any development that materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or
shorelines of the state. The dollar threshold established in this definition must be adjusted for inflation by the
Office of Financial Management every five years, beginning July 1, 2007, based upon changes in the Consumer
Price Index during that time period. “Consumer Price Index” means, for any calendar year, that year’s annual
average Consumer Price Index, Seattle, Washington area, for urban wage earners and clerical workers, all
items, compiled by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, United States Department of Labor. The following shall
not be considered substantial developments for the purpose of the Shoreline Management Act, but are not
exempt from complying with the substantive requirements of this Shoreline Master Program:
1. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including repair of damage caused
by accident, fire, or elements.
2. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements.
3. Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including
agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelands, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation
structures including but not limited to head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels. A feedlot of any
size, all processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, and alteration of the contour of the shorelands
by leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or
necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being
used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing crops
or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations.
4. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys.
5. Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single family residence for
his own use or for the use of his or her family, which residence does not exceed a height of 35 feet above
average grade level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having
jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to this chapter.
6. Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private non-
commercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single and multiple family residences. This
exception applies if either:
(a) In salt waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed $2,500; or (
b) in fresh waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed
i)$212,500 for docks that are constructed to replace existing docks, and are of equal or lesser
square footage than the existing dock being replaced; or
ii) $11,200 for all other docks constructed on freshwaters., but
iii) However, if subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding $2,500 occurs
within five years of completion of the prior construction, and the combined fair market value of the subsequent
and prior construction exceeds the amount specified above, the subsequent construction shall be considered a
substantial development for the purpose of this chapter.
7. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that
now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of
making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored groundwater for the irrigation of lands.
8. The marking of property lines or corners on state owned lands, when such marking does not significantly
interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water.
9. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on
September 8, 1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or
diking system.
10. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for
development authorization under this chapter, if:
a. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters;
Commented [NG6]: These changes are due to updates in
State law.
Page 3 of 60
b. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including, but not limited to,
fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values;
c. The activity does not involve the installation of a structure, and upon completion of the activity the
vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity;
d. A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a performance bond
or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the local jurisdiction to ensure the site is restored to
preexisting conditions; and
e. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550 (Oil and Natural Gas
exploration in marine waters).
11. The process of removing or controlling an aquatic noxious weed, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through
the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final
environmental impact statement published by the Department of Agriculture or the department jointly with other
state agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW.
12. Watershed restoration projects, which means a public or private project authorized by the sponsor of
a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or a part of the plan and consists of one or more of the
following activities:
a. A project that involves less than ten miles of stream reach, in which less than twenty-five
cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported, disturbed or discharged, and in which no existing
vegetation is removed except as minimally necessary to facilitate additional plantings;
b. A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that employs the principles
of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary
emphasis on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water; or
c. A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or reduce
impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource available for use by all of the citizen of the
state, provided that any structure, other than a bridge or culvert or instream habitat enhancement structure
associated with the project, is less than two hundred square feet in floor area and is located above the ordinary
high water mark of the stream.
13. Watershed restoration plan, which means a plan, developed or sponsored by the department of fish
and wildlife, the department of ecology, the department of natural resources, the department of transportation,
a federally recognized Indian tribe acting within and pursuant to its authority, a city, a county or a conservation
district that provides a general program and implementation measures or actions for the preservation,
restoration, re-creation, or enhancement of the natural resources, character, and ecology of a stream, stream
segment, drainage area or watershed for which agency and public review has been conducted pursuant to the
State Environmental Policy Act.
14. A public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all
of the following apply:
a. The project has been approved in writing by the department of fish and wildlife;
b. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the department of fish and wildlife
pursuant to chapter 77.55 RCW; and
c. The local government has determined that the project is substantially consistent with the local
shoreline master program. The local government shall make such determination in a timely manner and provide
it by letter to the project proponent.
Additional criteria for determining eligibility of fish habitat projects are found in WAC 173-27-040 2 (p) and
apply to this exemption.
15. The external or internal retrofitting of an existing structure for the exclusive purpose of compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.) or to otherwise provide physical
access to the structure by individuals with disabilities.
Page 4 of 60
CHAPTER 18.44
SHORELINE OVERLAY DISTRICT
Sections:
18.44.010 Purpose and Applicability
18.44.020 Shoreline Environment Designations
18.44.030 Principally Permitted Uses and Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix
18.44.040 Shoreline Residential Environment — UsesShoreline Buffers
18.44.050 Urban Conservancy Environment - Uses
18.44.060 High Intensity Environment - Uses
18.44.065 Aquatic Environment - Uses
18.44.070050 Development Standards
18.44.080060 Vegetation Protection and Landscaping
18.44.090070 Environmentally Sensitive Critical Areas within the Shoreline Jurisdiction
18.44.100080 Public Access to the Shoreline
18.44.110090 Shoreline Design Guidelines
18.44.120100 Shoreline Restoration
18.44.1130 Administration
18.44.140120 Appeals
18.44.150130 Enforcement and Penalties
18.44.160140 Liability
18.44.010 Purpose and Applicability
The purpose of this chapter is to implement the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, as amended and the
rules and regulations thereunder as codified in the Washington Administrative Code; and to provide for the
regulation of development which affect those areas of the City under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline
Management Act. In particular, the purpose of this chapter is to:
1. Recognize and protect shorelines of State-wide significance;
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
3. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
4. Increase public access to publicly -owned areas of the shoreline;
5. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline:
6. Protect and create critical Chinook salmon habitat in the Transition Zone of the Green River
B. Applicability of Amended Zoning Code. After the effective date of this ordinance, Chapter 18.44 of
the Zoning Code, as hereby amended, shall apply to all properties subject to the shoreline overlay, provided
that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to override any vested rights or require any alteration of a non-
conforming use or non-conforming structure, except as specifically provided in Chapter 18.44 of the Zoning
Code, as amended.
C. Pursuant to WAC 173-26-191 (2)( c), this Chapter, together with the Shoreline Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, constitutes the City of Tukwila’s Shoreline Master Program. Any modifications to these
documents will be processed as a Shoreline Master Program Amendment and require approval by the
Department of Ecology.
(Ord. 2346 §17, 2011)
18.44.020 Shoreline Environment Designations
All shoreline within the City is designated “urban” and further identified as follows:
Commented [NG7]: This section explains that Tukwila’s
Shoreline Master Program is comprised of policy and regulations in
separate documents.
Commented [NG8]: No changes are proposed to the
shoreline environment designations.
Page 5 of 60
1. Shoreline Residential Environment. All lands zoned for residential use as measured 200 feet
landward from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM).
2. Urban Conservancy Environment. All lands not zoned for residential use upstream from the
Turning Basin as measured 200 feet landward from the OHWM.
3. High Intensity Environment. All lands downstream from the Turning Basin as measured 200
feet landward from the OHWM.
4. Aquatic Environment. All water bodies within the City limits and its potential annexation areas
under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. The
Aquatic Environment includes the water surface together with the underlying lands and the water column.
(Ord. 2346 §1, 2011)
18.44.030 Principally Permitted Uses and Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix
A. TMC Section 18.44.030(A), including the Use Matrix (Figure 18-1), specifies the uses that are
permitted outright, permitted as a Conditional Use or prohibited altogether for each Shoreline Environment.
Also included are special conditions and general requirements controlling specific uses. These regulations are
intended to implement the purpose of each Shoreline Environment designation.
B. In the matrix, shoreline environments are listed at the top of each column and the specific uses are
listed along the left-hand side of each horizontal row. The cell at the intersection of a column and a row indicates
whether a use may be allowed in a specific shoreline environment and whether additional use criteria apply.
The matrix shall be interpreted as follows:
1. If the letter “P” appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use may be
allowed within the shoreline environment if the underlying zoning also allows the use. Shoreline (SDP, CUP
and Variance) permits may be required.
2. If the letter “C” appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use may be
allowed within the shoreline environment subject to the shoreline conditional use review and approval
procedures specified in TMC Section 18.44.130 110 C.
3. If the letter “X” appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use is
prohibited in that shoreline environment.
C. In addition to the matrix the following general use requirements also apply to all development within
the shoreline jurisdiction. Additional requirements controlling specific uses are set forth for each Shoreline
Environment designation, to implement the purpose of the respective Shoreline Environment designations.
1. The first priority for City-owned property other than right-of-way within the shoreline jurisdiction
shall be reserved for water-dependent uses including but not limited to habitat restoration, followed by water-
enjoyment uses, public access, passive recreation, passive open space uses, or public educational purposes.
2. No hazardous waste handling, processing or storage is allowed within the SMA shoreline
jurisdiction, unless incidental to a use allowed in the designated shoreline environment and adequate controls
are in place to prevent any releases to the shoreline/river.
3. Overwater structures, shall not cause a net loss of ecological function, interfere with navigation or
flood management, or present potential hazards to downstream properties or facilities. They shall comply with
the standards in the Overwater Structures Section of TMC Section 18.44.070050(K).
4. Parking as a primary use is not permitted, except for existing Park and Ride lots, where adequate
stormwater collection and treatment is in place to protect water quality. Parking is permitted only as an
accessory to a permitted or conditional use in the shoreline jurisdiction.
5. All development, activities or uses, unless it is an approved overwater, flood management
structure or shoreline restoration project, shall be prohibited waterward of the OHWM.
(Ord. 2346 §2, 2011)
Commented [NG9]: The recommendation is to combine the
Use Matrix and the narrative list of uses into one table for clarity.
Shoreline use categories are broader than Zoning District uses and
both sets of requirements must be met when establishing a new
use.
Page 6 of 60
P = May be Permitted Subject to development
standards
C = May be Permitted as a Shoreline
Conditional Use
X = Not Allowed in Shoreline Jurisdiction
Shoreline
Residential
Urban
Conservancy
High Intensity
Aquatic
Environm
ent
Buffer (1) Non-
Buffer
Buffer
(2)
Non-
Buffer
Buffer
(3)
Non-
Buffer
AGRICULTURE
Farming and farm-related activities X X X P X X X
Aquaculture X X X X X X X
COMMERCIAL (41)
General X X X P X P (82) P (53)
Automotive services, gas (outside pumps
allowed), washing, body and engine repair
shops (enclosed within a building)
X X X C X C
(82) X
Contractors storage yards X X X C X C
(82) X
Water-oriented uses PC P CP P PC P XC
Water-dependent uses P (4) P(5) P(4) P P(4) P P
Storage P (6) P (5) P (6) P P (6) P X
CIVIC/INSTITUTIONAL
General X P X P X P X
DREDGING
Dredging for remediation of contaminated
substances
C (7) NA C (7) NA C (7) NA C (7)
Dredging for maintenance of established
navigational channel
NA NA NA NA NA NA P (8)
Other dredging for navigation NA NA NA NA NA NA C (9)
Dredge material disposal X X X X X X X
Dredging for fill NA NA NA NA NA NA X
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY (Water
Dependent) –
CP P C CP PC CP PC P (5)
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY (Nonwater
Dependent) (910)
C C C C C C C
FENCES P (11) P C (11) P C (11) P X
FILL
General C (12) P C (12) P C (12) P C (12)
Fill for remediation, flood hazard reduction or
ecological restoration
P (13) P
P (13) P
P (13) P
P (13) Commented [NG10]: PC edit in response to a public
comment.
Page 7 of 60
P = May be Permitted Subject to development
standards
C = May be Permitted as a Shoreline
Conditional Use
X = Not Allowed in Shoreline Jurisdiction
Shoreline
Residential
Urban
Conservancy
High Intensity
Aquatic
Environm
ent
Buffer (1) Non-
Buffer
Buffer
(2)
Non-
Buffer
Buffer
(3)
Non-
Buffer
FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT
Flood hazard reduction (14) P P P P P P P
Shoreline stabilization (15) P P P P P P P
INDUSTRIAL (167)
General X X P (53) P P (53) P (82) P (53)
Animal rendering X X X C X X X
Cement manufacturing X X X C X C (82) X
Hazardous substance processing and handling
& hazardous waste treatment and storage
facilities (on or off-site) (617)
X X X X X X X
Rock crushing, asphalt or concrete batching or
mixing, stone cutting, brick manufacture,
marble works, and the assembly of products
from the above materials
X X X C X C (82) X
Salvage and wrecking operations X X X C X C (82) X
Tow-truck operations, subject to all additional
State and local regulations X X X C X P (82) X
Truck terminals X X X P X P (82) X
Water-oriented uses X X PC P PC P PC
Water-dependent uses (17) X X P (4) P P (4) P P
MINING
General X X X X X X X
Dredging X X X X X X C
OVERWATER STRUCTURES (18)
Piers, Docks, and other overwater structures P(19) NA P (20) NA P (20) NA P (20,21)
Vehicle bridges (public) P (31, 4) P (31) P (31, 4) P (31) P (31, 4) P (31) P (31)
Vehicle bridges (private) C C C C C C C
Public pedestrian bridges P P P P P P P
PARKING - ACCESSORY
Parking areas limited to the minimum
necessary to support permitted or conditional
uses
X P (5) X P X P X
RECREATION
Recreation facilities (commercial – indoor) X X X P X P (2211) X
Recreation facilities (commercial – outdoor) X X C(23,2412) C (24) XC(23,24)C(24)X X
Recreation facilities, including boat launching
(public) P(123) P P(23,24)C(12)
C P(23) P P (53)
Public and private promenades, footpaths, or
trails
P P P (26) P P (26) P X
RESIDENTIAL – SINGLE FAMILY/MULTI-FAMILY
Dwelling X(1027) P X P X X X
Houseboats X X X X X X X
Page 8 of 60
P = May be Permitted Subject to development
standards
C = May be Permitted as a Shoreline
Conditional Use
X = Not Allowed in Shoreline Jurisdiction
Shoreline
Residential
Urban
Conservancy
High Intensity
Aquatic
Environm
ent
Buffer (1) Non-
Buffer
Buffer
(2)
Non-
Buffer
Buffer
(3)
Non-
Buffer
Live-aboards X X X X X X P
(1321,28)
Patios and Decks P(29) P P (29) P P P X
SIGNS (30) P P P P P P X
SHORELINE RESTORATION P P P P P P P
TRANSPORTATION
General C C C C C C C (53)
Park & ride lots X X X C (9) X C (9) X
Levee maintenance roads P (32) P (32) P (32) P (32) P (32) P (32) NA
Railroad X P X X X X X
UTILITIES
General (910) CP(4) P P(4) P P(4) P C
Provision, distribution, collection,
transmission, or disposal of refuse X X X X X X X
Hydroelectric and private utility power
generating plants X X X X X X X
Wireless towers X X X X X X X
Support facilities, such as outfalls P (33) P P (33) P P (33) P C (33)
Regional detention facilities X X P (34) P (34) P (34) P (34) X
USES NOT SPECIFIED C C C C C C C
*This matrix is a summary. Individual notes modify standards in this matrix. Detailed use standards are found in the text
of this chapter. Permitted or conditional uses listed herein may also require a shoreline substantial development permit
and other permits.
(1) Additional permitted uses found at TMC 18.44.040 are allowed in the buffer.
(2) Additional permitted uses found at TMC 18.44.050 are allowed in the buffer.
(3) Additional permitted uses found at TMC 18.44.060 are allowed in the buffer.
1. Commercial uses mean those uses that are involved in wholesale, retail, service and business trade.
Examples include office, restaurants, brew pubs, medical, dental and veterinary clinics, hotels, retail
sales, hotel/motels, and warehousing.
2. Nonwater-oriented uses may be allowed as a permitted use where the City determines that water-
dependent or water-enjoyment use of the shoreline is not feasible due to the configuration of the
shoreline and water body.
3. Permitted only if water dependent.
4. Structures greater than 35 feet tall require a conditional use permit.
5. Permitted if located to the most upland portion of the property and adequately screened and/or
landscaped in accordance with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping section.
6. Outdoor storage within the shoreline buffer is only permitted in conjunction with a water-dependent
use.
7. Conditionally allowed when in compliance with all federal and state regulations.
8. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins is restricted to maintaining
Page 9 of 60
previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth and width.
9. Conditionally allowed when significant ecological impacts are minimized and mitigation is provided.
10. Allowed in shoreline jurisdiction when it is demonstrated that there is no feasible alternative to locating
the use within shoreline jurisdiction.
11. The maximum height of the fence along the shoreline shall not exceed four feet in residential areas or
six feet in commercial areas where there is a demonstrated need to ensure public safety and security
of property. and Tthe fence shall not extend waterward beyond the top of the bank. Chain-link fences
must be vinyl coated.
12. Fill minimally necessary to support water-dependent uses, public access, or for the alteration or
expansion of a transportation facility of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline when
it is demonstrated that alternatives to fill are not feasible is conditionally allowed.
13. Landfill as part of an approved remediation plan for the purpose of capping contaminated sediments
is permitted.
14. Any new or redeveloped levee shall meet the applicable levee requirements of this chapter.
15. Permitted when consistent with Section 9.6 of the SMP.
16. Industrial uses mean those uses that are facilities for manufacturing, processing, assembling and/or
storing of finished or semi-finished goods with supportive office and commercial uses. Examples
include manufacturing processing and/or assembling such items as electrical or mechanical
equipment, previously manufactured metals, chemicals, light metals, plastics, solvents, soaps, wood,
machines, food, pharmaceuticals, previously prepared materials; warehousing and wholesale
distribution; sales and rental of heavy machinery and equipment; and internet data centers.
17. Subject to compliance with state siting criteria RCW Chapter 70.105 (See also Environmental
Regulations, Section 10, SMP).
18. Permitted when associated with water-dependent uses, public access, recreation, flood control or
channel management.
19. Permitted when the applicant has demonstrated a need for moorage and that the following alternatives
have been investigated and are not available or feasible:
a. commercial or marina moorage;
b. floating moorage buoys;
c. joint use moorage pier/dock.
20. Permitted if associated with water-dependent uses, public access, recreation, flood control, channel
management or ecological restoration.
21. Boats may only be moored at a dock or marina. No boats may be moored on tidelands or in the river
channel.
22. Limited to athletic or health clubs.
23. Recreation structures such as benches, tables, viewpoints, and picnic shelters are permitted in the
buffer provided no such structure shall block views to the shoreline from adjacent properties.
24. Permitted only if water oriented.
25. Parks, recreation and open space facilities operated by public agencies and non-profit organizations
are permitted.
26. Plaza connectors between buildings and levees, not exceeding the height of the levee, are permitted
for the purpose of providing and enhancing pedestrian access along the river and for landscaping
purposes.
27. Additional development may be allowed consistent with Section 14.5.B.6. A shoreline conditional use
permit is required for water oriented accessory structures that exceed the height limits of the Shoreline
Residential environment.
28. Permitted in only in the Aquatic Environment and subject to the criteria in Section 9.12 E.
29. Patios and decks are permitted within the shoreline buffer so long as they do not exceed 18 inches in
height and are limited to a maximum of 200 square feet and 50% of the width of the river frontage
whichever is smaller. Decks or patios must be located landward of the top of the bank and be
constructed to be pervious and of environmentally-friendly materials. If a deck or patio will have an
Commented [NG11]: The PC made this addition in response
to a public comment.
Page 10 of 60
environmental impact in the shoreline buffer, then commensurate mitigation shall be required.
30. Permitted when consistent with Section 9.13 of the SMP.
31. Permitted only if connecting public rights-of-way.
32. May be co-located with fire lanes.
33. Allowed if they require a physical connection to the shoreline to provide their support function, provided
they are located at or below grade and as far from the OHWM as technically feasible.
34. Regional detention facilities that meet the City’s Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards
along with their supporting elements such as ponds, piping, filter systems and outfalls vested as of the
effective date of this program or if no feasible alternative location exists. Any regional detention facility
located in the buffer shall be designed such that a fence is not required, planted with native vegetation,
designed to blend with the surrounding environment, and provide design features that serve both public
and private use, such as an access road that can also serve as a trail. The facility shall be designed
to locate access roads and other impervious surfaces as far from the river as practical.
(4) Commercial uses mean those uses that are involved in wholesale, retail, service and business trade. Examples
include office, restaurants, brew pubs, medical, dental and veterinary clinics, hotels, retail sales, hotel/motels, and
warehousing.
(5) Permitted only if water dependent.
(6) Subject to compliance with state siting criteria RCW Chapter 70.105 (See also Environmental Regulations, TMC
18.44.090).
(7) Industrial uses mean those uses that are facilities for manufacturing, processing, assembling and/or storing of
finished or semi-finished goods with supportive office and commercial uses. Examples include manufacturing, processing
and/or assembling such items as electrical or mechanical equipment, previously manufactured metals, chemicals, light
metals, plastics, solvents, soaps, wood, machines, food, pharmaceuticals, previously prepared materials; warehousing
and wholesale distribution; sales and rental of heavy machinery and equipment; and internet data centers.
(8) Non-water-oriented uses may be allowed as a permitted use where the City determines that water-dependent or
water-enjoyment use of the shoreline is not feasible due to the configuration of the shoreline and water body.
(9) Allowed in shoreline jurisdiction when it is demonstrated that there is no feasible alternative to locating the use within
shoreline jurisdiction.
(10) Additional development may be allowed consistent with TMC 18.44.130 E. 2. f. A shoreline conditional use permit is
required for water-oriented accessory structures that exceed the height limits of the Shoreline Residential Environment.
(11) Limited to athletic or health clubs.
(12) Permitted only if water oriented.
18.44.040 Shoreline Buffers
A. Buffer widths. The following shoreline buffer widths apply in shoreline jurisdiction.
Environment Buffer width (1)(2) Modification
Shoreline Residential 50 feet OR the area needed to
achieve a slope no steeper than
2.5:1, measured from the toe of the
bank to the top of the bank, plus 20
linear feet measured from the top of
the bank landward, whichever is
greater
(3)
Commented [NG12]: The buffer distances and modifications
that were previously included in the use section have been
consolidated into a table.
Page 11 of 60
Urban
Conservancy
Areas without
levees
100 feet (4)
Areas with levees 125 feet (5)
High Intensity 100 feet (4)
Aquatic Not Applicable
1. Unless otherwise noted, all buffers are measured landward from the OHWM.
2. In any shoreline environment where an existing improved street or road runs parallel to the river through the buffer, the
buffer ends on the river side of the edge of the improved right-of-way
3. Removal of invasive species and replanting with native species of high habitat value voluntary unless triggered by
requirement for a Shoreline Substantial Development permit.
4. The Director may reduce the standard buffer on a case-by-case basis by up to 50% upon construction of the following
cross section:
- a. Reslope bank from toe to be no steeper than 2.5:1 in the Urban Conservancy Environment or reslope
bank from OHWM (not toe) to be no steeper than 3:1 in the High Intensity Environment, using bioengineering techniques
- b. Minimum 20’ buffer landward from top of bank
- c. Bank and remaining buffer to be planted with native species with high habitat value
Maximum slope is reduced due to measurement from OHWM and to recognize location in the Transition Zone where
pronounced tidal influence makes work below OHWM difficult.
Any buffer reduction proposal must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that it will not result in direct, indirect or
long-term adverse impacts to the river. In all cases a buffer enhancement plan must also be approved and implemented
as a condition of the reduction. The plan must include using a variety of native vegetation that improves the functional
attributes of the buffer and provides additional protection for the shoreline ecological functions.
5. Upon reconstruction of levee to the levee standards of this chapter, the Director may reduce the buffer to actual width
required. for the levee. If fill is placed along the back slope of a new levee, the buffer may be reduced to the point where
the ground plane intersects the back slope of the levee. If the property owner provides a 15-foot levee maintenance
easement landward from the landward toe of the levee or levee wall which 1) meets the width required by the agency
providing maintenance; 2) prohibits the construction of any structures and 3) allows the City to access the area to inspect
the levee and make any necessary repairs; then that area may be outside of the shoreline buffer and allow incidental
uses such as parking.
18.44.040 Shoreline Residential Environment — Uses
A. Shoreline Residential Buffer — Delineated Uses. The Shoreline Residential River Buffer shall
consist of the area needed to achieve a 2.5:1 slope of the river bank, measured from the toe of the bank to the
top of the bank, plus 20 linear feet measured from the top of the bank landward; provided, that in no case shall
the Shoreline Residential Buffer be less than 50 feet landward of the OHWM.
1. Permitted Uses. No uses or structures are permitted in the Shoreline Residential Buffer except
for the following:
a. Shoreline restoration projects.
b. Over-water structures subject to the standards in the Over-water Structures Section associated
with water-dependent uses, public access, recreation, flood control or channel management. Private, single
residence piers for the sole use of the property owner shall not be considered an outright use on the shoreline.
Commented [NG13]: Staff had suggested that 3:1 slopes be
required for buffer reductions in both environments. The PC
recommended staying with the current 2.5:1 slope standard for
Urban Conservancy and 3:1 in High Intensity.
Commented [NG14]: The PC took out the specific width of
the access easement and added this language in response to a
public comment.
Commented [NG15]: These sections are shown as deleted
because the uses have been moved to the use and modification
matrix in above.
Page 12 of 60
A dock may be allowed when the applicant has demonstrated a need for moorage and that the following
alternatives have been investigated and are not available or feasible:
(1) commercial or marina moorage;
(2) floating moorage buoys;
(3) joint use moorage pier/dock.
c. Public parks, recreation and open space.
d. Public pedestrian bridges.
e. Public and/or private promenades, footpaths or trails.
f. Recreation structures such as benches, tables, viewpoints, and picnic shelters, provided no
such structure shall exceed 15 feet in height or 25 square feet in area or block views to the shoreline from
adjacent properties.
g. Signs conforming to the development standards of this chapter.
h. Construction, maintenance or re-development of levees for flood control purposes, provided
that any new or redeveloped levee shall meet the applicable levee requirements of this chapter.
i. Vehicle bridges, only if connecting public rights-of-way.
j. Utility towers and utilities, except the provision, distribution, collection, transmission or disposal
of refuse.
k. Fire lanes when co-located with levee maintenance roads.
l. New shoreline stabilization utilizing the development standards in TMC Section 18.44.070(F).
m. Water dependent uses and their structures, as long as there is no net loss of shoreline
ecological function.
n. Fences, provided the maximum height of a fence along the shoreline is four feet and the fence
does not extend waterward beyond the top of the bank. Chain-link fences must be vinyl coated.
o. Existing essential streets, roads and rights-of-way may be maintained or improved.
p. Outdoor storage, only in conjunction with a water-dependent use.
q. Water-oriented essential public facilities, both above and below ground.
r. Non-water-oriented essential public facilities, both above and below ground, provided it has
been documented that no feasible location is available outside of the buffer.
s. Landfill as part of an approved remediation plan for the purpose of capping contaminated
sediments.
t. Patios or decks not exceeding 18 inches in height, limited to a maximum 200 square feet and
50% of the width of the river frontage. Decks or patios must be located landward of the top of the bank and be
constructed to be pervious and of environmentally-friendly materials. If a deck or patio will have an
environmental impact in the shoreline buffer, then commensurate mitigation shall be required.
u. Support facilities for above or below ground utilities or pollution control, such as outfall facilities
or other facilities that must have a physical connection to the shoreline to provide their support function, provided
they are located at or below grade and as far from the OHWM as technically feasible.
2. Conditional Uses. Only the following may be allowed as a Conditional Use in the Shoreline
Residential River Buffer subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by TMC Chapter
18.64 and shall be reviewed through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit:
a. Dredging activities when in compliance with all federal and state regulations, when necessary for
navigation or remediation of contaminated sediments.
b. Dredging for navigational purposes is permitted where necessary for assuring safe and efficient
accommodation of existing navigational uses and then only when significant ecological impacts are minimized
and when mitigation is provided. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins is
restricted to maintaining previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth and width. Dredging of
bottom materials for the purpose of obtaining fill material is prohibited.
c. New private vehicle bridges.
d. Fill minimally necessary to support water-dependent uses, public access, or for the alteration or
expansion of a transportation facility of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline when it is
demonstrated that alternatives to fill are not feasible.
Commented [CL16]: The height and size requirement has
been an issue for some of the recreation uses in the shoreline
buffer – informational kiosk at Duwamish Hill. In hindsight, I think 15
ft. and 25 sq. ft. are too stringent.
Commented [NG17R16]: Note 23 in the use matrix removes
these size restrictions.
Page 13 of 60
e. Bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water-dependent uses and their structures
greater than 35 feet in height.
B. Shoreline Residential Environment Outside of Buffer — Permitted Uses. The following uses are
permitted within the Shoreline Residential Environment outside of the Shoreline Residential River Buffer. Uses
shall meet the purposes and criteria of the Shoreline Environment Designation section.
1. Permitted Uses. The Shoreline Residential Environment shall contain residential, recreational
and limited commercial uses and accessory uses as allowed in the underlying zoning district. In addition, the
Shoreline Residential Environment shall allow the following uses:
a. All uses permitted in the Shoreline Residential River Buffer.
b. For non-residential uses, parking/loading and storage facilities located to the most upland
portion of the property and adequately screened and/or landscaped in accordance with the Vegetation
Protection and Landscaping section.
c. Railroad tracks.
d. Public or private roads.
2. Conditional Uses. All uses listed as Conditional Uses in the underlying zone may be allowed
subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by TMC Chapter 18.64. A Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit is required.
(Ord. 2346 §3, 2011)
18.44.050 Urban Conservancy Environment - Uses
A. Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer — Delineated. The Urban Conservancy Environment
Buffer shall consist of that area measured 100 feet landward of the OHWM for non-leveed portions of the river,
and that area measured 125 feet landward from the OHWM for leveed portions of the river.
B. Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer — Uses.
1. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Urban Conservancy River Buffer:
a. Shoreline restoration projects.
b. Over-water structures subject to the standards established in the Over-water Structures
Section, TMC Section 18.44.070(K), that are associated with water-dependent uses, public access, recreation,
flood control, channel management or ecological restoration.
c. Public parks, recreation and open space.
d. Public and/or private promenades, footpaths or trails.
e. Public pedestrian bridges.
f. Recreation structures such as benches, tables, viewpoints, and picnic shelters, provided no
such structure shall exceed 15 feet in height and 25 square feet in area and views of the shoreline are not
blocked from adjacent properties.
g. Signs conforming to the development standards of this chapter.
h. Construction, maintenance or re-development of levees for flood control purposes, provided
that any new or re-developed levee shall meet the applicable levee requirements of this chapter.
i. New vehicle bridges: permitted only if connecting public rights-of-way; existing public or
private vehicle bridges may be maintained or replaced.
j. Utility towers and utilities, except the provision, distribution, collection, transmission or disposal
of refuse.
k. Levee maintenance roads.
l. Plaza connectors between buildings and levees, not exceeding the height of the levee, are
permitted for the purpose of providing and enhancing pedestrian access along the river and for landscaping
purposes.
m. New shoreline stabilization utilizing the development standards in the Shoreline Stabilization
Section, TMC Section 18.44.070(F).
n. Existing essential streets, roads and rights-of-way may be maintained or improved.
o. Water-dependent commercial and industrial development, if permitted by the underlying
zoning district.
Commented [CL18]: Same explanation as under residential
buffer.
Page 14 of 60
p. Support facilities for above or below ground utilities or pollution control, such as outfall facilities
or other facilities that must have a physical connection to the shoreline to provide their support function, provided
they are located at or below grade and as far from the OHWM as technically feasible.
q. Outdoor storage, only in conjunction with a water-dependent use.
r. Water-oriented essential public facilities, both above and below ground.
s. Non-water-oriented essential public facilities, both above and below ground, provided it has
been documented that no feasible location is available outside of the buffer.
t. Landfill as part of an approved remediation plan for the purpose of capping contaminated
sediments.
u. Regional detention facilities that meet the City’s Infrastructure Design and Construction
Standards along with their supporting elements such as ponds, piping, filter systems and outfalls vested as of
the effective date of this program or if no feasible alternative location exists. Any regional detention facility
located in the buffer shall be designed such that a fence is not required, planted with native vegetation, designed
to blend with the surrounding environment, and provide design features that serve both public and private use,
such as an access road that can also serve as a trail. The facility shall be designed to locate access roads and
other impervious surfaces as far from the river as practical.
2. Conditional Uses. Only the following may be allowed as a Conditional Use in the Shoreline
Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established
by TMC Chapter 18.64 and shall be reviewed through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit:
a. Dredging activities where necessary for assuring safe and efficient accommodation of existing
navigational uses and then only when significant ecological impacts are minimized and when mitigation is
provided. . Dredging for remediation of contaminated sediments when mitigation is provided. Dredging of
bottom materials for the purpose of obtaining fill material is prohibited. Dredging activities must comply with all
federal and state regulations.
c. New private vehicle bridges.
d. Fill minimally necessary to support water-dependent uses, public access, or for the alteration or
expansion of a transportation facility of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline when it is
demonstrated that alternatives to fill are not feasible.
C. Urban Conservancy Environment Outside of Buffer — Uses. The following uses are permitted in
the Urban Conservancy Environment, outside of the Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer. Uses shall meet
the purposes and criteria of the Urban Conservancy Environment as established in the Shoreline Environment
Designation section.
1. Permitted Uses. All uses permitted in the Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer and/or the
Shoreline Use Matrix may be allowed.
2. Conditional Uses. All uses listed as Conditional Uses in the underlying zone may be allowed
subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by TMC Chapter 18.64. A Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit shall be required.
D. Urban Conservancy Buffer Width Reduction. The Director may reduce the Urban Conservancy
Environment Buffer as follows:
1. For property located within the 100-foot bufferin non-levee portions of the river, the Urban
Conservancy Environment Buffer may be reduced to that area occupied by the river bank plus 20 feet measured
landward from the top of the bank; provided however, that the applicant must first re-slope the river bank to
2.5:1 , and provided that the Director determines that any buffer reduction will not result in direct, indirect or
long-term adverse impacts to shoreline ecosystem functions. Further, a buffer enhancement plan, including
removal of invasive plants and plantings using a variety of native vegetation that improves the functional
attributes of the buffer and provides additional protection for the watercourse functions, must be approved by
the Director and implemented by the applicant as a condition of the reduction. In no case shall the reduced
buffer be less than 50 feet.
Commented [RL19]: The KCFCD is implementing 500-year
level of flood protection. This may require that future levees are
constructed within areas that are not currently protected by a levee.
Commented [MP20]: The WRIA 9 Re-green the Green -
Riparian Revegetation strategy states that tall trees along a 165-
foot wide swath next to the river will have the most habitat/shade
benefit.
Page 15 of 60
2. For property located within the 125-foot buffer along leveed portions of the river, the Urban
Conservancy Environment Buffer may be reduced to that area occupied by levee or river bank improvements
meeting the minimum levee profile or other levee standards provided in this chapter, plus 10 feet measured
landward from the landward toe of the levee or (if permitted by this chapter) floodwall. In the event that the
owner provides the City with a 10-foot levee maintenance easement, measured landward from the landward
toe of the levee or levee wall and prohibiting the construction of any structures and allows the City to access
the area to inspect the levee, then the buffer shall be reduced to the landward toe of the levee, or landward
edge of the levee floodwall, as the case may be.
3. If fill is placed along the back slope of a new levee, the Urban Conservancy Environment Buffer
may be reduced to the point where the ground plane intersects the back slope of the levee; provided, that the
property owner must grant the City a levee maintenance easement measured 10 feet landward from the
landward toe of the levee or levee wall, and which easement prohibits the construction of any structures and
allows the City to access the area to inspect the levee and/or wall and make any necessary repairs.
(Ord. 2346 §4, 2011)
18.44.060 High Intensity Environment — Uses
A. High Intensity Environment Buffer — Delineated. The High Intensity Environment Buffer shall
consist of an area measured 100 feet landward from the OHWM. The remaining area of shoreline jurisdiction
is non-buffer area.
B. High Intensity Environment Buffer — Uses.
1. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the High Intensity River Buffer:
a. Shoreline restoration projects.
b. Over-water structures subject to the standards established in the Over-water Structures
Section that are associated with water-dependent uses, public access, recreation, flood control, channel
management or ecological restoration.
c. Public parks, recreation and open space.
d. Public and/or private promenades, footpaths or trails.
e. Public pedestrian bridges.
f. Recreation structures such as benches, tables, viewpoints, and picnic shelters, provided no
such structure shall exceed 15 feet in height and 25 square feet in area and no views of the shoreline are
blocked from adjacent properties.
g. Signs conforming to the development standards of this chapter.
h. Construction, maintenance or re-development of levees for flood control purposes, provided
that any new or re-developed levee shall meet the applicable levee requirements of this chapter.
i. New vehicle bridges: permitted only if connecting public rights-of-way; existing public or
private vehicle bridges may be maintained or replaced.
j. Utility towers and utilities, except the provision, distribution, collection, transmission or disposal
of refuse.
k. Levee maintenance roads.
l. Plaza connectors between buildings and levees, not exceeding the height of the levee, are
permitted for the purpose of providing and enhancing pedestrian access along the river and for landscaping
purposes.
m. New shoreline stabilization utilizing the development standards in the Shoreline Stabilization
Section, TMC Section 18.44.070(F).
n. Existing essential streets, roads and rights-of-way may be maintained or improved.
o. Water-dependent commercial and industrial development, if permitted by the underlying
zoning district.
p. Support facilities for above or below ground utilities or pollution control, such as outfall facilities
or other facilities that must have a physical connection to the shoreline to provide their support function, provided
they are located at or below grade and as far from the OHWM as technically feasible.
q. Outdoor storage, only in conjunction with a water-dependent use.
Commented [CL21]: I think we should reconsider the hard
and fast levee profile that was adopted in the SMP – the profile we
approved for the Kent Briscoe repair (before the COE messed it up)
was actually better than our adopted profile (at least that is my
recollection). I asked Ryan to think about whether we should
change the levee profile as well.
Commented [CL22]: See explanation above
Page 16 of 60
r. Water-oriented essential public facilities, both above and below ground.
s. Non-water-oriented essential public facilities, both above and below ground, provided it has
been documented that no feasible location is available outside of the buffer.
t. Landfill as part of an approved remediation plan for the purpose of capping contaminated
sediments.
u. Regional detention facilities that meet the City’s Infrastructure Design and Construction
Standards along with their supporting elements such as ponds, piping, filter systems and outfalls vested as of
the effective date of this program or if no feasible alternative location exists. Any regional detention facility
located in the buffer shall be designed such that a fence is not required, planted with native vegetation, designed
to blend with the surrounding environment, and provide design features that serve both public and private use,
such as an access road that can also serve as a trail. The facility shall be designed to locate access roads and
other impervious surfaces as far from the river as practical.
2. Conditional Uses. Only the following may be allowed as a Conditional Use in the Shoreline High
Intensity Environment Buffer subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by TMC
Chapter 18.64. A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be required.
a. Dredging activities where necessary for assuring safe and efficient accommodation of existing
navigational uses and then only when significant ecological impacts are minimized and when mitigation is
provided.
b. Dredging for remediation of contaminated sediments when mitigation is provided. Dredging of
bottom materials for the purpose of obtaining fill material is prohibited. Dredging activities must comply with all
federal and state regulations. Dredging carried out under a Consent Decree (or other State or Federal
directive??) does not require a conditional use permit.
c. New private vehicle bridges.
d. Fill minimally necessary to support water-dependent uses, public access, or for the alteration
or expansion of a transportation facility of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline when it is
demonstrated that alternatives to fill are not feasible.
C. Shoreline Urban High Intensity Environment — Uses. The Shoreline High Intensity Environment
shall consist of the remaining area within the 200 foot Shoreline Jurisdiction that is not within the Shoreline High
Intensity Environment Buffer area. Uses shall meet the purposes and criteria of the Shoreline Environment
Designations section.
1. Permitted Uses. All uses permitted in the High Intensity Environment Buffer and/or the Shoreline
Use Matrix may be allowed.
2. Conditional Uses. All uses listed as Conditional Uses in the underlying zone may be allowed
subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by TMC Chapter 18.64. A Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit shall be required.
D. Shoreline High Intensity Environment Buffer Reduction. The Director may reduce the High
Intensity Environment Buffer where the applicant re-slopes the river bank to be no steeper than 3:1 above the
OHWM, provides a 20-foot setback from the top of the new slope, vegetates both the river bank and the 20-foot
setback area in accordance with the standards in the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section, and the
Director determines there will be no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. In no case shall the reduced
buffer be less than 50 feet. On properties where the bank slope currently is no steeper than 3:1 or where the
property owner has already re-sloped the river bank, provided a 20-foot setback and vegetated the bank and
setback as provided in this chapter, the buffer width will be the distance measured from the OHWM to the top
of the bank, plus 20 feet.
(Ord. 2346 §5, 2011)
18.44.065 Aquatic Environment — Uses
A. Aquatic Environment — Delineated. The Aquatic Environment consists of all water bodies within
the City limits and its potential annexation areas under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act
waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. The Aquatic Environment includes the water surface together with
the underlying lands and the water column.
Page 17 of 60
B. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Aquatic Environment. Uses and activities
within the Aquatic Environment must be compatible with the adjoining shoreline environment:
1. Shoreline restoration projects.
2. Over-water structures subject to the standards established in the Over-water Structures Section
that are associated with water-dependent uses, public access, recreation, flood control, channel management
or ecological restoration.
3. Maintenance or redevelopment of levees for flood control purposes, provided that any
redevelopment of a levee shall meet the applicable levee regulations of this chapter.
4. New shoreline stabilization utilizing the development standards in the Shoreline Stabilization
Section.
5. Water-dependent commercial and industrial development, if permitted by the underlying zoning
district.
6. Boats moored at a dock or marina. No boats may be moored on tidelands or in the river channel.
7. Fill for ecological restoration.
C. Conditional Uses. Only the following may be allowed as a Conditional Use in the Shoreline Aquatic
Environment Buffer subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by this program:
1. Dredging activities where necessary for assuring safe and efficient accommodation of existing
navigational uses and then only when significant ecological impacts are minimized and when mitigation is
provided.
2. Dredging for remediation of contaminated sediments when mitigation is provided. Dredging of
bottom materials for the purpose of obtaining fill material is prohibited. Dredging activities must comply with all
federal and state regulations
3. Fill minimally necessary to support water-dependent uses, public access, or for the alteration or
expansion of a transportation facility of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline when it is
demonstrated that alternatives to fill are not feasible.
(Ord. 2346 §6, 2011)
18.44.070050 Development Standards
A. Applicability. The development standards of this chapter apply to work that meets the definition of
substantial development except for vegetation removal per TMC Section 18.44.080060, which applies to all
shoreline development. The term “substantial development” applies to non-conforming, new or re-development.
Non-conforming uses, structures, parking lots and landscape areas, will be governed by the standards in TMC
Section 18.44.130110(E), “Non-Conforming Development.”
B. Shoreline Residential Development Standards. A shoreline substantial development permit is not
required for construction within the Shoreline Residential Environment by an owner, lessee or contract
purchaser of a single family residence for his/her own use or for the use of a family member. Such construction
and all normal appurtenant structures must otherwise conform to this chapter. Short subdivisions and
subdivisions are not exempt from obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
1. Shoreline Residential Environment Standards. The following standards apply to the Shoreline
Residential Environment:
a. The development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district (Title 18, Tukwila
Municipal Code) shall apply.
b. New development and uses must be sited so as to allow natural bank inclination of 3:1 slope
with a 20-foot setback from the top of the bank. The Director may require a riverbank analysis as part of any
development proposal.
c. Utilities such as pumps, pipes, etc., shall be suitably screened with native vegetation per the
standards in the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section.
d. New shoreline stabilization, repair of existing stabilization or modifications to the river bank
must comply with the standards in the Shoreline Stabilization Section, TMC Section 18.44.070050(F).
Page 18 of 60
e. Short plats of five to nine lots or formal subdivisions must be designed to provide public access
to the river in accordance with the Public Access Section, TMC Section 18.44.08100. Signage is required to
identify the public access point(s).
f. Parking facilities associated with single family residential development or public recreational
facilities are subject to the specific performance standards set forth in the Off-Street Parking Section, TMC
Section 18.44.070050(I).
g. Fences, freestanding walls or other structures normally accessory to residences must not block
views of the river from adjacent residences or extend waterward beyond the top of the bank. Chain link fencing
must be vinyl coated.
h. Recreational structures permitted in the buffer must provide buffer mitigation.
i. The outside edge of surface transportation facilities, such as railroad tracks, streets, or public
transit shall be located no closer than 50 feet from the OHWM, except where the surface transportation facility
is bridging the river.
j. Except for bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water-dependent uses and
their structures, the maximum height for structures shall be 30 feet. For bridges, approved above ground utility
structures, and water-dependent uses and their structures, the height limit shall be as demonstrated necessary
to accomplish the structure’s primary purpose. Bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water-
dependent uses and their structures greater than 35 feet in height require approval of a Shoreline Conditional
Use Permit.
2. Design Review. Design review is required for non-residential development in the Shoreline
Residential Environment.
C. High Intensity, Urban Conservancy and Aquatic Environment Development Standards.
1. Standards. The following standards apply in the High Intensity, Urban Conservancy and Aquatic
Environments.
a. The development standards for the applicable underlying zoning district (Title 18, Tukwila
Municipal Code) shall apply.
b. All new development performed by public agencies, or new multi-family, commercial, or
industrial development shall provide public access in accordance with the standards in the Public Access
Section.
c. Development or re-development of properties in areas of the shoreline armored with
revetments or other hard armoring other than levees, or with non-armored river banks, must comply with the
Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section, TMC Section 18.44.080060.
d. Any new shoreline stabilization or repairs to existing stabilization must comply with Shoreline
Stabilization Section, TMC Section 18.44.070050(F).
e. Over-water structures shall be allowed only for water-dependent uses and the size limited to
the minimum necessary to support the structure’s intended use and shall result in no net loss to shoreline
ecological function. Over-water structures must comply with the standards in the Over-water Structures Section,
TMC Section 18.44.070050(K).
2. Setbacks and Site Configuration.
a. The yard setback adjacent to the river is the buffer width established for the applicable
shoreline environment.
b. A fishing pier, viewing platform or other outdoor feature that provides access to the shoreline
is not required to meet a setback from the OHWM.
3. Height Restrictions. Except for bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water-
dependent uses and their structures, to preserve visual access to the shoreline and avoid massing of tall
buildings within the shoreline jurisdiction, the maximum height for structures shall be as follows:
a. 15 feet where located within the River Buffer;
b. 6545 feet between the outside landward edge of the River Buffer and 200 feet of the OHWM.
c. Provided, no permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than
35 feet above average grade level on shorelines of the State that will obstruct the view of a substantial number
Commented [NG23]: This is part of the current code and the
intent was to step development down toward the water. In some
cases that has led developers to put parking adjacent to the river
buffer so that their buildings were outside of shoreline jurisdiction
and not subject to the height restriction.
Commented [NG24R23]: The PC opted to raise the
shoreline height limit to 65’. This is only relevant in the 5 zones with
height limits above 45’.
Page 19 of 60
of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines. For any building that is proposed to be greater than 35 feet
in height in the shoreline jurisdiction, the development proponent must demonstrate the proposed building will
not block the views of a substantial number of residences. The Director may approve a 15 foot% increase in
height for structures within the shoreline jurisdiction if the project proponent provides additional restoration
and/or enhancement of the entire shoreline buffer, beyond what may otherwise be required including but not
limited to paved areas no longer in use on the property in accordance with the standards of TMC Section
18.44.080060, “Vegetation Protection and Landscaping.” If the required buffer has already been restored, the
project proponent may provide a 20% wider buffer, planted in accordance with TMC Section 18.44.060
“Vegetation Protection and landscaping” and/or enhanced in order to obtain the 15% foot increase in height in
accordance with TMC Section 18.44.080060, “Vegetation Protection and Landscaping.”.
4. Lighting. In addition to the lighting standards in TMC Chapter 18.60, “Board of Architectural
Review,” lighting for the site or development shall be designed and located so that:
a. The minimum light levels in parking areas and paths between the building and street shall be
one-foot candle.
b. Lighting shall be designed to prevent light spillover and glare on adjacent properties and on
the river channel to the maximum extent feasible, be directed downward so as to illuminate only the immediate
area, and be shielded to eliminate direct off-site illumination.
c. The general grounds need not be lighted.
d. The lighting is incorporated into a unified landscape and/or site plan.
D. Surface Water and Water Quality. The following standards apply to all shoreline development.
1. New surface water systems may not discharge directly into the river or streams tributary to the
river without pre-treatment to reduce pollutants and meet State water quality standards.
2. Such pre-treatment may consist of biofiltration, oil/water separators, or other methods approved
by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department.
3. Shoreline development, uses and activities shall not cause any increase in surface runoff, and
shall have adequate provisions for storm water detention/infiltration.
4. Stormwater outfalls must be designed so as to cause no net loss of shoreline ecological functions
or adverse impacts where functions are impaired. New stormwater outfalls or maintenance of existing outfalls
must include shoreline restoration as part of the project.
5. Shoreline development and activities shall have adequate provisions for sanitary sewer.
6. Solid and liquid wastes and untreated effluents shall not be allowed to enter any bodies of water
or to be discharged onto shorelands.
7. The use of low impact development techniques is required, unless such techniques conflict with
other provisions of the SMP or are shown to not be feasible due to site conditions.
E. Flood Hazard Reduction. The following standards apply to all shoreline development.
1. New structural flood hazard reduction structures shall be allowed only when it can be
demonstrated by a Riverbank Analysis that:
a. They are necessary to protect existing development;
b. Non-structural measures are not feasible; and
c. Impacts to ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully mitigated
so as to assure no net loss.
2. Flood hazard structures must incorporate appropriate vegetation restoration and conservation
actions consistent with the standards of the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section.
3. Levees, berms and similar flood control structures, whether new or redeveloped, shall be designed
to meet the minimum levee profile, except as provided in Section 18.44.070050.E.10 below.
34. Publicly-funded structural measures to reduce flood hazards shall improve public access or
dedicate and provide public access unless public access improvements would cause unavoidable health or
safety hazards to the public, inherent and unavoidable security problems, or significant ecological impacts that
cannot be mitigated.
Commented [NG25]: We’ve had a couple building permits for
structures in the shoreline that found the 45’ height limiting and the
incentives to increase the height weren’t enough to be worthwhile.
A 15% increase is only 6.75 feet while a 15 foot increase could
equal an additional story.
Commented [NG26]: We added “to the maximum extent
feasible” here based on our experience with the pedestrian bridge
which required a shoreline variance for the light that came through
the grating. There was a balance between the safety of the bridge
users and lighting of the river.
Commented [CL27]: We have seen an NPDES issue with a
graveled parking lot in the shoreline –paving it would allow storm
water controls to be installed however the shoreline regulations
prevented the paving without the parking lot losing its
nonconforming status.
Commented [SS28R27]: See non-conforming parking lot
changes
Commented [NG29]: The recommendation is to move away
from a single levee design.
Page 20 of 60
54. Rehabilitation or replacement of existing flood control structures, such as levees, with a primary
purpose of containing the 1% to 0.02% annual chance flood event, shall be allowed where it can be
demonstrated by an engineering analysis that the existing structure:
a. Does not provide an appropriate level of protection for surrounding lands; or
b. Does not meet the minimum levee profilea 2.5:1 riverside slope or other appropriate
engineering design standards for stability (e.g., over-steepened side slopes for existing soil and/or flow
conditions); and
c. Repair of the existing structure will not cause or increase significant adverse ecological impacts
to the shoreline.
65. Rehabilitated or replaced flood hazard reduction structures shall not extend the toe of slope
any further waterward of the OHWM than the existing structure.
76. New structural flood hazard reduction measures, such as levees, berms and similar flood control
structures shall be placed landward of the floodway as determined by the best information available.
87. New, redeveloped or replaced structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be placed
landward of associated wetlands, and designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
98. No commercial, industrial, office or residential development shall be located within a floodplain
without a Flood Control Zone Permit issued by the City. No development shall be located within a floodway
except as otherwise permitted.
109. New, redeveloped or replaced flood hazard reduction structures may deviate from the minimum
levee profile only as followsmust have an overall waterward slope no steeper than 2.5:1 unless it is not physically
possible to achieve such as slope. A floodwall may be substituted for all or a portion of a levee back slope only
where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to a structure legally constructed prior to the date of
adoption of this subsection, and which structure has not lost its nonconforming status or to allow area for
waterward habitat restoration development. The floodwall shall be designed to be the minimum necessary to
provide 10 15 feet of clearance between the levee and the building, or the minimum necessary to preserve
access needed for building functionality while meeting all engineering safety standards. A floodwall may also
be used where necessary to prevent the levee from encroaching upon a railroad easement recorded prior to
the date of adoption of this subsection. If a floodwall is permitted under this subsection the levee slope must
be 2.5H:1V unless it is not physically possible to achieve such a slope; in that instance, the levee slope must
be as close to 2.5H:1V as physically possible.
F. Shoreline Stabilization. The provisions of this section apply to those structures or actions intended
to minimize or prevent erosion of adjacent uplands and/or failure of riverbanks resulting from waves, tidal
fluctuations or river currents. Shoreline stabilization or armoring involves the placement of erosion resistant
materials (e.g., large rocks and boulders, cement, pilings and/or large woody debris (LWD)) or the use of
bioengineering techniques to reduce or eliminate erosion of shorelines and risk to human infrastructure. This
form of shoreline stabilization is distinct from flood control structures and flood hazard reduction measures (such
as levees). The terms “shoreline stabilization,” “shoreline protection” and “shoreline armoring” are used
interchangeably.
1. Shoreline protection shall not be considered an outright permitted use and shall be permitted only
when it has been demonstrated through a riverbank analysis and report that shoreline protection is necessary
for the protection of existing legally established structures and public improvements.
2. New development and re-development shall be designed and configured on the lot to avoid the
need for new shoreline stabilization. Removal of failing shoreline stabilization shall be incorporated into re-
development design proposals wherever feasible.
3. Replacement of lawfully established, existing bulkheads or revetments are subject to the following
priority system:
a. The first priority for replacement of bulkheads or revetments shall be landward of the existing
bulkhead.
b. The second priority for replacement of existing bulkheads or revetments shall be to replace in
place (at the bulkhead’s existing location).
Commented [RL30]: KCFCD is now constructing levees to
provide 500-year protection plus 3 feet of freeboard.
Commented [NG31]: Our experience with the SMP is that
BAS has evolved and the one size fits all minimum levee
profile isn’t always the best solution. This language would
allow for different solutions without the need for a shoreline
variance if the
design meets flood control and habitat goals. For example
the City of Kent’s Briscoe Reach #1 that was 3:1 slope (prior
to the COE redesign).
Commented [NG32]: The proposal is to allow more
flexibility in the use of flood walls to balance the need for
greater flood protection with the already developed nature of
our shoreline. The alternative would be to widen shoreline
buffers and create more non-conformities.
Commented [MP33]: Flood walls can be ugly and iniviting,
but they can in a pinched shoreline zone like ours, provide the
space to implement habitat restoration. Kent has done some good-
looking flood walls that we can model from.
Page 21 of 60
4. When evaluating a proposal against the above priority system, at a minimum the following criteria
shall be considered:
a. Existing topography;
b. Existing development;
c. Location of abutting bulkheads;
d. Impact to shoreline ecological functions; and,
e. Impact to river hydraulics, potential changes in geomorphology, and to other areas of the
shoreline. 5. Proponents of new or replacement hard shoreline stabilization (e.g. bulkheads or revetments)
must demonstrate through a documented river bank analysis that bioengineered shoreline protection measures
or bioengineering erosion control designs will not provide adequate upland protection of existing structures or
would pose a threat or risk to adjacent property. The study must also demonstrate that the proposed hard
shoreline stabilization will not adversely affect other infrastructure or adjacent shorelines.
6. Shoreline armoring such as rip rap rock revetments and other hard shoreline stabilization
techniques are detrimental to river processes and habitat creation. Where allowed, shoreline armoring shall be
designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions, including fish habitat, and shall conform to the requirements of the 2004 Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife (or as amended) criteria and guidelines for integrated stream bank protection
(Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington), U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and other regulatory requirements. The
hard shoreline stabilization must be designed and approved by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington
and qualified to design shoreline stabilization structures.
7. Shoreline armoring shall be designed to the minimum size, height, bulk and extent necessary to
remedy the identified hazard.
8. An applicant must demonstrate the following in order to qualify for the RCW 90.58.030(30(e)(iii)(ii)
exemption from the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit for a proposed single
family bulkhead and to insure that the bulkhead will be consistent with the SMP:
a. Erosion from currents or waves is imminently threatening a legally established single family
detached dwelling unit or one or more appurtenant structures; and
b. The proposed bulkhead is more consistent with the City’s Master Program in protecting the
site and adjoining shorelines and that non-structural alternatives such as slope drainage systems,
bioengineering or vegetative growth stabilization, are not feasible or will not adequately protect a legally
established residence or appurtenant structure; and
c. The proposed bulkhead is located landward of the OHWM or it connects to adjacent, legally
established bulkheads; and
d. The maximum height of the proposed bulkhead is no more than one foot above the elevation
of extreme high water on tidal waters as determined by the National Ocean Survey published by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
9. Bulkheads or revetments shall be constructed of suitable materials that will serve to accomplish
the desired end with maximum preservation of natural characteristics. Materials with the potential for water
quality degradation shall not be used. Design and construction methods shall consider aesthetics and habitat
protection. Automobile bodies, tires or other junk or waste material that may release undesirable chemicals or
other material shall not be used for shoreline protection.
10. The builder of any bulkhead or revetment shall be financially responsible for determining the
nature and the extent of probable adverse effects on fish and wildlife or on the property of others caused by
his/her construction and shall propose and implement solutions approved by the City to minimize such effects.
11. When shoreline stabilization is required at a public access site, provision for safe access to the
water shall be incorporated in the design whenever possible.
12. Placement of bank protection material shall occur from the top of the bank and shall be supervised
by the property owner or contractor to ensure material is not dumped directly onto the bank face.
13. Bank protection material shall be clean and shall be of a sufficient size to prevent its being washed
away by high water flows.
Page 22 of 60
14. When riprap is washed out and presents a hazard to the safety of recreational users of the river,
it shall be removed by the owner of such material.
15. Bank protection associated with bridge construction and maintenance may be permitted subject
to the provisions of the SMP and shall conform to provisions of the State Hydraulics Code (RCW 77.55) and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer regulations.
G. Archaeological, Cultural and Historical Resources. In addition to the requirements of TMC
18.50.110, Archaeological/Paleontological Information Preservation Requirements, the following regulations
apply.
1. All land use permits for projects within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be coordinated with affected
tribes.
2. If the City determines that a site has significant archaeological, natural scientific or historical value,
a substantial development that would pose a threat to the resources of the site shall not be approved.
3. Permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources require a site inspection
or evaluation by a professional archaeologist in coordination with affected Indian tribes. The City may require
that development be postponed in such areas to allow investigation of public acquisition potential, retrieval and
preservation of significant artifacts and/or development of a mitigation plan. Areas of known or suspected
archaeological middens shall not be disturbed and shall be fenced and identified during construction projects
on the site.
4. Developers and property owners shall immediately stop work and notify the City of Tukwila, the
Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected Indian tribes if archaeological
resources are uncovered during excavation.
5. In the event that unforeseen factors constituting an emergency, as defined in RCW 90.58.030,
necessitate rapid action to retrieve or preserve artifacts or data identified above, the project may be exempted
from any shoreline permit requirements. The City shall notify the Washington State Department of Ecology, the
State Attorney General’s Office and the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office of
such an exemption in a timely manner.
6. Archaeological excavations may be permitted subject to the provision of this chapter.
7. On sites where historical or archaeological resources have been identified and will be preserved
in situ, public access to such areas shall be designed and managed so as to give maximum protection to the
resource and surrounding environment.
8. Interpretive signs of historical and archaeological features shall be provided subject to the
requirements of the Public Access Section when such signage does not compromise the protection of these
features from tampering, damage and/or destruction.
H. Environmental Impact Mitigation.
1. Halting the continuing decline of Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Southern Resident Orca calls
for an improvement to current shoreline conditions, which have been degraded by human activity over time. All
shoreline development and uses shall at a minimum occur in a manner that results in no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions through the careful location and design of all allowed development and uses. In cases
where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from allowed development and uses are unavoidable, those
impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this section; in that event, the “no net loss” standard is
met.
2. To the extent Washington's State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW,
is applicable, the analysis of environmental impacts from proposed shoreline uses or developments shall be
conducted consistent with the rules implementing SEPA (TMC Chapter 21.04 and WAC 197-11).
3. For all development, mitigation sequencing shall be applied in the following order of priority:
a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation
by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts.
c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations.
Commented [NG34]: The PC opted not to include this
language in response to a public comment.
Page 23 of 60
e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments.
f. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective
measures.
4. In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to shoreline development, lower
priority measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined by the City to be
infeasible or inapplicable.
5. When mitigation measures are appropriate pursuant to the priority of mitigation sequencing above,
preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and in the
immediate vicinity of the impact. However, if mitigation in the immediate vicinity is not scientifically feasible due
to problems with hydrology, soils, waves or other factors, then off-site mitigation within the Shoreline Jurisdiction
may be allowed if consistent with the Shoreline Restoration Plan. Mitigation for projects in the Transition Zone
must take place in the Transition Zone. In the event a site is not available in the Transition Zone to carry out
required mitigation, the project proponent may contribute funds equivalent to the value of the required mitigation
to an existing or future restoration project identified in the CIP to be carried out by a public agency in the
Transition Zone.
I. Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements. In addition to the parking requirements in TMC
18.56, the following requirements apply to all development in the shoreline jurisdiction.
1. Any parking, loading, or storage facilities located between the river and any building must
incorporate additional landscaping in accordance with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section, or
berming or other site planning or design techniques to reduce visual and/or environmental impacts from the
parking areas utilizing the following screening techniques:
a. A solid evergreen screen of trees and shrubs a minimum of six feet high; or
b. Decorative fence a maximum of six feet high with landscaping. Chain link fence, where
allowed, shall be vinyl coated and landscaped with native trailing vine or an approved non-native vine other
than ivy, except where a security or safety hazard may exist; or
c. Earth berms at a minimum of four feet high, planted with native plants in accordance with the
Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section.
2. Where a parking area is located in the shoreline jurisdiction and adjacent to a public access
feature, the parking area shall be screened by a vegetative screen or a built structure that runs the entire length
of the parking area adjacent to the amenity. The landscape screening shall comply with the Vegetation
Protection and Landscaping Section.
3. Where public access to or along the shoreline exists or is proposed, parking areas shall provide
pedestrian access from the parking area to the shoreline.
4. Parking facilities, loading areas and paved areas shall incorporate low impact development
techniques wherever feasible, adequate storm water retention areas, oil/water separators and biofiltration
swales, or other treatment techniques and shall comply with the standards and practices formally adopted by
the City of Tukwila Public Works Department.
J. Land Altering Activities. All land altering activities in the shoreline jurisdiction shall be in conjunction
with an underlying land development permit, except for shoreline restoration projects. All activities shall meet
the following standards:
1. Clearing, Grading and Landfill.
a. Land altering shall be permitted only where it meets the following criteria:
(1) The work is the minimum necessary to accomplish an allowed shoreline use;
(2) Impacts to the natural environment are minimized and mitigated;
(3) Water quality, river flows and/or fish habitat are not adversely affected;
(4) Public access and river navigation are not diminished;
(5) The project complies with all federal and state requirements;
(6) The project complies with the vegetation protection criteria of the Vegetation Protection
and Landscaping Section;
Page 24 of 60
(7) The project will achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes. In
cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from an otherwise allowed land altering project are
unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this section. In that event, the “no
net loss” standard is met; and
(8) Documentation is provided to demonstrate that the fill comes from a clean source.
b. Clearing, grading and landfill activities, where allowed, shall include erosion control
mechanisms, and any reasonable restriction on equipment, methods or timing necessary to minimize the
introduction of suspended solids or leaching of contaminants into the river, or the disturbance of wildlife or fish
habitats in accordance with the standards in TMC Chapter 16.54, “Grading.”
2. Dredging.
a. Dredging activities must comply with all federal and state regulations. Maintenance dredging
of established navigation channels and basins must be restricted to maintaining previously dredged and/or
existing authorized location, depth, and width.
b. Where allowed, dredging operations must be designed and scheduled so as to ensure no net
loss to shoreline ecological functions or processes. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions
from allowed dredging are unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this
section; in that event, the “no net loss” standard is met.
K. Marinas, Boat Yards, Dry Docks, Boat Launches, Piers, Docks and Other Over-water Structures.
1. General Requirements.
a. A dock may be allowed when the applicant has demonstrated a need for moorage and that the
following alternatives have been investigated and are not available or feasible:
(1). commercial or marina moorage;
(2) floating moorage buoys;
(3). joint use moorage pier/dock.
ab. Prior to issuance of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for construction of piers,
docks, wharves or other over-water structures, the applicant shall present approvals fromproof of application
submittal to State or Federal agencies, as applicable.
bc. Structures must be designed by a qualified engineer and must demonstrate the project will
result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function and will be stable against the forces of flowing water, wave
action and the wakes of passing vessels.
cd. In-water structures shall be designed and located to minimize shading of native aquatic
vegetation and fish passage areas. Removal of shoreline, riparian and aquatic vegetation shall be limited to
the minimum extent necessary to construct the project. All areas disturbed by construction shall be replanted
with native vegetation as part of the project.
de. New or replacement in-water structures shall be designed and located such that natural
hydraulic and geologic processes, such as erosion, wave action or floods will not necessitate the following:
(1) reinforcement of the shoreline or stream bank with new bulkheads or similar artificial
structures to protect the in-water structure; or
(2) dredging.
ef. No structures are allowed on top of over-water structures except for properties located north
of the Turning Basin.
fg. Pilings or other associated structures in direct contact with water shall not be treated with
preservatives unless the applicant can demonstrate that no feasible alternative to protect the materials exists
and that non-wood alternatives are not economically feasible. In that case, only compounds approved for
marine use may be used and must be applied by the manufacturer per current best management practices of
the Western Wood Preservers Institute. The applicant must present verification that the best management
practices were followed. The preservatives must also be approved by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
gh. All over-water structures shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition.
Abandoned or unsafe over-water structures shall be removed or repaired promptly by the owner. Accumulated
Commented [CL35]: We don’t require approval by other
agencies to be presented for other land use permits. Also, this
section says the approvals must be received prior to issuance of
the SSDP while 4.e. below says that the permits need to be
obtained prior to construction starting. Often, applicants need our
permit before either the State or Federal permit will be issued.
Page 25 of 60
debris shall be regularly removed and disposed of properly so as not to jeopardize the integrity of the structure.
Replacement of in-water structures shall include proper removal of abandoned or other man-made structures
and debris.
h. Boat owners who store motorized boats on-site are encouraged to use best management
practices to avoid fuel and other fluid spills.
2. Marinas, Boat Yards and Dry Docks.
a. All uses under this category shall be designed to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from uses allowed under this category are
unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this chapter; in that event, the “no
net loss” standard is met.
b. Commercial/industrial marinas and dry docks shall be located no further upriver than Turning
Basin #3.
c. Marinas shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to avoid or minimize adverse
impacts on fish, wildlife, water quality, native shoreline vegetation, navigation, public access, existing in-water
recreational activities and adjacent water uses.
d. Marinas shall submit a fuel spill prevention and contingency plan to the City for approval. Haul-
out and boat maintenance facilities must meet the City’s stormwater management requirements and not allow
the release of chemicals, petroleum or suspended solids to the river.
e. Marinas, boat yards and dry docks must be located a minimum of 100 feet from fish and wildlife
habitat areas (see “Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline” Map 5).
f. New marinas, launch ramps and accessory uses must be located where water depths are
adequate to avoid the need for dredging.
3. Boat Launches and Boat Lifts.
a. Boat launch ramps and vehicle access to the ramps shall be designed to not cause erosion;
the use of pervious paving materials, such as grasscrete, are encouraged.
b. Boat launch ramps shall be designed to minimize areas of landfill or the need for shoreline
protective structures.
c. Access to the boat ramp and parking for the ramp shall be located a sufficient distance from
any frontage road to provide safe maneuvering of boats and trailers.
d. Launching rails shall be adequately anchored to the ground.
e. Launch ramps and boat lifts shall extend waterward past the OHWM only as far as necessary
to achieve their purpose.
f. Boat lifts and canopies must meet the standards of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional
General Permit Number 1 for Watercraft Lifts in Fresh and Marine/Estuarine Waters within the State of
Washington.
4. Over-water Structures. Where allowed, over-water structures such as piers, wharves, bridges,
and docks shall meet the following standards:
a. The size of new over-water structures shall be limited to the minimum necessary to support
the structure’s intended use and to provide stability in the case of floating docks. Structures must be compatible
with any existing channel control or flood management structures.
b. Over-water structures shall not extend waterward of the OHWM any more than necessary to
permit launching of watercraft, while also ensuring that watercraft do not rest on tidal substrate at any time.
c. Adverse impacts of over-water structures on water quality, river flows, fish habitat, shoreline
vegetation, and public access shall be minimized and mitigated. Mitigation measures may include joint use of
existing structures, open decking or piers, replacement of non-native vegetation, installation of in-water habitat
features or restoration of shallow water habitat.
d. Any proposals for in-water or over-water structures shall provide a pre-construction habitat
evaluation, including an evaluation of salmonid and bull trout habitat and shoreline ecological functions, and
demonstrate how the project achieves no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
e. Over-water structures shall obtain all necessary state and federal permits prior to construction
or repair.
Commented [NG36]: Not all environmentally sensitive areas
are mapped. The City’s maps are a starting point but site specific
analysis is required.
Commented [CL37]: The question came up when we worked
on the new pedestrian bridge, whether the pedestrian bridge would
be considered an overwater structure. The requirement for 30%
grating was a safety issue for bicyclists, so I believe PW had to get
a variance from this standard.
Commented [NG38R37]: The proposal is to consider bridges
to be overwater structures. This is clarified in the use matrix.
Page 26 of 60
f. All over-water structures must be designed by a qualified engineer to ensure they are
adequately anchored to the bank in a manner so as not to cause future downstream hazards or significant
modifications to the river geomorphology and are able to withstand high flows.
g. Over-water structures shall not obstruct normal public use of the river for navigation or
recreational purposes.
h. Shading impacts to fish shall be minimized by using grating on at least 30% of the surface area
of the over-water structure on residential areas and at least 50% of the over-water structure on all other
properties. This standard may be modified for bridges if necessary to accommodate the proposed use. The
use of skirting is not permitted.
i. If floats are used, the flotation shall be fully enclosed and contained in a shell (such as
polystyrene) that prevents breakup or loss of the flotation material into the water, damage from ultraviolet
radiation, and damage from rubbing against pilings or waterborne debris.
j. Floats may not rest on the tidal substrate at any time and stoppers on the piling anchoring the
floats must be installed to ensure at least 1 foot of clearance above the substrate. Anchor lines may not rest
on the substrate at any time.
k. The number of pilings to support over-water structures, including floats, shall be limited to the
minimum necessary. Pilings shall conform to the pilings standards contained in the US Army Corps of
Engineers Regional General Permit No. 6.
l. No over-water structure shall be located closer than five feet from the side property line
extended, except that such structures may abut property lines for the common use of adjacent property owners
when mutually agreed upon by the property owners in an easement recorded with King County. A copy of this
agreement shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and accompany an application
for a development permit and/or Shoreline Permit.
5. Live-Aboards. New over-water residences are prohibited. Live-aboards may be allowed
provided that:
a. They are for single-family use only.
b. They are located in a marina that provides shower and toilet facilities on land and there are no
sewage discharges to the water.
c. Live-aboards do not exceed 10 percent of the total slips in the marina.
d. They are owner-occupied vessels.
e. There are on-shore support services in proximity to the live-aboards.
L. Signs in Shoreline Jurisdiction.
1. Signage within the shoreline buffer is limited to the following:
a. Interpretative signs and restoration signage, including restoration sponsor acknowledgment.
b. Signs for water-related uses.
c. Signs installed by a government agency for public safety along any public trail or at any public
park.
d. Signs installed within the rights of way of any public right-of-way or bridge within the shoreline
buffer. All signs shall meet the requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways, current edition, published by the U.S. Department of Transportation-.
e. Signs installed on utilities and wireless communication facilities denoting danger or other safety
information, including emergency contact information.
2. Billboards and other off-premise signs are strictly forbidden in the shoreline buffer.
(Ord. 2346 §7, 2011)
18.44.080060 Vegetation Protection and Landscaping
A. Purpose, Objectives and Applicability.
1. The purpose of this section is to:
a. Regulate the protection of existing trees and native vegetation in the shoreline jurisdiction;
Commented [RL39]: I do not see why we need to state this in
this code. This is a traffic related item.
Commented [NG40]: During review of the Critical Areas
Chapter the PC agreed that we should clarify when vegetation is
protected by the Tree, Landscape, Critical Areas or Shoreline
Chapter and eliminate gaps or overlaps between the codes. This
results in some additional staff recommendations to the PC
Recommended Draft in this section.
Page 27 of 60
b. Establish requirements for removal of invasive plants at the time of development or re-
development of sites;
c. Establish requirements for landscaping for new development or re-development;
d. Establish requirements for the long-term maintenance of native vegetation to prevent
establishment of invasive species and promote shoreline ecosystem processes.
2. The City’s goal is to:
a. Preserve as many existing trees as possible and increase the number of native trees, shrubs
and other vegetation in the shoreline because of their importance to shoreline ecosystem functions as listed
below:
(1) Overhead tree canopy to provide shade for water temperature control;
(2) Habitat for birds, insects and small mammals;
(3) Vegetation that overhangs the river to provide places for fish to shelter;
(4) Source of insects for fish;
(5) Filtering of pollutants and slowing of stormwater prior to its entering the river; and
(6) A long-term source of woody debris for the river.
b. In addition, trees and other native vegetation are important for aesthetics. It is the City’s goal
that unsightly invasive vegetation, such as blackberries, be removed from the shoreline and be replaced with
native vegetation to promote greater enjoyment of and access to the river.
c. The City will provide information and technical assistance to property owners for improving
vegetation in the shoreline jurisdiction and will work collaboratively with local citizen groups to assist property
owners in the removal of invasive vegetation and planting of native vegetation, particularly for residential areas.
3. With the exception of residential development/re-development of 4 or fewer residential units, all
activities and developments within the shoreline environment must comply with the landscaping and
maintenance requirements of this section, whether or not a shoreline substantial development permit is
required. Single family residential projects are not exempt if implementing a shoreline stabilization project or
overwater structure.
4. The tree protection and retention requirements and the vegetation management requirements apply
to existing uses as well as new or re-development.
5. Minor Activities Allowed without a Permit or Exemption.
a. The following activities are allowed without a permit or exemption:
(1) Maintenance of existing, lawfully established areas of crop vegetation, landscaping
(including paths and trails) or gardens within a regulated critical area or its buffershoreline jurisdiction. Examples
include, mowing lawns, weeding, harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning, and planting of non-
invasive ornamental vegetation or indigenous native species to maintain the general condition and extent of
such areas. Cutting down trees and shrubs within a bufferthe shoreline jurisdiction is not covered under this
provision. Excavation, filling, and construction of new landscaping features, such as concrete work, berms and
walls, are not covered in this provision and are subject to review;
(2) Noxious weed control within vegetative buffersshoreline jurisdiction, if work is selective
only for noxious species; is done by hand removal/praying of individual plants; spraying is conducted by a
licensed applicator (with the required aquatic endorsements from WADOE if work is in an aquatic site); and no
area-wide vegetation removal or grubbing is conducted. Control methods not meeting these criteria may still be
approved under other provisions of this chapterapply for a restoration exemption, or other authorization as
applicable.
B. Tree Protection, Retention and Replacement.
1. Retention.
a. As many significant trees and as much native vegetation as possible are to be retained on a site
proposed for development or re-development, taking into account the condition and age of the trees. As part
of a land use application such as but not limited to subdivision or short plat, design review, or development
permit review the Director of Community Development or the Board of Architectural Review may require
alterations in the arrangement of buildings, parking or other elements of proposed development in order to retain
Commented [NG41]: Staff recommendation for vegetation
management clarity.
Commented [NG42]: The PC opted to add this language
based on a public comment.
Commented [NG43]: Staff recommendation for vegetation
management clarity.
Commented [NG44]: Staff recommendation for vegetation
management clarity.
Page 28 of 60
significant non-invasive trees, particularly those that provide shading to the river. Trees located on properties
not undergoing development or re-development may not be removed except those that interfere with access
and passage on public trails or that present an imminent hazard to existing structures or the public. If the hazard
is not readily apparent, the City may require an evaluation by an International Society of Arborists (ISA)-certified
arborist.
b. 9. Topping of trees is prohibited unless absolutely necessary to protect overhead utility lines.
Topping of trees and will be regulated as removal and with tree replacement will be required.
c10. Trees may only be pruned to lower their height to prevent interference with an overhead utility line
with prior approval by the Director. The pruning must be carried out under the direction of a Qualified Tree
Professional or performed by the utility provider under the direction of a Qualified Tree Professional. The crown
shall be maintained to at least 2/3 the height of the tree prior to pruning.
2. To protect the ecological functions that trees and native vegetation provide to the shoreline,
removal of any significant tree or native vegetation in the Shoreline Jurisdiction requires a Shoreline Tree
Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit and is generally only allowed on sites undergoing development or re-
development. Only trees that interfere with access and passage on public trails or trees that present an
imminent hazard to existing structures or the public may be removed from sites without an issued building permit
or Federal approval. Factors that will be considered in approving tree removal include, but are not limited to:
tree condition and health, age, risks to structures, and potential for root or canopy interference with utilities.
23. Permit Requirements. Prior to any tree removal or site clearing, a Type 2 Shoreline Tree
Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit application must be submitted to the Department of Community
Development (DCD) containing the following information:
a. A vegetation survey on a site plan that shows the diameter, species and location of all
significant trees and all existing native vegetation.
b. A site plan that shows trees and native vegetation to be retained and trees to be removed and
provides a table showing the number of significant trees to be removed and the number of replacement trees
required.
c. Tree protection zones and other measures to protect any trees or native vegetation that are to
be retained for sites undergoing development or re-development.
d. Location of the OHWM, river buffer, Shoreline Jurisdiction boundary and any sensitive critical
areas with their buffers.
e. A landscape plan that shows diameter, species name, spacing and planting location for any
required replacement trees and other proposed vegetation.
f. An arborist evaluation justifying the removal of hazardous trees if required by DCD.
g. An application fee per the current Land Use Permit Fee resolution.
3. Criteria for Shoreline Tree Removal.
a. The site is undergoing development or redevelopment; or
b. Tree poses a risk to structures; or
c. There is imminent potential for root or canopy interference with utilities; or
d. Trees interfere with the access and passage on public trails; or
e. Tree condition and health is poor, the City may require an evaluation by an International Society
of Arborists (ISA) certified arborist; or
f. Trees present an imminent hazard to the public. If the hazard is not readily apparent, the City may
require an evaluation by an International Society of Arborists (ISA) certified arborist.
4. Tree Replacement Requirements.
a. Where permitted, sSignificant trees that are removed, topped, or pruned by more than 25 percent
within from the shoreline jurisdiction shall be replaced pursuant to the tree replacement requirements shown
below, up to a density of 100 trees per acre (including existing trees).
Commented [NG45]: Staff Recommendation to delete this
and 2 and create a list of criteria for tree removal below in the new
section 3.
Commented [NG46]: Staff recommendation to move this
language under the Retention heading.
Commented [NG47]: The language below provides more
direction for utility related pruning.
Commented [NG48]: Staff recommendation to condense
requirements into a list.
Page 29 of 60
b. Significant trees that are part of an approved landscape plan on a developed site are subject to
replacement per TMC 18.52. Dead or dying trees removed from developed or landscaped areas shall be
replaced 1:1 in the next appropriate season for planting.
c. Dead or dying trees located within the buffer or undeveloped upland portion of the Shoreline
Jurisdiction shall be left in place as wildlife snags, unless they present a hazard to structures, facilities or the
public. Removal of non-hazardous trees as defined by TMC 18.06 in non-developed areas are subject to the
tree replacement requirements listed in the table below.
d. The Director or Planning Commission may require additional trees or shrubs to be installed to
mitigate any potential impact from the loss of this vegetation as a result of new development.
Tree Replacement Requirements
Diameter* of Tree Removed (*measured at
height of 4.5 feet from the ground)
Number of Replacement
Trees Required
4 - 6 inches (single trunk);
2 inches (any trunk of a multi-trunk tree)
3
Over 6 - 8 inches 4
Over 8 - 20 inches 6
Over 20 inches 8
e. 5. The property owner is required to ensure the viability and long-term health of trees planted for
replacement through proper care and maintenance for the life of the project. Replaced trees that do not survive
must be replanted in the next appropriate season for planting.
f. 6. If all required replacement trees cannot be reasonably accommodated on the site, off-site tree
replacement within the shoreline jurisdiction may be allowed at a site approved by the City. Priority for off-site
tree planting will be at locations within the Transition Zone. If no suitable off-site location is available, the
applicant shall pay into a tree replacement fund per the adopted fee resolution. The fee shall be based on the
value of the replacement trees and their delivery, labor for site preparation and plant installation, soil
amendments, mulch, and staking supplies.
5. 7. Large Woody Debris. When a tree suitable for use as LWD is permitted to be removed from the
shoreline buffer, the tree trunk and root ball (where possible) will be saved for use in a restoration project
elsewhere in the shoreline jurisdiction. The applicant will be responsible for the cost of moving the removed
tree(s) to a location designated by the City. If no restoration project or storage location is available at the time,
the Director may waive this requirement. Trees removed in the shoreline jurisdiction outside the buffer shall be
placed as LWD in the buffer (not on the bank), if feasible. Priority for LWD placement projects will be in the
Transition Zone.
8. Dead or dying trees located within the buffer or undeveloped upland portion of the Shoreline
Jurisdiction shall be left in place as wildlife snags, unless they present a hazard to structures, facilities or the
public.
C. Tree Protection During Development and Redevelopment
All trees not proposed for removal as part of a project or development shall be protected using Best
Management Practices and the standards below.
1. The Critical Root Zones (CRZ) for all trees designated for retention, on site or on adjacent property as
applicable, shall be identified on all construction plans, including demolition, grading, civil and landscape
site plans.
2. Any roots within the CRZ exposed during construction shall be covered immediately and kept moist
with appropriate materials. The City may require a third-party Qualified Tree Professional to review
longterm viability of the tree.
3. Physical barriers, such as 6-foot chain link fence or plywood or other approved equivalent, shall be
placed around each individual tree or grouping at the CRZ.
Commented [NG49]:
This is a more appropriate approach for landscape islands or
other parts of the developed landscape.
Commented [NG50]: The preference is to replant on site
but some sites cannot accommodate the number of
replacement trees required without unhealthy crowding. This
gives options so that trees can be replaced in other locations.
Commented [NG51]: Staff recommendation to move to the
tree replacement section above.
Commented [NG52]: The proposal is to match the
updated tree protection standards required outside of
shoreline jurisdiction, see TMC 18.54.070.
Commented [NG53]: PC addition to clarify when these
standards apply.
Page 30 of 60
4. Minimum distances from the trunk for the physical barriers shall be based on the approximate age of
the tree (height and canopy) as follows:
a. Young trees (trees which have reached less than 20% of life expectancy): 0.75 per
inch of trunk diameter.
b. Mature trees (trees which have reached 20-80% of life expectancy): 1 foot per inch of trunk
diameter.
c. Over mature trees (trees which have reached greater than 80% of life expectancy): 1.5 feet per
inch of trunk diameter.
5. Alternative protection methods may be used that provide equal or greater tree protection if approved by
the Director.
6. A weatherproof sign shall be installed on the fence or barrier that reads:
“TREE PROTECTION ZONE – THIS FENCE SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR ENCROACHED UPON. No
soil disturbance, parking, storage, dumping or burning of materials is allowed within the Critical Root Zone.
The value of this tree is $ [insert value of tree as determined by a Qualified Tree Professional here].
Damage to this tree due to construction activity that results in the death or necessary removal of the tree is
subject to the Violations section of TMC Chapter 18.44.”
7. All tree protection measures installed shall be inspected by the City and, if deemed necessary a
Qualified Tree Professional, prior to beginning construction or earth moving.
8. Any branches or limbs that are outside of the CRZ and might be damaged by machinery shall be
pruned prior to construction by a Qualified Tree Professional. No construction personnel shall prune
affected limbs except under the direct supervision of a Qualified Tree Professional.
9. The CRZ shall be covered with 4 to 6 inches of wood chip mulch. Mulch shall not be placed directly
against the trunk. A 6-inch area around the trunk shall be free of mulch. Additional measures, such as
fertilization or supplemental water, shall be carried out prior to the start of construction if deemed
necessary by the Qualified Tree Professional’s report to prepare the trees for the stress of construction
activities.
10. No storage of equipment or refuse, parking of vehicles, dumping of materials or chemicals,
or placement of permanent heavy structures or items shall occur within the CRZ.
11. No grade changes or soil disturbance, including trenching, shall be allowed within the CRZ.
Grade changes within 10 feet of the CRZ shall be approved by the City prior to implementation.
12. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that the CRZ of trees on adjacent properties are
not impacted by the proposed development.
13. A pre-construction inspection shall be conducted by the City to finalize tree protection actions.
14. Post-construction inspection of protected trees shall be conducted by the City and, if deemed
necessary by the City, a Qualified Tree Professional. All corrective or reparative pruning will be
conducted by a Qualified Tree Professional.
10. For new development or re-development where trees are proposed for retention, tree protection
zones shall be indicated on site plans and shall be established in the field prior to commencement of any
construction or site clearing activity. A minimum 4 feet high construction barrier shall be installed around
significant trees and stands of native trees or vegetation to be retained. Minimum distances from the trunk for
the construction barriers shall be based on the approximate age of the tree (height and canopy) as follows:
a. Young trees (have reached less than 20% of life expectancy): 0.75 feet per inch of trunk
diameter.
b. Mature trees (have reached 20–80% of life expectancy): 1 foot per inch of trunk diameter.
c. Over mature trees (have reached greater than 80% of life expectancy): 1.5 feet per inch of
trunk diameter.
CD. Landscaping. This section presents landscaping standards for the Shoreline Jurisdiction and is
divided into a general section and separate sections for the River Buffer and for the remaining part of the
Shoreline Jurisdiction for each environment designation.
Page 31 of 60
1. General Requirements. For any new development or redevelopment in the Shoreline
Jurisdiction, except single family residential development of 4 or fewer lots, invasive vegetation must be
removed and native vegetation planted and maintained in the River Buffer, including the river bank.
a. The landscaping requirements of this subsection apply for any new development or
redevelopment in the Shoreline Jurisdiction, except: single family residential development of 4 or fewer lots.
The extent of landscaping required will depend on the size of the proposed project. New development or full
redevelopment of a site will require landscaping of the entire site. For smaller projects, the Director will review
the intent of this section and the scope of the project to determine a reasonable amount of landscaping to be
carried out. Trees and other vegetation shading the river shall be retained or replanted when riprap is placed
per the approved tree permit, if required.
b. Invasive vegetation must be removed as part of site preparation and native vegetation planted,
including the river bank to OHWM.
c. On properties located behindlandward of publicly maintained levees, an applicant is not
required to remove invasive vegetation or plant native vegetation within the buffer.
d. Removal of invasive species shall be done by hand or with hand-held power tools. Where not
feasible and mechanized equipment is needed, the applicant must obtain a Shoreline Tree Removal and
Vegetation Clearing Permit and show how the slope stability of the bank will be maintained. and aA plan must
be submitted indicating how the work will be done and what erosion control and tree protection features will be
utilized. Federal and State permits may be required for vegetation removal with mechanized equipment.
e. Trees and other vegetation shading the river shall be retained or replanted when riprap is
placed, as specified in the approved tree permit if a permit is required.
f. Removal of invasive vegetation may be phased over several years prior to planting, if such
phasing is provided for by a plan approved by the Director to allow for alternative approaches, such as sheet
mulching and goat grazing. The method selected shall not destabilize the bank or cause erosion.
g. A combination of native trees, shrubs and groundcovers (including grasses, sedges, rushes
and vines) shall be planted. The plants listed in the Riparian Restoration and Management Table of the 2004
Washington Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington
Department of Ecology, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington, as amended) shall provide
the basis for plant selection. Site conditions, such as topography, exposure, and hydrology shall be taken into
account for plant selection. Other species may be approved if there is adequate justification.
h. Non-native trees may be used as street trees or in approved developed landscape areasin
cases where conditions are not appropriate for native trees (for example where there are space or height
limitations or conflicts with utilities).
i. Plants shall meet the current American Standard for Nursery Stock (American Nursery and
Landscape Association – ANLA).
j. Plant sizes in the non-buffer areas of all Shoreline Environments shall meet the following
minimum size standards:
Deciduous trees 2-inch caliper
Conifers 6 – 8 foot height
Shrubs 24-inch height
Groundcover/grasses 4-inch or 1 gallon container
k. Smaller plant sizes (generally one gallon, bareroot, plugs, or stakes, depending on plant
species) are preferred for buffer plantings. Willow stakes must be at least 1/2-inch in diameter.
l. Site preparation and planting of vegetation shall be in accordance with best management
practices for ensuring the vegetation’s long-term health and survival.
m. Plants may be selected and placed to allow for public and private view corridors and/or access
to the water’s edge.
n. Native vegetation in the shoreline installed in accordance with the preceding standards shall
be maintained by the property owner to promote healthy growth and prevent establishment of invasive species.
Commented [NG54]: Duplicated below in e.
Commented [NG55]: Staff recommendation
Page 32 of 60
Invasive plants (such as blackberry, ivy, knotweed, bindweed) shall be removed on a regular basis, according
to the approved maintenance plan.
o. Areas disturbed by removal of invasive plants shall be replanted with native vegetation where
necessary to maintain the density shown in TMC Section 18.44.080060.B.4. and must be replanted in a timely
manner, except where a long term removal and re-vegetation plan, as approved by the City, is being
implemented.
p. Landscape plans shall include a detail on invasive plant removal and soil preparation.
q.p. The following standards apply to utilities and loading docks located in the shoreline
jurisdiction.
(1) Utilities such as pumps, pipes, etc. shall be suitably screened with native vegetation;
(2) Utility easements shall be landscaped with native groundcover, grasses or other low-
growing plants as appropriate to the shoreline environment and site conditions;
(3) Allowed loading docks and service areas located waterward of the development shall
have landscaping that provides extensive visual separation from the river.
2. River Buffer Landscaping Requirements in all Shoreline Environments. The River Buffer in
all shoreline environments shall function, in part, as a vegetation management area to filter sediment, capture
contaminants in surface water run-off, reduce the velocity of water run-off, and provide fish and wildlife habitat.
a. A planting plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or an approved biologist shall be
submitted to the City for approval that shows plant species, size, number and spacing. The requirement for a
landscape architect or biologist may be waived by the Director for single family property owners (when planting
is being required as mitigation for construction of overwater structures or shoreline stabilization), if the property
owner accepts technical assistance from City staff.
b. Plants shall be installed from the OHWM to the upland edge of the River Buffer unless the
Director determines that site conditions would make planting unsafe.
c. Plantings close to and on the bank shall include native willows, red osier dogwood and other
native vegetation that will extend out over the water, to provide shade and habitat functions when mature.
Species selected must be able to withstand seasonal water level fluctuations.
d. Minimum plant spacing in the buffer shall follow the River Buffer Vegetation Planting Densities
Table shown in TMC Section 18.44.080060.C.2. Existing non-invasive plants may be included in the density
calculations.
e. Irrigation for buffer plantings is required for at least two dry seasons or until plants are
established. An irrigation plan is to be included as part of the planting plan.
f. In the event that a development project allows for setback and benching of the shoreline along
an existing levee or revetment, the newly created mid-slope bench area shall be planted and maintained with a
variety of native vegetation appropriate for site conditions.
g. The Department Director, in consultation with the City’s environmentalist, may approve the use
of shrub planting and installation of willow stakes to be counted toward the tree replacement standard in the
buffer if proposed as a measure to control invasive plants and increase buffer function.
River Buffer Vegetation Planting Densities Table
Plant Material Type Planting Density
Stakes/cuttings along river bank
(willows, red osier dogwood)
1 - 2 feet on center or per
bioengineering method
Shrubs 3 - 5 feet on center, depending
on species
Trees 15 – 20 feet on center,
depending on species
Groundcovers, grasses, sedges,
rushes, other herbaceous plants
1 – 1.5 feet on center, depending
on species
Native seed mixes 5 - 25 lbs per acre, depending on
species
Commented [NG56]: This could help control the regrowth of
invasive species while newly planted trees are establishing in a
restoration area.
Page 33 of 60
3. Landscaping Requirements for the Urban Conservancy and High Intensity Environments —
Outside of the River Buffer. For the portions of property within the Shoreline Jurisdiction landward of the
River Buffer the landscape requirements in the General section of this chapter and the requirements for the
underlying zoning as established in TMC Chapter 18.52 shall apply except as indicated below.
a. Parking Lot Landscape Perimeters: One native tree for each 20 lineal feet of required
perimeter landscaping, one shrub for each 4 lineal feet of required perimeter landscaping, and native
groundcovers to cover 90% of the landscape area within 3 years, planted at a minimum spacing of 12 inches
on-center.
b. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: Every 300 square feet of paved surface requires 10 square
feet of interior landscaping within landscape islands separated by no more than 150 feet between islands.
c. Landscaping shall be provided at yards not adjacent to the river, with the same width as
required in the underlying zoning district. This standard may be reduced as follows:
(1) Where development provides a public access corridor between off-site public area(s)
and public shoreline areas, side yard landscaping may be reduced by 25 percent to no less than 3 feet; or
(2) Where development provides additional public access area(s) (as allowed by the High
Intensity and Urban Conservancy Environment Development Standards) equal in area to at least 2.5% of total
building area, front yard landscaping may be reduced by 25 percent.
DE. Vegetation Management in the Shoreline Jurisdiction. The requirements of this section apply to
all existing and new development within the shoreline jurisdiction.
1. Trees and shrubs may only be pruned for safety, to maintain views or access corridors and trails
by pruning up or on the sides of trees, to maintain clearance for utility lines, and/or for improving shoreline
ecological function. No more than 25% may be pruned from a tree within a 36 month period without prior City
review. This type of pruning is exempt from any permit requirements. Topping of trees is prohibited except
where absolutely necessary to avoid interference with existing utilities.
2. Plant debris from removal of invasive plants or pruning shall be removed from the site and
disposed of properly.
3. Use of pesticides.
a. Pesticides (including herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) shall not be used in the shoreline
jurisdiction except where:
(1) Alternatives such as manual removal, biological control, and cultural control are not
feasible given the size of the infestation, site characteristics, or the characteristics of the invasive plant species;
(2) The use of pesticides has been approved through a comprehensive vegetation or pest
management and monitoring plan;
(3) The pesticide is applied in accordance with state regulations;
(4) The proposed herbicide is approved for aquatic use by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; and
(5) The use of pesticides in the shoreline jurisdiction is approved in writing by the City and
the applicant presents a copy of the Aquatic Pesticide Permit issued by the Department of Ecology or
Washington Department of Agriculture.
b. Self-contained rodent bait boxes designed to prevent access by other animals are allowed.
c. Sports fields, parks, golf courses and other outdoor recreational uses that involve maintenance
of extensive areas of turf shall provide and implement an integrated turf management program or integrated
pest management plan designed to ensure that water quality in the river is not adversely impacted.
4. Restoration Project Plantings: Restoration projects may overplant the site as a way to
discourage the re-establishment of invasive species. Thinning of vegetation to improve plant survival
and health without a separate shoreline vegetation removal permit may be permitted five to ten years
after planting if this approach is approved as part of the restoration project’s maintenance and
monitoring plan.
Commented [NG57]: Excessive pruning can damage the
health of trees.
Commented [NG58]: This duplicates the language in
18.44.060 B 10.
Commented [CL59]: This provision sparked by request from
the City’s habitat manager to use the overplanting approach as a
way to prevent the re-establishment of invasives.
Commented [NG60]: PC addition based on public comment.
Page 34 of 60
EF. Maintenance and Monitoring.
1. Tree Replacement and Vegetation Clearing Permit Requirements
a. Schedule an inspection with the Urban Environmentalist to document planting of the correct
number and type of plants.
b. Submit annual documentation of tree and vegetation health for three years.
2. Restoration and Mitigation Project Requirements
a. A five-year maintenance and monitoring plan must be approved by the City prior to permit
issuance. The montoring period will begin when the restoration is accepted by the City and
as-built plans have been submitted.
b. Monitoring reports shall be submitted annually for City review up until the end of the Monitoring
period. Reports shall measure survival rates against project goals and present contingency
plans to meet project goals.
c. Mitigation will be complete after project goals have been met and and accepted by City
environmentalist.
d. A performance bond or financial security equal to 150% of the cost of labor and materials
required for implementation of the planting, maintenance and monitoring shall be submitted
prior to City acceptance of project.
(Ord. 2346 §8, 2011)
18.44.090070 Environmentally Sensitive Critical Areas within the Shoreline Jurisdiction
A. A. Purpose.
1. The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) requires protection of critical areas (sensitive areas),
defined as wetlands, watercourses, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer
recharge areas, fish and wildlife conservation areas, and abandoned mine areas.
2. The purpose of protecting environmentally sensitive areas within the shoreline jurisdiction is to:
a. Minimize development impacts on the natural functions and values of these areas.
b. Protect quantity and quality of water resources.
c. Minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and fish-bearing waters and maintain wildlife habitat.
d. Prevent erosion and the loss of slope and soil stability caused by the removal of trees, shrubs, and
root systems of vegetative cover.
b. The Director may allow modifications to the required contents of the study where, in the judgment of a
qualified professional, more or less information is required to adequately address the potential sensitive area
impacts and required mitigation.
c. If there is written agreement between the Director and the applicant concerning the sensitive area
classification and type, the Director may waive the requirement for sensitive area studies provided that no
adverse impacts to sensitive areas or buffers will result. There must be substantial evidence that the sensitive
areas delineation and classification are correct, that there will be no detrimental impact to the sensitive areas
or buffers, and that the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of the Shoreline Management Program
will be followed.Applicable Critical Areas Regulations
1. The following critical areas shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance TMC Chapter 18.45, adopted [Date to be added], which is herein incorporated by reference
into this SMP, except for the provisions excluded in subsection A.2 of this Section. Said provisions shall apply
to any use, alteration, or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written
statement of exemption is required. Unless otherwise stated, no development shall be constructed, located,
extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided without full compliance with the provision adopted by
reference and the Shoreline Master Program. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of RMC TMC Chapter
18.45 shall be liberally construed together with the Shoreline Master Program to give full effect to the objectives
and purposes of the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. If there is
a conflict or inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline Master Program, the
most restrictive provisions shall prevail.
Commented [CL61]: Mitigation sequencing requires a
monitoring period.
Commented [NG62]: Staff recommendation that tree
replacement be subject to lower monitoring and review than
mitigation projects.
Commented [NG63]: This is similar to the requirement for
areas outside of the shoreline.
Commented [CL64]: This section needs to be updated to
match new SAO requirements after they are adopted. I believe this
will address comments Minnie received from Donna Bunten in
March, 2012 regarding corrections needed. See PDF of email
exchange with Minnie, saved here: Annotated 18.44 - corrections
needed\email exchange w Donna Bunten-Ecology-SAO
references.pdf.
Commented [NG65R64]: The proposal is to eliminate the
duplication of Critical Areas regulations and apply one set of rules
with the few exceptions below.
Page 35 of 60
1. Wetlands
2. Watercourses (Type F, Type Np, Type Ns)
3. Areas of potential geologic instability
4. Abandoned mine areas
5. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
B. The following provisions in TMC Chapter 18.45 do not apply:
1. Reasonable Use Exception (TMC Section 18.45.180) Exceptions within shoreline
jurisdiction shall require a shoreline variance based on the variance criteria listed in TMC Section 18.44.130.
D and WAC 173-27-170.
2.Activities and alterations to shorelines of the state and their buffers shall be subject to the provisions of this
Master Program.
3.Shoreline buffer widths are defined in TMC Section 18.44.040 .
4.Future amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance require Department of Ecology approval of an
amendment to this Master Program to incorporate updated language.
5. If provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance conflict with provisions of this Master Program, the provisions
the most protective of the ecological resource shall apply, as determined by the Director.
6. If there are provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance that are not consistent with the Shoreline
Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW, and supporting Washington Administrative Code chapters, those
provisions shall not apply.
C. Areas of seismic instability are also defined as critical areas. These areas are regulated by the
Washington State Building Code, rather than by Section 18.44.070 of this chapter. Additional building
standards applicable to frequently flooded areas are included in the Flood Zone Management Code (TMC
Chapter 16.52).
E. Procedures. When an applicant submits an application for any building permit, subdivision, short
subdivision or any other land use review that approves a use, development or future construction, the location
and dimensions of all sensitive areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted. When
a sensitive area is identified, the following procedures apply.
1. The applicant shall submit the relevant sensitive area study as required by this chapter.
2. The Department of Community Development will review the information submitted in the sensitive
area studies to verify the information, confirm the nature and type of the sensitive area, and ensure the study is
consistent with the Shoreline Master Program. At the discretion of the Director, sensitive area studies may
undergo peer review, at the expense of the applicant.
3. Denial of use or development. A use or development will be denied if the Director determines
that the applicant cannot ensure that potential dangers and costs to future inhabitants of the development,
adjacent properties, and Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level.
4. Preconstruction meeting. The applicant, specialist(s) of record, contractor, and department
representatives will be required to attend pre-construction meetings prior to any work on the site.
5. Construction monitoring. The specialist(s) of record shall be retained to monitor the site during
construction.
6. On-site Identification. The Director may require the boundary between a sensitive area and its
buffer or between the buffer and any development or use to be permanently identified with fencing, or with a
wood or metal sign with treated wood, concrete or metal posts. Size will be determined at the time of permitting,
and wording shall be as follows: “Protection of this natural area is in your care. Do not alter or disturb. Please
call the City of Tukwila (206-431-3670) for more information.”
F. Wetland Determinations and Classifications.
1. Wetlands and their boundaries are established by using the Washington State Wetland and
Delineation Manual, as required by RCW 36.70A.175 (Ecology Publication #96-94) and consistent with the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Commented [NG66]: This may be a placeholder for future
decision. This statement would apply if reference to the
CAO is
not to a specific dated version but rather to the current CAO
as amended.
Page 36 of 60
2. Wetland determinations shall be made by a qualified professional (certified Wetland Scientist or
non-certified with at least two years of full-time work experience as a wetland professional).
3. Wetland areas within the City of Tukwila have certain characteristics, functions and values and
have been influenced by urbanization and related disturbances. Wetland functions include, but are not limited
to the following: improving water quality; maintaining hydrologic functions (reducing peak flows, decreasing
erosion, groundwater); and providing habitat for plants, mammals, fish, birds, and amphibians. Wetland
functions shall be evaluated using the Washington State Functional Assessment Method.
4. Wetlands shall be designated in accordance with the Washington State Wetlands Rating System
for Western Washington (Washington State Department of Ecology, August 2004, Publication #04-06-025) as
Category I, II, III or IV as listed below:
a. Category I wetlands are those that:
(1) represent a unique or rare wetland type; or
(2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; or
(3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to
replace within a human lifetime; or
(4) provide a high level of functions.
The following types of wetlands listed by the Washington State Department of Ecology and
potentially found in Tukwila’s Shoreline Jurisdiction are Category I:
(a) Estuarine wetlands (deepwater tidal habitats with a range of fresh-brackish-marine
water chemistry and daily tidal cycles, salt and brackish marshes, intertidal mudflats, mangrove swamps, bays,
sounds, and coastal rivers).
(b) Wetlands that perform many functions well and score at least 70 points in the
Western Washington Wetlands Rating System.
(c) Waterfowl or shorebird areas designated by the State Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
b. Category II wetlands are difficult, though not impossible to replace and provide high levels of
some functions. These wetlands occur more commonly than Category I wetlands, but still need a relatively high
level of protection. Category II wetlands potentially in Tukwila’s Shoreline Jurisdiction include:
(1) Estuarine wetlands — Any estuarine wetland smaller than an acre, or those that are
disturbed and larger than 1 acre are Category II wetlands.
(2) Wetlands that perform functions well – Wetlands scoring between 51 - 69 points (out of
100) on the questions related to the functions present are Category II wetlands.
c. Category III wetlands have a moderate level of functions (scores between 30 - 50 points).
Wetlands scoring between 30 - 50 points generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse
or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands.
d. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scores less than 30 points) and are
often heavily disturbed. While these are wetlands that should be able to be replaced or improved, they still
need protection because they may provide some important functions. Any disturbance of these wetlands must
be considered on a case-by-case basis.
G. Watercourse Designation and Ratings.
1. Watercourse ratings are based on the existing habitat functions and are rated as follows:
a. Type 1 (S) Watercourse: Watercourses inventoried as Shorelines of the State under RCW
90.58 (Green/Duwamish River).
b. Type 2 (F) Watercourse: Those watercourses that have either perennial (year-round) or
intermittent flows and support salmonid fish use.
c. Type 3 (NP) Watercourse: Those watercourses that have perennial flows and are not used by
salmonid fish.
d. Type 4 (NS) Watercourse: Those watercourses that have intermittent flows and are not used
by salmonid fish.
Page 37 of 60
2. Watercourse sensitive area studies shall be performed by a qualified professional (hydrologist,
geologist, engineer or other scientist with experience in preparing watercourse assessments).
H. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
1. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas within the shoreline jurisdiction include the habitats
listed below:
a. Areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association;
b. Habitats and species of local importance, including but not limited to bald eagle habitat, heron
rookeries, osprey nesting areas;
c. Waters of the State (i.e., the Green/Duwamish River itself);
d. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas; and
e. Areas critical for habitat connectivity.
2. The approximate location and extent of known fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are identified
in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and are shown on the Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline
Jurisdiction map. Only the salmon habitat enhancement project sites completed or underway are shown as
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas on the Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline Jurisdiction Map. Streams are
shown as watercourses. The river is not shown as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area for the sake
of simplicity. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas correlate closely with the areas identified as regulated
watercourses and wetlands and their buffers, as well as off-channel habitat areas created to improve salmon
habitat (shown on the Sensitive Areas Map) in the Shoreline jurisdiction. The Green/Duwamish River is
recognized as the most significant fish and wildlife habitat corridor. In addition Gilliam Creek, Riverton Creek,
Southgate Creek, Hamm Creek (in the North Potential Annexation Area (PAA), and Johnson Creek (South PAA)
all provide salmonid habitat.
I. Wetland Watercourse and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Buffers.
1. Purpose and Intent of Buffer Establishment.
a. A buffer area shall be established adjacent to designated sensitive areas. The purpose of the
buffer area shall be to protect the integrity, functions and values of the sensitive areas. Any land alteration must
be located out of the buffer areas as required by this section.
b. Buffers are intended in general to:
(1) Minimize long-term impacts of development on properties containing sensitive areas.
(2) Protect sensitive areas from adverse impacts during development.
(3) Preserve the edges of wetlands and the banks of watercourses and fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas for their critical habitat value.
(4) Provide an area to stabilize banks, to absorb overflow during high water events and to
allow for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects.
(5) Provide shading to watercourses and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas to
maintain stable water temperatures and provide vegetative cover for additional wildlife habitat.
(6) Provide input of organic debris and nutrient transport in watercourses.
(7) Reduce erosion and increased surface water run-off.
(8) Reduce loss of or damage to property.
(9) Intercept fine sediments from surface water run-off and serve to minimize water quality
impacts.
(10) Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbances.
2. Establishment of Buffer Widths. The following standard buffers shall be established:
a. Wetland buffers (measured from the wetland edge):
(1) Category I & II Wetland: 100-foot buffer.
(2) Category III Wetland: 80-foot buffer.
(3) Category IV Wetland: 50-foot buffer.
b. Watercourse buffers (measured from the OHWM):
(1) Type 1 (S) Watercourse: The buffer width for the Green/Duwamish River is established
in the Shoreline Environment Designations of this SMP for the three designated shoreline environments.
Page 38 of 60
(2) Type 2 (F) Watercourse: 100-foot-wide buffer.
(3) Type 3 (NP) Watercourse: 80-foot-wide buffer.
(4) Type 4 (NS) Watercourse: 50-foot-wide buffer.
c. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas: The buffer will be the same as the river buffer
established for each Shoreline Environment measured from the OHWM, unless an alternate buffer is
established and approved at the time a fish and wildlife habitat restoration project is undertaken.
3. Sensitive Area Buffer Setbacks. All commercial and industrial buildings shall be set back 15
feet and all other development shall be set back 10 feet from the sensitive area buffer's edge. The building
setbacks shall be measured from the foundation to the buffer’s edge. Building plans shall also identify a 20-
foot area beyond the buffer setback within which the impacts of development will be reviewed. The Director
may waive setback requirements when a site plan demonstrates there will be no adverse impacts to the buffer
from construction or occasional maintenance activities.
4. Reduction of Standard Buffer Width. Except for the Green/Duwamish River (Type 1
watercourse for which any variation in the buffer shall be regulated under the shoreline provisions of this
program), the buffer width may be reduced on a case-by-case basis, provided the reduced buffer area does not
contain slopes 15% or greater. In no case shall the approved buffer width result in greater than a 50% reduction
in width. Buffer reduction with enhancement may be allowed as part of a Substantial Development Permit if:
a. Additional protection to wetlands or watercourses will be provided through the implementation
of a buffer enhancement plan; and
b. The existing condition of the buffer is degraded; and
c. Buffer enhancement includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Planting vegetation that would increase value for fish and wildlife habitat or improve
water quality;
(2) Enhancement of wildlife habitat by Incorporating structures that are likely to be used by
wildlife, including wood duck boxes, bat boxes, snags, root wads/stumps, birdhouses and heron nesting areas;
or
(3) Removing non-native plant species and noxious weeds from the buffer area and
replanting the area.
5. Increase in Standard Buffer Width. Buffers for sensitive areas will be increased when
they are determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create
unusually adverse impacts. Any increase in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a
sensitive areas study by a qualified biologist that documents the basis for such increased width. An increase
in buffer width may be appropriate when:
a. The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts
upon the sensitive area that can be mitigated by an increased buffer width; or
b. The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, sensitive or monitor species listed by
the federal government or the State.
6. Maintenance of Vegetation in Buffers. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain any
existing viable native plant life in the buffers. Vegetation may be removed from the buffer as part of an
enhancement plan approved by the Director. Enhancements will ensure that slope stability and wetland or
watercourse quality will be maintained or improved. Any disturbance of the buffers shall be replanted with a
diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site as determined by
the Director. If the vegetation must be removed, or the vegetation becomes damaged or dies because of the
alterations of the landscape, then the applicant for a permit must replace existing vegetation with comparable
specimens, approved by the Director, which will restore buffer functions within five years.
J. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability.
1. Classification. Areas of potential geologic instability are classified as follows:
a. Class 1 area, where landslide potential is low, and which slope is less than 15%;
b. Class 2 areas, where landslide potential is moderate, which slope is between 15% and 40%,
and which are underlain by relatively permeable soils;
Page 39 of 60
c. Class 3 areas, where landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15%
and 40%, and which are underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock, and which also include all
areas sloping more steeply than 40%;
d. Class 4 areas, where landslide potential is very high, which include sloping areas with
mappable zones of groundwater seepage, and which also include existing mappable landslide deposits
regardless of slope.
2. Exemptions. The following areas are exempt from regulation as geologically hazardous
areas:
a. Temporary stockpiles of topsoil, gravel, beauty bark or other similar landscaping or
construction materials;
b. Slopes related to materials used as an engineered pre-load for a building pad;
c. Any temporary slope that has been created through legal grading activities under an approved
permit may be re-graded.
d. Roadway embankments within right-of-way or road easements; and
e. Slopes retained by approved engineered structures, except riverbank structures and armoring.
3. Geotechnical Study Required.
a. Development or alterations to areas of potential geologic instability that form the river banks
shall be governed by the policies and requirements of the Shoreline Stabilization section of this chapter.
Development proposals on all other lands containing or threatened by an area of potential geologic instability
Class 2 or higher shall be subject to a geotechnical study. The geotechnical report shall analyze and make
recommendations on the need for and width of any setbacks or buffers necessary to insure slope stability.
Development proposals shall then include the buffer distances as defined within the geotechnical report. The
geotechnical study shall be performed by a qualified professional geotechnical engineer, licensed in the State
of Washington.
b. Prior to permitting alteration of an area of potential geologic instability, the applicant must
demonstrate one of the following:
(1) There is no evidence of past instability or earth movement in the vicinity of the proposed
development, and where appropriate, quantitative analysis of slope stability indicates no significant risk to the
proposed development or surrounding properties; or
(2) The area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed
so that any potential impact to the project and surrounding properties is eliminated, slope stability is not
decreased, and the increase in surface water discharge or sedimentation shall not decrease slope stability.
4. Buffers for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability.
a. Buffers are intended to:
(1) Minimize long-term impacts of development on properties containing sensitive areas;
(2) Protect sensitive areas from adverse impacts during development;
(3) Prevent loading of potentially unstable slope formations;
(4) Protect slope stability;
(5) Provide erosion control and attenuation of precipitation, surface water and storm water
runoff;
(6) Reduce loss of or damage to property; and
(7) Prevent the need for future shoreline armoring.
b. Buffers may be increased by the Director when an area is determined to be particularly
sensitive to the disturbance created by a development. Such a decision will be based on a City review of the
report as prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer and by a site visit.
5. Additional Requirements.
a. Where any portion of an area of potential geologic instability is cleared for development, a
landscaping plan for the site shall include tree replanting in accordance with the Vegetation Protection and
Page 40 of 60
Landscaping section of this chapter. Vegetation shall be sufficient to provide erosion and stabilization
protection.
b. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to submit, consistent with the findings of the
geotechnical report, structural plans which were prepared and stamped by a structural engineer. The plans and
specifications shall be accompanied by a letter from the geotechnical engineer who prepared the geotechnical
report stating that in his/her judgment, the plans and specifications conform to the recommendations in the
geotechnical report; the risk of damage to the proposed development site from soil instability will be minimal
subject to the conditions set forth in the report; and the proposed development will not increase the potential for
soil movement.
c. Further recommendations signed and sealed by the geotechnical engineer shall be provided
should there be additions or exceptions to the original recommendations based on the plans, site conditions or
other supporting data. If the geotechnical engineer who reviews the plans and specifications is not the same
engineer who prepared the geotechnical report, the new engineer shall, in a letter to the City accompanying the
plans and specifications, express his or her agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the
geotechnical report and state that the plans and specifications conform to his or her recommendations.
d. The architect or structural engineer shall submit to the City, with the plans and specifications,
a letter or notation on the design drawings at the time of permit application stating that he or she has reviewed
the geotechnical report, understands its recommendations, has explained or has had explained to the owner
the risks of loss due to slides on the site, and has incorporated into the design the recommendations of the
report and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any
earth movement predicted in the report.
e. The owner shall execute a Sensitive Areas Covenant and Hold Harmless Agreement running
with the land, on a form provided by the City. The City will file the completed covenant with the King County
Department of Records and Elections at the expense of the applicant or owner. A copy of the recorded covenant
will be forwarded to the owner.
f. Whenever the City determines that the public interest would not be served by the issuance of
a permit in an area of potential geologic instability without assurance of a means of providing for restoration of
areas disturbed by, and repair of property damage caused by, slides arising out of or occurring during
construction, the Director may require assurance devices.
g. Where recommended by the geotechnical report, the applicant shall retain a geotechnical
engineer (preferably retain the geotechnical engineer who prepared the final geotechnical recommendations
and reviewed the plans and specifications) to monitor the site during construction. If a different geotechnical
engineer is retained, the new geotechnical engineer shall submit a letter to the City stating whether or not he/she
agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the original study. Further recommendations, signed and
sealed by the geotechnical engineer, and supporting data shall be provided should there be exceptions to the
original recommendations.
h. During construction the geotechnical engineer shall monitor compliance with the
recommendations in the geotechnical report, particularly site excavation, shoring, soil support for foundations
including piles, subdrainage installations, soil compaction and any other geotechnical aspects of the
construction. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the specific recommendations contained in the soils report
must be implemented. The geotechnical engineer shall provide to the City written, dated monitoring reports on
the progress of the construction at such timely intervals as shall be specified. Omissions or deviations from the
approved plans and specifications shall be immediately reported to the City. The final construction monitoring
report shall contain a statement from the geotechnical engineer that, based upon his or her professional opinion,
site observations and testing during the monitoring of the construction, the completed development substantially
complies with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and with all geotechnical-related permit
requirements. Occupancy of the project will not be approved until the report has been reviewed and accepted
by the Director.
i. Substantial weight shall be given to ensuring continued slope stability and the resulting public
health, safety and welfare in determining whether a development should be allowed.
Page 41 of 60
j. The City may impose conditions that address site-work problems which could include, but are
not limited to, limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the dry season, or sequencing activities such
as installing erosion control and drainage systems well in advance of construction. A permit will be denied if it
is determined by the Director that the development will increase the potential of soil movement that results in
an unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed development, its site or adjacent properties.
K. Sensitive Areas Permitted Uses and Alterations.
1. General Sensitive Areas Permitted Uses. All uses permitted in the Shoreline Jurisdiction
buffers are allowed in sensitive areas within the jurisdiction except:
a. Promenades
b. Recreational structures
c. Public pedestrian bridges
d. Vehicle bridges
e. New utilities
f. Plaza connectors
g. Water-dependent uses and their structures
h. Essential streets, roads and rights-of-way
i. Essential public facilities
j. Outdoor storage
2. In addition, the following uses are allowed:
a. Maintenance activities of existing landscaping and gardens in a sensitive area buffer including,
but not limited to, mowing lawns, weeding, harvesting and replanting of garden crops and pruning and planting
of vegetation. The removal of established native trees and shrubs is not permitted. Herbicide use in sensitive
areas or their buffers is not allowed without written permission of the City.
b. Vegetation maintenance as part of sensitive area enhancement, creation or restoration.
Herbicide use in sensitive areas or their buffers is not allowed without written permission of the City.
3. Conditional Uses. Dredging, where necessary to remediate contaminated sediments, if adverse
impacts are mitigated, may be permitted.
4. Wetland Alterations. Alterations to wetlands are discouraged, are limited to the minimum
necessary for project feasibility, and must have an approved mitigation plan developed in accordance with the
standards in this chapter.
a. Mitigation for wetlands shall follow the mitigation sequencing steps in this chapter and may include
the following types of actions:
(1) Creation — the manipulation of the physical, chemical or biological characteristics of a site to
develop a wetland on an upland or deepwater site, where a biological wetland did not previously exist;
(2) Re-establishment — the manipulation of the physical, chemical or biological characteristics of a
site with the goal of restoring wetland functions to a former wetland, resulting in a net increase in wetland acres
and functions;
(3) Rehabilitation — the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics with the
goal of repairing historic functions and processes of a degraded wetland, resulting in a gain in wetland function
but not acreage;
(4) Enhancement — the manipulation of the physical, chemical or biological characteristics to
heighten, intensify, or improve specific functions (such as vegetation) or to change the growth stage or
composition of the vegetation present, resulting in a change in wetland functions but not a gain in wetland
acreage; or
(5) A combination of the three types.
b. Allowed alterations per wetland type and mitigation ratios are as follows:
(1) Alterations are not permitted to Category I wetlands unless specifically exempted under the
provisions of this Program. Mitigation will still be required at a rate of 4:1 for creation or re-establishment, 8:1
for rehabilitation, and 16:1 for enhancement.
Page 42 of 60
(2) Alterations are not permitted to Category II wetlands unless specifically exempted under the
provisions of this Program. Mitigation will still be required at a rate of 3:1 for creation or re-establishment, 6:1
for rehabilitation, and 12:1 for enhancement.
(3) Alterations to Category III wetlands are prohibited except where the location or configuration of
the wetland provides practical difficulties that can be resolved by modifying up to .10 (one-tenth) of an acre of
wetland. Mitigation for any alteration to a Category III wetland must be located contiguous to the altered
wetland. Mitigation for any alteration to a Category III wetland must be provided at a ratio of 2:1 for creation or
re-establishment, 4:1 for rehabilitation and 8:1 for enhancement alone.
(4) Alterations to Category IV wetlands are allowed, where unavoidable and adequate mitigation is
carried out in accordance with the standards of this section. Mitigation for alteration to a Category IV wetland
will be 1.5:1 for creation or re-establishment and 3:1 for rehabilitation and 6:1 for enhancement.
(5) Isolated wetlands formed on fill material in highly disturbed environmental conditions and
assessed as having low overall wetland functions (scoring below 20 points) may be altered and/or relocated
with the permission of the Director. These wetlands may include artificial hydrology or wetlands unintentionally
created as the result of construction activities. The determination that a wetland is isolated is made by the US
Army Corps of Engineers.
5. Watercourse Alterations. All impacts to a watercourse that degrade the functions and values of
the watercourse shall be avoided. Alterations to a water course that improve salmon access and habitat (such
as fish barrier removals) are encouraged. If adverse alteration to the watercourse is unavoidable, all adverse
impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the approved mitigation plan as described in this chapter.
Mitigation shall take place on-site or as close as possible to the impact location, and compensation shall be at
a minimum 1:1 ratio. Any mitigation shall result in improved watercourse functions over existing conditions.
a. Diverting or rerouting may only occur with the permission of the Director and an approved
mitigation plan, as well as all necessary approvals by state agencies. Any watercourse that has critical wildlife
habitat or is necessary for the life cycle or spawning of salmonids shall not be rerouted, unless it can be shown
that the habitat will be improved for the benefit of the species. A watercourse may be rerouted or day-lighted
as a mitigation measure to improve watercourse function.
b. Piping of any watercourse should be avoided. Relocation of a watercourse is preferred to piping;
if piping occurs in a watercourse sensitive area, it shall be limited and shall require approval of the Director.
Piping of Type 1 watercourses shall not be permitted. Piping may be allowed in Type 2, 3 or 4 watercourses if
it is necessary for access purposes. Piping may be allowed in Type 4 watercourses if the watercourse has a
degraded buffer, is located in a highly-developed area and does not provide shade, temperature control, etc.
for habitat. The applicant must comply with the conditions of this section, including: providing excess capacity
to meet the needs of the system during a 100-year flood event, and providing flow restrictors and complying
with water quality and existing habitat enhancement procedures.
c. No process that requires maintenance on a regular basis will be acceptable unless this
maintenance process is part of the regular and normal facilities maintenance process or unless the applicant
can show funding for this maintenance is ensured for as long as the use remains.
d. Piping projects shall be performed pursuant to the following applicable standards:
(1) The conveyance system shall be designed to comply with the standards in current use and
recommended by the Department of Public Works.
(2) Where allowed, piping shall be limited to the shortest length possible as determined by the Director
to allow access onto a property.
(3) Where water is piped for an access point, those driveways or entrances shall be consolidated to
serve multiple properties where possible, and to minimize the length of piping.
(4) When required by the Director, watercourses under drivable surfaces shall be contained in an
arch culvert using oversize or super span culverts for rebuilding of a streambed. These shall be provided with
check dams to reduce flows, and shall be replanted and enhanced according to a plan approved by the Director.
(5) All watercourse crossings shall be designed to accommodate fish passage. Watercourse
crossings shall not block fish passage where the streams are fish bearing.
Page 43 of 60
(6) Stormwater run-off shall be detained and infiltrated to preserve the watercourse channel’s
dominant discharge.
(7) All construction shall be designed to have the least adverse impact on the watercourse, buffer and
surrounding environment.
(8) Piping shall be constructed during periods of low flow, or as allowed by the State Department of
Fish and Wildlife.
(9) Water quality must be as good or better for any water exiting the pipe as for the water entering
the pipe, and flow must be comparable.
6. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Area Alterations. Alterations to the Green/Duwamish River are
regulated by the shoreline provisions of this SMP. Alterations to Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas that have
been created as restoration or habitat enhancement sites and are shown on the Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline
Jurisdiction Map are prohibited and may only be authorized through a shoreline variance procedure.
L. Sensitive Areas Mitigation. Mitigation shall be required for any proposals for dredging, filling,
piping, diverting, relocation or other alterations of sensitive areas as allowed in this chapter and in accordance
with mitigation sequencing and the established mitigation ratios. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part
of a sensitive area study by a qualified specialist.
1. Mitigation Sequencing. Applicants shall demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been
examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive areas and buffers. When an alteration to a
sensitive area or its required buffer is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized or compensated
for in the following order of preference:
a. Avoidance of sensitive area and buffer impacts, whether by finding another site or changing the
location of the proposed activity on-site;
b. Minimizing sensitive area and buffer impacts by limiting the degree of impact on site;
c. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing, enhancing, or substitution.
2. Criteria for Approval of Alterations and Mitigation. Alterations and mitigation plans are subject
to Director approval, and may be approved only if the following findings are made:
a. The alteration will not adversely affect water quality;
b. The alteration will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitat;
c. The alteration will not have an adverse effect on drainage and/or stormwater detention
capabilities;
d. The alteration will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create an erosion hazard or contribute
to scouring actions;
e. The alteration will not be materially detrimental to any other property; and
f. The alteration will not have adverse effects on any other sensitive areas or the shoreline.
g. The mitigation will result in improved functions such as water quality, erosion control, wildlife and
fish habitat.
3. Mitigation Location.
a. On-site mitigation shall be provided, except where it can be demonstrated that:
(1) On-site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, or other
factors; or
(2) Mitigation is not practical due to potentially adverse impacts from surrounding land uses; or
(3) Existing functional values created at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater
than lost sensitive area functions; or
(4) Established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other sensitive area
functions have been established and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site.
b. Off-site mitigation shall occur within the shoreline jurisdiction in a location where the sensitive area
functions can be restored. Buffer impacts must be mitigated at or as close as possible to the location of the
impact.
c. Wetland creation, relocation of a watercourse, or creation of a new fish and wildlife habitat shall
not result in the new sensitive area or buffer extending beyond the development site and onto adjacent property
without the agreement of the affected property owners, unless otherwise exempted by this chapter.
Page 44 of 60
4. Mitigation Plan Content and Standards. Mitigation Plan Content and Standards. The scope
and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case-by-case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area
increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The minimum
components of a complete mitigation plan are listed below. For wetland mitigation plans, the format should
follow that established in “Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2—Developing Mitigation Plans”
(Washington Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, EPA, March 2006, as amended).
a. Baseline information of quantitative data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for
both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site.
b. Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This
should include a description of site-selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species, and resource
functions.
c. Performance standards for the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning
remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and
diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. The following
shall be considered the minimum performance standards for approved sensitive area alterations:
(1) Sensitive area functions and improved habitat for fish and wildlife are improved over those of the
original conditions.
(2) Hydrologic conditions, hydroperiods and watercourse channels are improved over existing
conditions and the specific performance standards specified in the approved mitigation plan are achieved.
(3) Acreage requirements for enhancement or creation are met.
(4) Vegetation native to the Pacific Northwest is installed and vegetation survival and coverage
standards over time are met and maintained.
(5) Buffer and bank conditions and functions exceed the original state.
(6) Stream channel habitat and dimensions are maintained or improved such that the fisheries habitat
functions of the compensatory stream reach meet or exceed that of the original stream.
d. A detailed construction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques.
This plan should include the proposed construction sequence and construction management, and be
accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development
proposal.
e. Monitoring and/or evaluation program that outlines the approach and frequency for assessing
progress of the completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be
evaluated and reported.
f. Maintenance plan that outlines the activities and frequency of maintenance to ensure compliance
with performance standards.
g. Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action and any corrective measures to be taken
when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met.
h. Performance security or other assurance devices.
5. Mitigation Timing.
a. Mitigation projects shall be completed prior to activities that will permanently disturb sensitive
areas or their buffers and either prior to or immediately after activities that will temporarily disturb sensitive
areas.
b. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife, flora and
water quality, and shall be completed prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. The Director
may allow activities that permanently disturb wetlands or watercourses prior to implementation of the mitigation
plan under the following circumstances:
(1) To allow planting or re-vegetation to occur during optimal weather conditions;
(2) To avoid disturbance during critical wildlife periods; or
(3) To account for unique site constraints that dictate construction timing or phasing.
c. Monitoring of buffer alterationsof all mitigation components shall be required for three to five years.
All other alterations shall be monitored for minimum of five years.
Page 45 of 60
6. Corrective Actions and Monitoring. The Director shall require subsequent corrective actions
and long-term monitoring of the project, for a minimum of 5 additional years, if adverse impacts to regulated
sensitive areas or their buffers are identified.
7. Recording. The property owner receiving approval of a use or development pursuant to the
Shoreline Master Program shall record the City-approved site plan clearly delineating the sensitive area and its
buffer with the King County Division of Records and Elections. The face of the site plan must include a
statement that the provisions of this chapter, as of the effective date of the ordinance from which the Shoreline
Management Program derives or is thereafter amended, control use and development of the subject property,
and provide for any responsibility of the latent defects or deficiencies.
8. Assurance Device.
a. The Director may require a letter of credit or other security device acceptable to the City, to
guarantee performance and maintenance requirements. All assurances shall be on a form approved by the
City Attorney.
b. When alteration of a sensitive area is approved, the Director may require an assurance device,
on a form approved by the City Attorney, to cover the monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies
for the term of the approved monitoring and maintenance program.
c. The assurance device shall be released by the Director upon receipt of written confirmation
submitted to the Department from the applicant’s qualified professional that the mitigation or restoration has
met its performance standards and is successfully established. Should the mitigation or restoration meet
performance standards and be successfully established in the third or fourth year of monitoring, the City may
release the assurance device early. The assurance device may be held for a longer period, if at the end of the
monitoring period, the performance standards have not been met or the mitigation has not been successfully
established.
d. Release of the security does not absolve the property owner of responsibility for maintenance or
correcting latent defects or deficiencies or other duties under law.
(Ord. 2346 §9, 2011)
Page 46 of 60
18.44.100080 Public Access to the Shoreline
A. Applicability.
1. Public access shall be provided on all property that abuts the Green/Duwamish River shoreline in
accordance with this section as further discussed below where any of the following conditions are present:
a. Where a development or use will create increased demand for public access to the shoreline,
the development or use shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. For the purposes of this section, an
“increase in demand for public access” is determined by evaluating whether the development reflects an
increase in the land use intensity (for example converting a warehouse to office or retail use), or a significant
increase in the square footage of an existing building. A significant increase is defined as an increase of 3,000
square feet.
b. Where a development or use will interfere with an existing public access way, the development
or use shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. Impacts to public access may include blocking access
or discouraging use of existing on-site or nearby accesses.
c. Where a use or development will interfere with a public use of lands or waters subject to the
public trust doctrine, the development shall provide public access to mitigate this impact.
d. Where the development is proposed by a public entity or on public lands.
e. Where identified on the Shoreline Public Access Map in the Shoreline Master Program.
f. Where a land division of five or greater lots, or a residential project of five or greater residential
units, is proposed.
2. For the purposes of this section, an “increase in demand for public access” is determined by
evaluating whether the development reflects an increase in the land use intensity, for example converting a
warehouse to office or retail use, or a significant increase in the square footage of an existing building. A
significant increase is defined as an increase of 3,000 square feet. The extent of public access required will be
proportional to the amount of increase in the demand for public access. For smaller projects, the Director will
review the intent of this section and the scope of the project to determine a reasonable amount of public access
to be carried out. Depending on the amount of increase, the project may utilize the alternative provisions for
meeting public access in TMC Section 18.44.08100(F). The terms and conditions of TMC Sections
18.44.100080(A) and (B) shall be deemed satisfied if the applicant and the City agree upon a master trail plan
providing for public paths and trails within a parcel or group of parcels.
3. The provisions of this section do not apply to the following:
a. Short plats of four or fewer lots;
b. Where providing such access would cause unavoidable health or safety hazards;
c. Where an area is limited to authorized personnel and providing such access would create
inherent and unavoidable security problems that cannot be mitigated through site design or fencing; or
d. Where providing such access would cause significant ecological impacts that cannot be
mitigated.
An applicant claiming an exemption under items 3(b) - (d) above must comply with the procedures
in TMC Section 18.44.100080(F).
B. General Standards.
1. To improve public access to the Green/Duwamish River, sites shall be designed to provide:
a. Safe, visible and accessible pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle connections between
proposed development and the river’s edge, particularly when the site is adjacent to the Green River Trail or
other approved trail system; and
b. Public pathway entrances that are clearly visible from the street edge and identified with
signage; and
c. Clearly identified pathways that are separate from vehicular circulation areas. This may be
accomplished through the use of special distinct paving materials such as precast paversbomonite, changes in
color or distinct and detailed scoring patterns and textures.
d. Site elements that are organized to clearly distinguish between public and private access and
circulation systems.
Commented [CL67]: This language duplicates the language
above and should be deleted from this section.
Commented [NG68]: This provision was difficult to
understand and enforce so we have proposed more specific
language.
Commented [NG69]: The City has developed a sign design to
indicate shoreline access points.
Commented [MP70]: Brand name.
Page 47 of 60
2. Required public access shall be fully developed and available for public use at the time of
occupancy in accordance with development permit conditions except where the decision maker determines an
appropriate mechanism for delayed public access implementation is necessary for practical reasons. Where
appropriate, a bond or cash assignment may be approved, on review and approval by the Director of Community
Development, to extend this requirement for 90 days from the date the Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
3. Public access easements and related permit conditions shall be recorded on the deed of title or
the face of the plat, short plat or approved site plan as a condition tied to the use of the land. Recording with
the County shall occur prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit or final plat approval. Upon re-development
of such a site, the easement may be relocated to facilitate the continued public access to the shoreline.
4. Approved signs indicating the public’s right of access and hours of access, if restricted, shall be
constructed, installed and maintained by the applicant in conspicuous locations at public access sites. Signs
should be designed to distinguish between public and private areas. Signs controlling or restricting public
access may be approved as a condition of permit approval.
5. Required access must be maintained throughout the life of the projectin perpetuity.
6. Public access features shall be separated from residential uses through the use of setbacks, low
walls, berms, landscaping, or other device of a scale and materials appropriate to the site.
7. Shared public access between developments is encouraged. Where access is to be shared
between adjacent developments, the minimum width for the individual access easement may be reduced,
provided the total width of easements contributed by each adjacent development equals a width that complies
with Fire Department requirements and/or exceeds the minimum for an individual access.
8. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public area (e.g., street, public park,
or adjoining public access easement). Where connections are not currently possible, the site shall be designed
to accommodate logical future connections.
C. Requirements for Shoreline Trails. Where public access is required under TMC Section
18.44.100080(A)1 above, the requirement will be met by provision of a shoreline trail as follows:
1. Development on Properties Abutting Existing Green River Trail. An applicant seeking to
develop property abutting the existing trail shall meet public access requirements by upgrading the trail along
the property frontage to meet the standards of a 1412-foot-wide trail with 2-foot shoulders on each side. If a 12
foot wide trail exists on the property it shall mean public access requirements have been met if access to the
trail exists within 1000 feet of the property.
2. Development on Properties Where New Regional Trails are Planned. An applicant seeking
to develop property abutting the river in areas identified for new shoreline trail segments shall meet public
access requirements by dedicating an 1816-foot-wide trail easement to the City for public access along the
river.
3. On-site Trail Standards. Trails providing access within a property, park or restoration site shall be
developed at a width appropriate to the expected usage and environmental sensitivity of the site.
D. Publicly-Owned Shorelines.
1. Shoreline development by any public entities, including but not limited to the City of Tukwila, King
County, port districts, state agencies, or public utility districts, shall include public access measures as part of
each development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security,
impact to the shoreline environment or other provisions listed in this section.
2. The following requirements apply to street ends and City-owned property adjacent to the river.
a. Public right-of-way and "road-ends," or portions thereof, shall not be vacated and shall be
maintained for future public access.
b. Unimproved right-of-ways and portions of right-of-ways, such as street ends and turn-outs,
shall be dedicated to public access uses until such time as the portion becomes improved right-of-way. Uses
shall be limited to passive outdoor recreation, car tophand carry boat launching, fishing, interpretive/educational
uses, and/or parking, which that accommodates these uses, and shall be designed so as to not interfere with
the privacy of adjacent residential uses.
Commented [CL71]: This trail width matches the Walk and
Roll Plan standards but is not practical as it doesn’t match the
County’s trail width standard or our Parks Dept. standard. As a
result, we’ve had several variance requests for projects that
couldn’t meet the standard. I think we should go back to our earlier
standard which I think was 12 ft. paved with two-foot shoulders on
either side..
Commented [MP72]: A wider trail may require fill along the
shoreline AND inhibits the ability to create gentler slopes per
Shoreline MP, which provide shallow water habitat as well as room
for trees/native vegetation. Recommend not widening trail except
in specific view/access locations.
Commented [NG73]: The PC made this addition in response
to a public comment that not all trails need to be 16 feet wide.
Page 48 of 60
c. City-owned facilities within the Shoreline Jurisdiction shall provide new trails and trail
connections to the Green River Trail in accordance with approved plans and this SMP.
d. All City-owned recreational facilities within the Shoreline Jurisdiction, unless qualifying for an
exemption as specified in this chapter, shall make adequate provisions for:
(1) Non-motorized and pedestrian access;
(2) The prevention of trespass onto adjacent properties through landscaping, fencing or
other appropriate measures;
(3) Signage indicating the public right-of-way to shoreline areas; and
(4) Mechanisms to prevent environmental degradation of the shoreline from public use.
E. Public Access Incentives.
1. The minimum yard setback for buildings, uses, utilities or development from non-riverfront lot lines
may be reduced as follows:
a. Where a development provides a public access corridor between that connects off-site areas,
or public shoreline areas to public shoreline areas, one side yard may be reduced to a zero lot line placement;
or
b. Where a development provides additional public access area(s) equal in area to at least 2.5%
of total building area, the front yard (the landward side of the development) may be reduced by 50%.
2. The maximum height for structures withiin the shoreline jurisdiction may be increased by 15% feet
when:
a. Development devotes at least 5% of its building or land area to public shoreline access; or
b. Development devotes at least 10% of its land area to employee shoreline access.
3. The maximum height for structures under TMC Section 18.44.0570.C.3. and this section may
be increased by a maximum of 25% when:
a. One of the criteria in TMC Section 18.44.100080.E.2 is met; and
b. The applicant restores or enhances the entire shoreline buffer, including, but not limited to,
paved areas no longer in use on the property to offset the impact of the increase in height. Buffer
restoration/enhancement projects undertaken to meet the requirements of TMC Section 18.44.100080(F) do
not qualify as restoration or enhancement for purposes of the height incentive provided in this subsection.
c. No combination of incentives may be used to gain more than a 25% total height increase for a
structure.
43. The maximum height for structures within the shoreline jurisdiction may be increased by 15
feet for properties that construct a 1412-foot-wide paved trail with a 2-foot-wide shoulder on each side for public
access along the river in areas identified for new shoreline trail segments, or where, in the case of properties
containing or abutting existing public access trails, the existing trail either meets the standard of a 1412-foot-
wide trail with 2-foot-wide shoulders on either side or the property owner provides any necessary easements
and improvements to upgrade the existing trail to that standard along the property frontage.
4. During the project review, the project proponent shall increased height shall be affirmatively
demonstrated to that the increased height will:
a. Not block the views of a substantial number of residences;
b. Not cause environmental impacts such as, but not limited to, shading of the river buffer or light
impacts adversely affecting the river corridor; and
c. Achieve no net loss of ecological function; and.
d. Not combine incentives to increase the allowed building height above the maximum height in
the parcel’s zoning district. In no case shall the building height be greater than 115 feet pursuant to this
provision.
F. Exemptions from Provision of On-Site Public Access.
1. Requirements for providing on-site general public access, as distinguished from employee
access, will not apply if the applicant can demonstrate one or more of the following:
a. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist such as active railroad tracks or
hazardous chemicals related to the primary use that cannot be prevented by any practical means.
Commented [NG74]: This reasoning is similar to the prior
incentive increase for landscaping. A 6.75 foot increase is of limited
value but a 15 foot increase could allow for an additional building
story. The PC opted to change to a fixed height increase rather
than a percentage.
Commented [NG75]: This duplicates the incentive at
18.44.050 C 3d.
Commented [NG76]: We have not seen much use of these
incentives, therefore this 25% limit is not necessary.
Commented [MP77]: Not necessarily bad from an
environmental point-of-view; many flora/fauna thrive in shade
environements
Page 49 of 60
b. The area is limited to authorized personnel and Iinherent security requirements of the use
cannot be satisfied through the application of alternative design features or other solutions.
c. The cost of providing the access, easement or other public amenity on or off the development
site is unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term cost of the proposed development.
d. Unavoidable environmental harm or net loss of shoreline ecological functions that cannot be
adequately mitigated will result from the public access.
e. Access is not feasible due to the configuration of existing parcels and structures, such that
access areas are blocked in a way that cannot be remedied reasonably by the proposed development.
f. Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between the proposed access and adjacent uses
would occur and cannot be mitigated.
g. Space is needed for water-dependent uses or navigation.
2. In order to meet any of the above-referenced conditions, the applicant must first demonstrate, and
the City determine in its findings through a Type II decision, that all reasonable alternatives have been
exhausted including, but not limited to:
a. Regulating access by such means as maintaining a gate and/or limiting hours of use;
b. Designing separation of uses and activities through fencing, terracing, hedges or other design
features; or
c. Providing access on a site geographically separate from the proposal such as a street end
cannot be accomplished.
3. If the above conditions are demonstrated, and the proposed development is not subject to the
Parks Impact Fee, alternative provisions for meeting public access are required and include:
a. Development of public access at an adjacent street end; or
b. Protection through easement or setbacks of landmarks, unique natural features or other areas
valuable for their interpretive potential; or
c. Contribution of materials and/or labor toward projects identified in the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, the Shoreline Restoration Plan, or other City adopted plan; or
d. In lieu of providing public access under this section, at the Director’s discretion, thea private
applicant may provide restoration/enhancement of the shoreline jurisdiction to a scale commensurate with the
foregone public access.
(Ord. 2346 §10, 2011)
18.44.110090 Shoreline Design Guidelines
The Green/Duwamish River is an amenity that should be valued and celebrated when designing projects
that will be located along its length. The river and its tributaries support salmon runs and resident trout, including
the ESA-listed Chinook salmon, Bull Trout and Steelhead. If any portion of a project falls within the shoreline
jurisdiction, then the entire project will be reviewed under these guidelines as well as the relevant sections of
the Design Review Chapter of the Zoning Code (TMC Chapter 18.60). The standards of TMC Chapter 18.60
shall guide the type of review, whether administrative or by the Board of Architectural Review.
A. The following standards apply to development, uses and activities in the Urban Conservancy and High
Intensity Environments and non-residential development in the Shoreline Residential Environment.
1. Relationship of Structure to Site. Development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall
demonstrate compliance with the following:
a. Respect and reflect the shape of the shoreline;
b. Orient building elements to site such that public river access, both visual and physical is
enhanced;
c. Orient buildings to allow for casual observation of pedestrian and trail activity from interior
spaces;
d. Site and orient buildings to provide maximum views from building interiors toward the river and
the shoreline;
e. Orient public use areas and private amenities to the river;
Commented [RL78]: This section should not apply to public
mitigation projects.
Commented [NG79]: The PC removed this in response to a
public comment that ESA requirements should not be mixed with
design guidelines.
Page 50 of 60
f. Clearly allocate spaces, accommodating parking, vehicular circulation and buildings to
preserve existing stands of vegetation or trees so that natural areas can be set aside, improved, or integrated
into site organization and planning;
g. Clearly define and separate public from non-public spaces with the use of paving, signage,
and landscaping.
2. Building Design. Development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall demonstrate compliance
with the following:
a. To prevent building mass and shape from overwhelming the desired human scale along the
river, development shall avoid blank walls on the public and river sides of buildings.
b. Buildings should be designed to follow the curve of the river and respond to changes in
topography; buildings must not “turn their back” to the river.
c. Design common areas in buildings to take advantage of shoreline views and access;
incorporate outdoor seating areas that are compatible with shoreline access.
d. Consider the height and scale of each building in relation to the site.
e. Extend site features such as plazas that allow pedestrian access and enjoyment of the river to
the landward side of the buffer’s edge.
f. Locate lunchrooms and other common areas to open out onto the water-ward side of the site
to maximize enjoyment of the river.
g. Design structures to take advantage of the river frontage location by incorporating features
such as:
(1) plazas and landscaped open space that connect with a shoreline trail system;
(2) windows that offer views of the river; or
(3) pedestrian entrances that face the river.
h. View obscuring fencing is permitted only when necessary for documentable use requirements
and must be designed with landscaping per the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. Other fencing,
when allowed, must be designed to complement the proposed and/or existing development materials and
design; and
i. Where there are public trails, locate any fencing between the site and the landward side of the
shoreline trail.
3. Design of Public Access. Development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall demonstrate
compliance with the following:
a. Public access shall be barrier free, where feasible, and designed consistent with the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
b. Public access landscape design shall use native vegetation, in accordance with the standards
in the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. Additional landscape features may be required where
desirable to provide public/private space separation and screening of utility, service and parking areas.
c. Furniture used in public access areas shall be appropriate for the proposed level of
development, and the character of the surrounding area. For example, large urban projects should provide
formal benches; for smaller projects in less-developed areas, simpler, less formal benches or suitable
alternatives such as boulders are appropriate.
d. Materials used in public access furniture, structures or sites shall be:
(1) Durable and capable of withstanding exposure to the elements;
(2) Environmentally friendly and take advantage of technology in building materials,
lighting, paved surfaces, porous pavement, etc, wherever practical; and
(3) Consistent with the character of the shoreline and the anticipated use.
e. Public-Private Separation.
(1) Public access facilities shall look and feel welcoming to the public, and not appear as
an intrusion into private property.
(2) Natural elements such as logs, grass, shrubs, and elevation separations are
encouraged as means to define the separation between public and private space.
Commented [RL80]: Large rocks have been used for
“benches” on habitat projects. I think we should encourage this
type of installation.
Page 51 of 60
4. Design of Flood Walls. The exposed new floodwalls should be designed to incorporate brick or
stone facing, textured concrete block, design elements formed into the concrete or vegetation to cover the
wall within 3 years
(Ord. 2346 §11, 2011)
18.44.120100 Shoreline Restoration
A. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Not Required. Shoreline restoration projects shall be
allowed without a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit when these projects meet the criteria established
by WAC 173-27-040(o) and (p) and RCW 90.58.580.
B. Changes in Shoreline Jurisdiction Due to Restoration.
1. Relief may be granted from Shoreline Master Program standards and use regulations in cases
where shoreline restoration projects result in a change in the location of the OHWM and associated Shoreline
Jurisdiction and/or critical area buffers on the subject property and/or adjacent properties, and where application
of this chapter’s regulations would preclude or interfere with the uses permitted by the underlying zoning, thus
presenting a hardship to the project proponent.
a. Applications for relief, as specified below, must meet the following criteria:
(1) The proposed relief is the minimum necessary to relieve the hardship;
(2) After granting the proposed relief, there is net environmental benefit from the restoration
project; and
(3) Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the shoreline restoration
project and with the Shoreline Master Program.
(4) Where a shoreline restoration project is created as mitigation to obtain a development
permit, the project proponent required to perform the mitigation is not eligible for relief under the provisions of
this section.
b. The Department of Ecology must review and approve applications for relief.
c. For the portion of property that moves from outside Shoreline Jurisdiction to inside Shoreline
Jurisdiction as a result of the shoreline restoration project, the City may consider the following, consistent with
the criteria in TMC Section 18.44.120100.B.1.a.
(1) permitting development for the full range of uses of the underlying zoning consistent
with the Zoning Code, including uses that are not water oriented;
(2) waiving the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit if it is
otherwise exempt from the requirement for a substantial development permit;
(3) waiving the provisions for public access;
(4) waiving the requirement for shoreline design review; and
(5) waiving the development standards set forth in this chapter.
d. The intent of the exemptions identified above in subparagraphs B.1.c.(1) to B.1.c.(5) is to
implement the restoration projects of the Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan, which reflects the projects
identified in the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Plan pursuant to Policy 5.2 of the SMP.
2. Consistent with provisions in 18.44.050, building heights may be increased if the project proponent
provides additional restoration and/or enhancement of the shoreline buffer, beyond what may otherwise be
required in accordance with the standards of TMC Section 18.44.060, “Vegetation Protection and Landscaping.”
Additional Restoration and/or enhancement shall include
a. creation of shallow-water (max slope 5H:1V) off channel rearing habitat and/or
b. removal of fish passage barriers to known or potential fish habitat, and restoration of the barrier
site.
3. Consistent with the provisions of subparagraphs B.1.a, 1.b and 1.c above, the Shoreline Residential
Environment Buffer, High Intensity, or Urban Conservancy Environment, or critical area bBuffer width may be
reduced to no less than 25 feet measured from the new location of the OHWM for the portion of the property
that moves from outside the Shoreline Jurisdiction to inside Shoreline Jurisdiction as a result of the shoreline
restoration project, subject to the following standards:
Commented [NG81]: PC adopted a staff suggestion to
also grant relief from critical areas buffers to property
owners adjacent to restoration sites
Page 52 of 60
a. The 25-foot buffer area must be vegetated according to the requirements of the Vegetation
Protection and Landscaping Section or as otherwise approved by the City; and
b. The proponents of the restoration project are responsible for the installation and maintenance
of the vegetation.
4. The habitat restoration project proponents must record with King County a survey that identifies
the location of the OHWM location prior to implementation of the shoreline restoration project, any structures
that fall within the Shoreline Jurisdiction, and the new location of the OHWM once construction of the shoreline
restoration project is completed.
5. Shoreline restoration projects must obtain all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife approvals as well as written approval from the City.
(Ord. 2346 §12, 2011)
18.44.130110 Administration
A. Applicability of Shoreline Master Program and Substantial Development Permit.
1. Development in the Shoreline Jurisdiction. Based on guidelines in the SMA for a Minimum
Shoreline Jurisdiction, Tukwila's Shoreline Jurisdiction is defined as follows: The Tukwila Shoreline Jurisdiction
includes the channel of the Green/Duwamish River, its banks, the upland area which extends from the OHWM
landward for 200 feet on each side of the river, floodways and all associated wetlands within its floodplain. The
floodway shall not include those lands that have historically been protected by flood control devices and
therefore have not been subject to flooding with reasonable regularity.
2. Applicability. The Tukwila SMP applies to uses, change of uses, activities or development that
occurs within the above-defined Shoreline Jurisdiction. All proposed uses and development occurring within
the Shoreline Jurisdiction must conform to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the SMA, and this chapter whether or not a
permit is required.
B. Relationship to Other Codes and Regulations
1. Compliance with this Master Program does not constitute compliance with other federal, state,
and local regulations and permit requirements that may apply. The applicant is responsible for
complying with all other applicable requirements.
2. Where this Master Program makes reference to any RCW, WAC, or other state or federal law or
regulation, the most recent amendment or current edition shall apply.
3. In the case of any conflict between any other federal, state, or local law and this Master
Program, the provision that is most protective of shoreline resources shall prevail, except when
constrained by federal or state law, or where specifically provided in this Master Program.
4. Relationship to Sensitive Areas Regulations.
A. For protection of critical areas where they occur in shoreline jurisdiction, this Master
Program adopts by reference the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance, which is incorporated into
this Master Program with specific exclusions and modifications in TMC Section 18.44.070.
B. All references to the Critical Areas Ordinance are for the version adopted [CAO adoption
date]. Pursuant to WAC 173-26-191(2)(b), amending the referenced regulations in the
Master Program for those critical areas under shoreline jurisdiction will require an
amendment to the Master Program and approval by the Department of Ecology.
C. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the Critical Areas Ordinance shall be liberally construed
together with this Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the
provisions of this Master Program and Chapter 90.58 RCW.
Page 53 of 60
BC. Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews. Requirements to
obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other review
to implement the Shoreline Management Act do not apply to the following described in WAC 173-27-044 and
WAC 173-27-045:
1. Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial action at a
facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW, or to
the department of ecology when it conducts a remedial action under chapter 70.105D RCW.
2. Boatyard improvements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any
person installing site improvements for storm water treatment in an existing boatyard facility to meet
requirements of a national pollutant discharge elimination system storm water general permit.
3. WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.356, Washington
State Department of Transportation projects and activities meeting the conditions of RCW 90.58.356 are not
required to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or
other local review.
1.4. Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant to RCW
90.58.045. (v) Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process, pursuant to
chapter 80.50 RCW.
CD. Substantial Development Permit Requirements.
1. Permit Application Procedures. Applicants for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
shall comply with permit application procedures in TMC Chapter 18.104.
2. Exemptions.
a. To qualify for an exemption, the proposed use, activity or development must meet the
requirements for an exemption as described in WAC 173-27-040, except for properties that meet the
requirements of the Shoreline Restoration Section, TMC Section 18.44.120100. The purpose of a shoreline
exemption is to provide a process for uses and activities which do not trigger the need for a Substantial
Development Permit, but require compliance with all provisions of the City’s SMP and overlay district.
b. The Director may impose conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses
as necessary to assure compliance of the project with the SMA and the Tukwila SMP, per WAC 173-27-040(e).
For example, in the case of development subject to a building permit but exempt from the shoreline permit
process, the Building Official or other permit authorizing official, through consultation with the Director, may
attach shoreline management terms and conditions to building permits and other permit approvals pursuant to
RCW 90.58.140.
3. A substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is
consistent with:
a. The policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act.
b. The provisions of Chapter 173-27, WAC; and
c. This the Shoreline Master Program.
DE. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
1. Purpose. As stated in WAC 173-27-160, the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is to
allow greater flexibility in the application of use regulations of this chapter in a manner consistent with the
policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit
by the City or the Department of Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or assure
consistency of the project with the SMA and the City’s SMP. Uses which are specifically prohibited by the
Shoreline Master Program may not be authorized with approval of a CUP.
2. Application. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits are a Type 4 Permit processed under TMC
Chapter 18.104.
3. Application requirements. Applicants must meet all requirements for permit application and
approvals indicated in TMC Chapter 18.104 and this chapter.
4. Approval Criteria.
a. Uses classified as shoreline conditional uses may be authorized, provided that the applicant
can demonstrate all of the following:
Page 54 of 60
(1) The proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the policies
of the Tukwila Shoreline Master Program;
(2) The proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;
(3) The proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other
permitted uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and this
chapter;
(4) The proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment
in which it is to be located; and
(5) The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
b. In the granting of all Conditional Use Permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative
impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if Conditional Use Permits were granted
to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also
remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58 and all local ordinances and shall not produce substantial
adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
EF. Shoreline Variance Permits.
1. Purpose. The purpose of a Shoreline Variance Permit is strictly limited to granting relief from
specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this chapter where there are extraordinary or
unique circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict
implementation of this chapter will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the Shoreline
Management Act policies as stated in RCW 90.58.020. Reasonable use requests that are located in the
shoreline must be processed as a variance, until such time as the Shoreline Management Act is amended to
establish a process for reasonable uses. Variances from the use regulations of this chapter are prohibited.
2. Application requirements. Applicants must meet all requirements for a Type 3 permit application
and approvals indicated in TMC Chapter 18.104.
3. Shoreline Variance Permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would
result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must
demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist and the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental
effect.
4. Approval Criteria. A Shoreline Variance Permit for a use, activity or development that will be
located landward of the ordinary high water mark and/or landward of any wetland may be authorized provided
the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
a. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this
chapter preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by this
chapter.
b. The hardship described in TMC Section 18.44.1130.D.4. is specifically related to the property
and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of
this chapter, and not from the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary
because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other
properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated.
c. The design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with
uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to
adjacent properties or the shoreline environment.
d. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in
the area.
e. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief.
f. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
g. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of
additional requests for like actions in the area such that the total of the variances would remain consistent with
RCW 90.58.020 and not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
5. Shoreline Variance Permits Waterward of OHWM.
Commented [CL82]: Same comment as for “b .” above..
Commented [CL83]: “b.” and “c” apply to all Variance
requests not just to permit waterward of the OHWM.
Page 55 of 60
a. Shoreline variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located either waterward
of the ordinary high water mark or within any sensitive critical area may be authorized only if the applicant can
demonstrate all of the following:
(1) The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in this
Master Program preclude all reasonable permitted use of the property;
(2) The proposal is consistent with the criteria established under TMC Section
18.44.1130.D.4., “Approval Criteria;” b. through g., and
(3) The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected
by the granting of the variance.
b. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of
additional requests for like actions in the area such that the total of the variances would remain consistent with
RCW 90.58.020 and not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
c. Variances from the use regulations of this chapter are prohibited.
FG. Non-Conforming Development.
1. Non-Conforming Uses. Any non-conforming lawful use of land that would not be allowed under
the terms of this chapter may be continued as an allowed, legal, non-conforming use, defined in TMC Chapter
18.06 or as hereafter amended, so long as that use remains lawful, subject to the following:
a. No such non-conforming use shall be enlarged, intensified, increased, moved or extended to
occupy a greater use of the land, structure or combination of the two, than was occupied at the effective date
of adoption of this chapter except as authorized in TMC Section 18.66.120 or upon approval of a conditional
use permit.
b. No non-conforming use shall be moved or extended in whole or in part to any other portion of
the lot or parcel occupied by such use on the effective date of adoption of this chapter.
bc. If any such non-conforming use ceases for any reason for a period of more than 24 consecutive
months, the non-conforming rights shall expire and any subsequent use shall conform to the regulations
specified by in this chapter for the shoreline environment in which such use is located, unless re-establishment
of the use is authorized through a Type 2 permit which must be applied for within the two-year period. Water-
dependent uses should not be considered discontinued when they are inactive due to dormancy, or where the
use is typically seasonal. Upon request of the owner, prior to the end of the 24 consecutive months and upon
reasonable cause shown, the City Council may grant an extension of time beyond the 24 consecutive months
using the criteria set forth in TMC Section 18.44.1030.EG.4.
dc. If a change of use is proposed to a use determined to be non-conforming by application of
provisions in this chapter, the proposed new use must be a permitted use in this chapter or a use approved
under a Type 2 permit with public notice process. For purposes of implementing this section, a change of use
constitutes a change from one permitted or conditional use category to another such use category as listed
within the Shoreline Use Matrix.
ed. A structure that is being or has been used for a non-conforming use may be used for a different
non-conforming use only upon the approval of a Type 2 permit subject to public notice. Before approving a
change in non-conforming use, the following findings must be made:
(1) No reasonable alternative conforming use is practical.
(2) The proposed use will be at least as consistent with the policies and provisions of the
SMP and as compatible with the uses in the area as the non-conforming use.
(3) The use or activity is enlarged, intensified, increased or altered only to the minimum
amount necessary to achieve the intended functional purpose.
(4) The structure(s) associated with the non-conforming use shall not be expanded in a
manner that increases the extent of the non-conformity.
(5) The change in use will not create adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions
and/or processes.
(6) The applicant restores and/or enhances the entire shoreline buffer , including but not
limited to, paved areas no longer in use on the property, to offset the impact of the change of use per the
Commented [CL84]: “b.” and “c” apply to all Variance
requests not just to permit waterward of the OHWM.
Commented [CL85]: Same comment as for “b .” above..
Commented [NG86]: This covers existing animal rendering
facilities.
Commented [NG87]: Covered by a above.
Page 56 of 60
vegetation management standards of this chapter. This may include the restoration of paved areas to vegetated
area if no longer in use.
(7) The use complies with the Type 2 permit process of TMC Chapter 18.104.
(8) The preference is to reduce exterior uses in the buffer to the maximum extent possible.
2. Non-Conforming Structures. Where a lawful structure exists on the effective date of adoption
of this chapter that could not be built under the terms of this chapter by reason of restrictions on height, buffers
or other characteristics of the structure, it may be continued as an allowed, legal structure so long as the
structure remains otherwise lawful subject to the following provisions:
a. Such structures may be repaired, maintained, upgraded and altered provided that:
(1) The structure may not be enlarged or altered in such a way that increases its degree of
nonconformity or increases its impacts to the functions and values of the shoreline environment except as
authorized in TMC Section 18.66.120; and
(2) If the structure is located on a property that has no reasonable development
potential outside the shoreline buffer, there shall be no limit on the cost of alterations. If the structure
is located on a property that has reasonable development potential outside the shoreline buffer,Tthe
cost of the alterations may not exceed an aggregate cost of 50% of the value of the building or
structure in any 3-year period based upon its most recent assessment, unless the amount over 50%
is used to make the building or structure more conforming, or is used to restore to a safe condition
any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority.
(3) Maintenance or repair of an existing private bridge is allowed without a conditional use permit
when it does not involve the use of hazardous substances, sealants or other liquid oily substances.
b. Should such structure be destroyed by any accidental means, the structure may be
reconstructed to its original dimensions and location on the lot provided application is made for permits within
12 monthstwo years of the date the damage occurred and all reconstruction is completed within two years of
permit issuance. In the event the property is redeveloped, such redevelopment must be in conformity with the
provisions of this chapter.
c. Should such structure be moved for any reason or any distance, it must be brought as closely
as practicable into conformance with the applicable master program and the act.whatsoever, it shall thereafter
conform to the regulations of this chapter after it is moved.
d. When a non-conforming structure, or structure and premises in combination, is vacated or
abandoned for 24 consecutive months, the structure, or structure and premises in combination, shall thereafter
be required to be in conformance with the regulations of this chapter. Upon request of the owner, prior to the
end of the 24 consecutive months and upon reasonable cause shown, the City Council may grant an extension
of time beyond the 24 consecutive months may be granted using the criteria in TMC Section 18.44.1130.E.4.
e. Residential structures located in any Shoreline Residential Environment and in existence at
the time of adoption of this chapter shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of height, residential use, or
location provisions of this title. Such buildings may be rebuilt after a fire or other natural disaster to their original
dimensions, location and height, but may not be changed except as provided in the non-conforming uses section
of this chapter.
f. Single-family structures in the Shoreline Residential Environment that have legally non-
conforming setbacks from the OHWM per the SMP buffer shall be allowed to expand the ground floor only along
the existing building line(s) as long as the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the OHWM
is not reduced and the square footage of new intrusion into the buffer does not exceed 50% of the square
footage of the current intrusion. As a condition of building permit approval, a landscape plan showing removal
of invasive plant species within the entire shoreline buffer and replanting with appropriate native species must
be submitted to the City. Plantings should be maintained through the establishment period.
g. A non-conforming use, within a non-conforming structure, shall not be allowed to expand into
any other portion of the structure.
3. For the purposes of this section, altered or partially reconstructed is defined as work that does not
exceed 50% of the assessed valuation of the building over a three-year period.
Commented [NG88]: This is addressed in e above.
Commented [NG89]: The PC added this language in
response to a public comment.
Commented [NG90]: The PC added this language in
response to a public comment.
Commented [CL91]: The process identified here conflicts with
#4 below. My view is the Type 2 permit is a more reasonable
process to use.
Commented [NG92]: It is not clear what the environmental
benefit is to restricting uses within an existing structure.
Page 57 of 60
4. Requests for Time Extension—Non-conforming Uses and Structures.
a. A property owner may request, prior to the end of the 24 consecutive monthstwo–year period,
an extension of time beyond the 24 consecutive months two-year period. Such a request shall be considered
as a Type 2 permit under TMC Chapter 18.104 and may be approved only when:
(1) For a non-conforming use, a finding is made that no reasonable alternative conforming
use is practical.
(2) For a non-conforming structure, special economic circumstances prevent the lease or
sale of said structure within 24 months.
(3) The applicant restores and/or enhances the shoreline buffer on the property to offset
the impact of the continuation of the non-conforming use. For non-conforming uses, the amount of buffer to be
restored and/or enhanced will be determined based on the percentage of the existing building used by the non-
conforming use for which a time extension is being requested. Depending on the size of the area to be restored
and/or enhanced, the Director may require targeted plantings rather than a linear planting arrangement. The
vegetation management standards of this program shall be used for guidance on any restoration/enhancement.
For non-conforming structures, for each six-month extension of time requested, 15% of the available buffer
must be restored/enhanced.
b. Conditions may be attached to the permit that are deemed necessary to assure compliance
with the above findings, the requirements of the Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act and to
assure that the use will not become a nuisance or a hazard.
5. Building Safety. Nothing in this SMP shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring
to a safe condition of any non-conforming building or part thereof declared to be unsafe by order of any City
official charged with protecting the public safety.
a. Alterations or expansion of a non-conforming structure that are required by law or a public
agency in order to comply with public health or safety regulations are the only alterations or expansions allowed.
b. Alterations or expansions permitted under this section shall be the minimum necessary to meet
the public safety concerns.
6. Non-Conforming Parking Lots.
a. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to require a change in any aspect of a
structure or facility covered thereunder including, without limitation, parking lot layout, loading space
requirements and curb-cuts, for any structure or facility which existed on the date of adoption of this chapter.
b. If a change of use takes place or an addition is proposed that requires an increase in the
parking area by an increment less than 100%, the requirements of this chapter shall be complied with for the
additional parking area.
c. If a property is redeveloped, a change of use takes place or an addition is proposed that
requires an increase in the parking area by an increment greater than 100%, the requirements of this chapter
shall be complied with for the entire parking area.
d. If no change in parking lot area is proposed, a non-conforming parking lot may be upgraded to
improve water quality or meet local, state, and federal regulations.
7. Non-Conforming Landscape Areas.
a. Adoption of the vegetation protection and landscaping regulations contained in this chapter
shall not be construed to require a change in the landscape improvements for any legal landscape area that
existed on the date of adoption of this chapter, unless and until the property is redeveloped or alteration of the
existing structure is made beyond the thresholds provided herein.
b. At such time as the property is redeveloped or the existing structure is altered beyond the
thresholds provided herein and the associated premises does not comply with the vegetation protection and
landscaping requirements of this chapter, a landscape plan that conforms to the requirements of this chapter
shall be submitted to the Director for approval.
GH. Revisions to Shoreline Permits
Commented [NG93]: We have a lot of parking areas in the
shoreline buffer. We have debated how this section guides their
use when the site is redeveloped or changes use.
Commented [RL94]: We need to allow non-conforming
parking lot upgrades to improve water quality or meet local, state,
and federal regulation. This could include paving gravel or dirt
parking, storm systems meeting current requirements, or other
BMPs.
Commented [NG95]: We realized we didn’t have criteria to
review this request when Tukwila South made a request for a time
extension.
We had at least one in the Boeing DSOA that took a fair amount of
time to review and issue a revised permit.
Page 58 of 60
1. Revisions to previously issued shoreline permits shall be reviewed under the SMP in effect at the
time of submittal of the revision, and not the SMP under which the original shoreline permit was
approved and processed in accordance with WAC 173-27-100.
HI. Time Limits on Shoreline Permits
1. Consistent with WAC 173-27-090, shoreline permits are valid for two years, and the work authorized
under the shoreline permit must be completed in five years. Construction activity must begin within
this two-year period. If construction has not begun within two years, a one-time extension of one
year may be approved by the Director based on reasonable factors. The permit time period does
not include the time during which administrative appeals or legal actions are pending or due to the
need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the project.
2. Upon a finding of good cause, based on the requirements and circumstances of a proposed project,
and consistent with the City’s Shoreline Master Program, the City may adopt a different time limit
for a shoreline substantial development permit as part of an action on a shoreline substantial
development permit.
(Ord. 2346 §13, 2011)
18.44.140120 Appeals
Any appeal of a decision by the City on a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional
Use or Shoreline Variance must be appealed to the Shoreline Hearing Board.
(Ord. 2346 §14, 2011)
18.44.150130 Enforcement and Penalties
A. Violations. The following actions shall be considered violations of this chapter:
1. To use, construct or demolish any structure, or to conduct clearing, earth-moving, construction or
other development not authorized under a Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit or Variance
Permit, where such permit is required by this chapter.
2. Any work which is not conducted in accordance with the plans, conditions, or other requirements
in a permit approved pursuant to this chapter, provided that the terms or conditions are stated in the permit or
the approved plans.
3. To remove or deface any sign, notice, complaint or order required by or posted in accordance with
this chapter.
4. To misrepresent any material fact in any application, plans or other information submitted to obtain
any shoreline use or development authorization.
5. To fail to comply with the requirements of this chapter.
B. Enforcement. It shall be the duty of the Director to enforce this chapter subject to the terms and
conditions of TMC Chapter 8.45.
C. Inspection Access.
1. For the purpose of inspection for compliance with the provisions of a permit or this chapter,
authorized representatives of the Director may enter all sites for which a permit has been issued.
2. Upon completion of all requirements of a permit, the applicant shall request a final inspection by
contacting the planner of record. The permit process is complete upon final approval by the planner.
D. Penalties.
1. Any violation of any provision of the SMP, or failure to comply with any of the requirements of this
chapter shall be subject to the penalties prescribed in Chapter 8.45 of the Tukwila Municipal Code
(“Enforcement”) and shall be imposed pursuant to the procedures and conditions set forth in that chapter.
2. Penalties assessed for violations of the SMP shall be determined by TMC Chapter 8.45.120.100,
Penalties.
3. It shall not be a defense to the prosecution for failure to obtain a permit required by this chapter,
that a contractor, subcontractor, person with responsibility on the site, or person authorizing or directing the
work, erroneously believed a permit had been issued to the property owner or any other person.
4. Penalties for Tree Removal
Commented [CL96]: WAC 173-27-090
Commented [CL97]: 173-27-090 (1) – this would address the
problem we ran into with Tukwila South’s shoreline substantial
development permit.
Commented [NG98]: This is consistent with the penalties for
unauthorized tree removal outside of the shoreline.
Page 59 of 60
a. Each unlawfully removed or damaged tree shall constitute a separate violation.
b. The amount of the penalty shall be $1,000 per tree or up to the marketable value of each tree
removed or damaged as determined by an ISA certified arborist. The Director may elect not to
seek penalties or may reduce the penalties if he/she determines the circumstances do not warrant
imposition of any or all of the civil penalties.
c. Any illegal removal of required trees shall be subject to obtaining a tree permit and replacement with
trees that meet or exceed the functional value of the removed trees. In addition, any shrubs and
groundcover removed without City approval shall be replaced.
d.To replace the tree canopy lost due to the tree removal, additional trees must be planted on-
site. Payment may be made into the City’s Tree Fund if the number of replacement trees cannot
be accommodated on-site. The number of replacement trees required will be based on the size
of the tree(s) removed as stated in TMC 18.44.060 B 4.
E. Remedial Measures Required. In addition to penalties provided in TMC Chapter 8.45, the Director
may require any person conducting work in violation of this chapter to mitigate the impacts of unauthorized work
by carrying out remedial measures.
1. Remedial measures must conform to the policies and guidelines of this chapter and the Shoreline
Management Act.
2. The cost of any remedial measures necessary to correct violation(s) of this chapter shall be borne
by the property owner and/or applicant.
F. Injunctive Relief.
1. Whenever the City has reasonable cause to believe that any person is violating or threatening to
violate this chapter or any rule or other provisions adopted or issued pursuant to this chapter, it may, either
before or after the institution of any other action or proceeding authorized by this ordinance, institute a civil
action in the name of the City for injunctive relief to restrain the violation or threatened violation. Such action
shall be brought in King County Superior Court.
2. The institution of an action for injunctive relief under this section shall not relieve any party to such
proceedings from any civil or criminal penalty prescribed for violations of the Master Program.
G. Abatement. Any use, structure, development or work that occurs in violation of this chapter, or in
violation of any lawful order or requirement of the Director pursuant to this section, shall be deemed to be a
public nuisance and may be abated in the manner provided by the Tukwila Municipal Code 8.45.105100.
(Ord. 2346 §15, 2011)
18.44.160150 Liability
A. Liability for any adverse impacts or damages resulting from work performed in accordance with a
permit issued on behalf of the City within the City limits shall be the sole responsibility of the owner of the site
for which the permit was issued.
B. No provision of or term used in this chapter is intended to impose any duty upon the City or any of its
officers or employees that would subject them to damages in a civil action.
(Ord. 2346 §16, 2011)
Page 60 of 60
AMENDMENTS TO OTHER ZONING CODE SECTIONS
18.52.030 Shoreline Landscape Requirements
Additional landscape requirements apply in the Shoreline Overlay District, as directed by TMC 18.44.060,
Vegetation Protection and Landscaping.
18.60.050 Board of Architectural Review
H. Shoreline Design Criteria. The criteria contained in the Shoreline Design Guidelines (18.44.090) shall
be used whenever the provisions of this title require a design review decision on a proposed or modified
development in the Shoreline Overlay District.
18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications
TYPE 2 DECISIONS
TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY
Shoreline buffer reduction Community Development Director State Shoreline Hearings Board
Extension of time for continuing a shoreline nonconforming use or structure Community Development Director State Shoreline Hearings Board
TYPE 3 DECISIONS TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Hearing Examiner APPEAL BODY State Shoreline Hearings Board
Page 1 of 41
CHAPTER 18.06
DEFINITIONS
18.06.210 Development
“Development” means the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation,
enlargement of any structure that requires a building permit. “Development” does not include dismantling or
removing structures if there is no other associated development or re-development.
18.06.Floodplain “Floodplain” means that land area susceptible to inundation with a one percent chance of
being equaled or exceeded in any given year (synonymous with 100-year floodplain). The limit of this area shall
be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or a reasonable method that meets the objectives of the
Shoreline Management Act.
18.06.338 Floodway
"Floodway" means the area that has been established in effective federal emergency
management agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps. The floodway does not include
lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices
maintained by or maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political
subdivision of the state.
18.06.691 River Channel “River channel” means that area of the river lying riverward of the mean high water
mark. (Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995)
18.06.757 Shorelines or Shoreline Areas “Shorelines” or “Shoreline areas” means all "shorelines of the state"
and "shorelands" as defined in RCW 90.58.030. (Ord. 2347 §33, 2011)
18.06.817 Substantial Development.
“Substantial development” means any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds
$7,047.00 or any development that materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of
the state. The dollar threshold established in this definition must be adjusted for inflation by the Office of
Financial Management every five years, beginning July 1, 2007, based upon changes in the Consumer Price
Index during that time period. “Consumer Price Index” means, for any calendar year, that year’s annual average
Consumer Price Index, Seattle, Washington area, for urban wage earners and clerical workers, all items,
compiled by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, United States Department of Labor. The following shall not be
considered substantial developments for the purpose of the Shoreline Management Act, but are not exempt
from complying with the substantive requirements of this Shoreline Master Program:
1. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including repair of damage caused
by accident, fire, or elements.
2. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements.
3. Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including
agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelands, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation
structures including but not limited to head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels. A feedlot of any
size, all processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, and alteration of the contour of the shorelands
by leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or
necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being
Page 2 of 41
used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing crops
or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations.
4. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys.
5. Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single family residence for
his own use or for the use of his or her family, which residence does not exceed a height of 35 feet above
average grade level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having
jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to this chapter.
6. Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private non-
commercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single and multiple family residences. This
exception applies if either:
(a) In salt waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed $2,500; or (
b) in fresh waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed
i)$22,500 for docks that are constructed to replace existing docks, and are of equal or lesser
square footage than the existing dock being replaced; or
ii) $11,200 for all other docks constructed on freshwaters.
iii) However, if subsequent construction occurs within five years of completion of the prior
construction, and the combined fair market value of the subsequent and prior construction exceeds the amount
specified above, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development for the purpose of
this chapter.
7. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that
now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of
making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored groundwater for the irrigation of lands.
8. The marking of property lines or corners on state owned lands, when such marking does not significantly
interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water.
9. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on
September 8, 1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or
diking system.
10. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for
development authorization under this chapter, if:
a. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters;
b. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including, but not limited to,
fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values;
c. The activity does not involve the installation of a structure, and upon completion of the activity the
vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity;
d. A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a performance bond
or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the local jurisdiction to ensure the site is restored to
preexisting conditions; and
e. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550 (Oil and Natural Gas
exploration in marine waters).
11. The process of removing or controlling an aquatic noxious weed, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through
the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final
environmental impact statement published by the Department of Agriculture or the department jointly with other
state agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW.
12. Watershed restoration projects, which means a public or private project authorized by the sponsor of
a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or a part of the plan and consists of one or more of the
following activities:
a. A project that involves less than ten miles of stream reach, in which less than twenty-five
cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported, disturbed or discharged, and in which no existing
vegetation is removed except as minimally necessary to facilitate additional plantings;
Page 3 of 41
b. A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that employs the principles
of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary
emphasis on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water; or
c. A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or reduce
impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource available for use by all of the citizen of the
state, provided that any structure, other than a bridge or culvert or instream habitat enhancement structure
associated with the project, is less than two hundred square feet in floor area and is located above the ordinary
high water mark of the stream.
13. Watershed restoration plan, which means a plan, developed or sponsored by the department of fish
and wildlife, the department of ecology, the department of natural resources, the department of transportation,
a federally recognized Indian tribe acting within and pursuant to its authority, a city, a county or a conservation
district that provides a general program and implementation measures or actions for the preservation,
restoration, re-creation, or enhancement of the natural resources, character, and ecology of a stream, stream
segment, drainage area or watershed for which agency and public review has been conducted pursuant to the
State Environmental Policy Act.
14. A public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all
of the following apply:
a. The project has been approved in writing by the department of fish and wildlife;
b. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the department of fish and wildlife
pursuant to chapter 77.55 RCW; and
c. The local government has determined that the project is substantially consistent with the local
shoreline master program. The local government shall make such determination in a timely manner and provide
it by letter to the project proponent.
Additional criteria for determining eligibility of fish habitat projects are found in WAC 173-27-040 2 (p) and
apply to this exemption.
15. The external or internal retrofitting of an existing structure for the exclusive purpose of compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.) or to otherwise provide physical
access to the structure by individuals with disabilities.
CHAPTER 18.44
SHORELINE OVERLAY DISTRICT
Sections:
18.44.010 Purpose and Applicability
18.44.020 Shoreline Environment Designations
18.44.030 Principally Permitted Uses and Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix
18.44.040 Shoreline Buffers
18.44.050 Development Standards
18.44.060 Vegetation Protection and Landscaping
18.44.070 Environmentally Critical Areas within the Shoreline Jurisdiction
18.44.080 Public Access to the Shoreline
18.44.090 Shoreline Design Guidelines
18.44.100 Shoreline Restoration
18.44.110 Administration
18.44.120 Appeals
18.44.130 Enforcement and Penalties
18.44.140 Liability
Page 4 of 41
18.44.010 Purpose and Applicability
The purpose of this chapter is to implement the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, as amended and the
rules and regulations thereunder as codified in the Washington Administrative Code; and to provide for the
regulation of development which affect those areas of the City under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline
Management Act. In particular, the purpose of this chapter is to:
1. Recognize and protect shorelines of State-wide significance;
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
3. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
4. Increase public access to publicly -owned areas of the shoreline;
5. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline:
6. Protect and create critical Chinook salmon habitat in the Transition Zone of the Green River
B. Applicability of Amended Zoning Code. After the effective date of this ordinance, Chapter 18.44 of
the Zoning Code, as hereby amended, shall apply to all properties subject to the shoreline overlay, provided
that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to override any vested rights or require any alteration of a non-
conforming use or non-conforming structure, except as specifically provided in Chapter 18.44 of the Zoning
Code, as amended.
C. Pursuant to WAC 173-26-191 (2)( c), this Chapter, together with the Shoreline Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, constitutes the City of Tukwila’s Shoreline Master Program. Any modifications to these
documents will be processed as a Shoreline Master Program Amendment and require approval by the
Department of Ecology.
(Ord. 2346 §17, 2011)
18.44.020 Shoreline Environment Designations
All shoreline within the City is designated “urban” and further identified as follows:
1. Shoreline Residential Environment. All lands zoned for residential use as measured 200 feet
landward from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM).
2. Urban Conservancy Environment. All lands not zoned for residential use upstream from the
Turning Basin as measured 200 feet landward from the OHWM.
3. High Intensity Environment. All lands downstream from the Turning Basin as measured 200
feet landward from the OHWM.
4. Aquatic Environment. All water bodies within the City limits and its potential annexation areas
under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. The
Aquatic Environment includes the water surface together with the underlying lands and the water column.
(Ord. 2346 §1, 2011)
18.44.030 Principally Permitted Uses and Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix
A. TMC Section 18.44.030(A), including the Use Matrix (Figure 18-1), specifies the uses that are
permitted outright, permitted as a Conditional Use or prohibited altogether for each Shoreline Environment.
Also included are special conditions and general requirements controlling specific uses. These regulations are
intended to implement the purpose of each Shoreline Environment designation.
B. In the matrix, shoreline environments are listed at the top of each column and the specific uses are
listed along the left-hand side of each horizontal row. The cell at the intersection of a column and a row indicates
whether a use may be allowed in a specific shoreline environment and whether additional use criteria apply.
The matrix shall be interpreted as follows:
1. If the letter “P” appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use may be
allowed within the shoreline environment if the underlying zoning also allows the use. Shoreline (SDP, CUP
and Variance) permits may be required.
Page 5 of 41
2. If the letter “C” appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use may be
allowed within the shoreline environment subject to the shoreline conditional use review and approval
procedures specified in TMC Section 18.44.110 C.
3. If the letter “X” appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use is
prohibited in that shoreline environment.
C. In addition to the matrix the following general use requirements also apply to all development within
the shoreline jurisdiction. Additional requirements controlling specific uses are set forth for each Shoreline
Environment designation, to implement the purpose of the respective Shoreline Environment designations.
1. The first priority for City-owned property other than right-of-way within the shoreline jurisdiction
shall be reserved for water-dependent uses including but not limited to habitat restoration, followed by water-
enjoyment uses, public access, passive recreation, passive open space uses, or public educational purposes.
2. No hazardous waste handling, processing or storage is allowed within the SMA shoreline
jurisdiction, unless incidental to a use allowed in the designated shoreline environment and adequate controls
are in place to prevent any releases to the shoreline/river.
3. Overwater structures, shall not cause a net loss of ecological function, interfere with navigation or
flood management, or present potential hazards to downstream properties or facilities. They shall comply with
the standards in the Overwater Structures Section of TMC Section 18.44.050(K).
4. Parking as a primary use is not permitted, except for existing Park and Ride lots, where adequate
stormwater collection and treatment is in place to protect water quality. Parking is permitted only as an
accessory to a permitted or conditional use in the shoreline jurisdiction.
5. All development, activities or uses, unless it is an approved overwater, flood management
structure or shoreline restoration project, shall be prohibited waterward of the OHWM.
(Ord. 2346 §2, 2011)
P = May be Permitted Subject to development
standards
C = May be Permitted as a Shoreline
Conditional Use
X = Not Allowed in Shoreline Jurisdiction
Shoreline
Residential
Urban
Conservancy
High Intensity
Aquatic
Environm
ent
Buffer Non-
Buffer
Buffer Non-
Buffer
Buffer Non-
Buffer
AGRICULTURE
Farming and farm-related activities X X X P X X X
Aquaculture X X X X X X X
COMMERCIAL (1)
General X X X P X P (2) P (3)
Automotive services, gas (outside pumps
allowed), washing, body and engine repair
shops (enclosed within a building)
X X X C X C (2) X
Contractors storage yards X X X C X C (2) X
Water-oriented uses C P C P C P C
Water-dependent uses P (4) P(5) P(4) P P(4) P P
Storage P (6) P (5) P (6) P P (6) P X
CIVIC/INSTITUTIONAL
General X P X P X P X
DREDGING
Page 6 of 41
P = May be Permitted Subject to development
standards
C = May be Permitted as a Shoreline
Conditional Use
X = Not Allowed in Shoreline Jurisdiction
Shoreline
Residential
Urban
Conservancy
High Intensity
Aquatic
Environm
ent
Buffer Non-
Buffer
Buffer Non-
Buffer
Buffer Non-
Buffer
Dredging for remediation of contaminated
substances
C (7) NA C (7) NA C (7) NA C (7)
Dredging for maintenance of established
navigational channel
NA NA NA NA NA NA P (8)
Other dredging for navigation NA NA NA NA NA NA C (9)
Dredge material disposal X X X X X X X
Dredging for fill NA NA NA NA NA NA X
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY (Water
Dependent) –
P P P P P P P
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY (Nonwater
Dependent) (10)
C C C C C C C
FENCES P (11) P C (11) P C (11) P X
FILL
General C (12) P C (12) P C (12) P C (12)
Fill for remediation, flood hazard reduction or
ecological restoration
P (13) P
P (13) P
P (13) P
P (13)
FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT
Flood hazard reduction (14) P P P P P P P
Shoreline stabilization (15) P P P P P P P
INDUSTRIAL (16)
General X X P (3) P P (3) P (2) P (3)
Animal rendering X X X C X X X
Cement manufacturing X X X C X C (2) X
Hazardous substance processing and handling
& hazardous waste treatment and storage
facilities (on or off-site) (17)
X X X X X X X
Rock crushing, asphalt or concrete batching or
mixing, stone cutting, brick manufacture,
marble works, and the assembly of products
from the above materials
X X X C X C (2) X
Salvage and wrecking operations X X X C X C (2) X
Tow-truck operations, subject to all additional
State and local regulations X X X C X P (2) X
Truck terminals X X X P X P (2) X
Water-oriented uses X X C P C P C
Page 7 of 41
P = May be Permitted Subject to development
standards
C = May be Permitted as a Shoreline
Conditional Use
X = Not Allowed in Shoreline Jurisdiction
Shoreline
Residential
Urban
Conservancy
High Intensity
Aquatic
Environm
ent
Buffer Non-
Buffer
Buffer Non-
Buffer
Buffer Non-
Buffer
Water-dependent uses (17) X X P (4) P P (4) P P
MINING
General X X X X X X X
OVERWATER STRUCTURES (18)
Piers, Docks, and other overwater structures P(19) NA P (20) NA P (20) NA P (20,21)
Vehicle bridges (public) P (31, 4) P (31) P (31, 4) P (31) P (31, 4) P (31) P (31)
Vehicle bridges (private) C C C C C C C
Public pedestrian bridges P P P P P P P
PARKING - ACCESSORY
Parking areas limited to the minimum
necessary to support permitted or conditional
uses
X P (5) X P X P X
RECREATION
Recreation facilities (commercial – indoor) X X X P X P (22) X
Recreation facilities (commercial – outdoor) X X C(23,24) C (24) C(23,24)C(24) X
Recreation facilities, including boat launching
(public) P(23) P P(23,24) C P(23) P P (3)
Public and private promenades, footpaths, or
trails
P P P (26) P P (26) P X
RESIDENTIAL – SINGLE FAMILY/MULTI-FAMILY
Dwelling X(27) P X P X X X
Houseboats X X X X X X X
Live-aboards X X X X X X P
(21,28)
Patios and Decks P(29) P P (29) P P P X
SIGNS (30) P P P P P P X
SHORELINE RESTORATION P P P P P P P
TRANSPORTATION
General C C C C C C C (3)
Park & ride lots X X X C (9) X C (9) X
Levee maintenance roads P (32) P (32) P (32) P (32) P (32) P (32) NA
Railroad X P X X X X X
UTILITIES
General (10) P(4) P P(4) P P(4) P C
Provision, distribution, collection,
transmission, or disposal of refuse X X X X X X X
Hydroelectric and private utility power
generating plants X X X X X X X
Wireless towers X X X X X X X
Support facilities, such as outfalls P (33) P P (33) P P (33) P C (33)
Regional detention facilities X X P (34) P (34) P (34) P (34) X
USES NOT SPECIFIED C C C C C C C
Page 8 of 41
*This matrix is a summary. Individual notes modify standards in this matrix. Permitted or conditional uses listed herein
may also require a shoreline substantial development permit and other permits.
1. Commercial uses mean those uses that are involved in wholesale, retail, service and business trade.
Examples include office, restaurants, brew pubs, medical, dental and veterinary clinics, hotels, retail
sales, hotel/motels, and warehousing.
2. Nonwater-oriented uses may be allowed as a permitted use where the City determines that water-
dependent or water-enjoyment use of the shoreline is not feasible due to the configuration of the
shoreline and water body.
3. Permitted only if water dependent.
4. Structures greater than 35 feet tall require a conditional use permit.
5. Permitted if located to the most upland portion of the property and adequately screened and/or
landscaped in accordance with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping section.
6. Outdoor storage within the shoreline buffer is only permitted in conjunction with a water-dependent
use.
7. Conditionally allowed when in compliance with all federal and state regulations.
8. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins is restricted to maintaining
previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth and width.
9. Conditionally allowed when significant ecological impacts are minimized and mitigation is provided.
10. Allowed in shoreline jurisdiction when it is demonstrated that there is no feasible alternative to locating
the use within shoreline jurisdiction.
11. The maximum height of the fence along the shoreline shall not exceed four feet in residential areas or
six feet in commercial areas where there is a demonstrated need to ensure public safety and security
of property. The fence shall not extend waterward beyond the top of the bank. Chain-link fences must
be vinyl coated.
12. Fill minimally necessary to support water-dependent uses, public access, or for the alteration or
expansion of a transportation facility of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline when
it is demonstrated that alternatives to fill are not feasible is conditionally allowed.
13. Landfill as part of an approved remediation plan for the purpose of capping contaminated sediments
is permitted.
14. Any new or redeveloped levee shall meet the applicable levee requirements of this chapter.
15. Permitted when consistent with Section 9.6 of the SMP.
16. Industrial uses mean those uses that are facilities for manufacturing, processing, assembling and/or
storing of finished or semi-finished goods with supportive office and commercial uses. Examples
include manufacturing processing and/or assembling such items as electrical or mechanical
equipment, previously manufactured metals, chemicals, light metals, plastics, solvents, soaps, wood,
machines, food, pharmaceuticals, previously prepared materials; warehousing and wholesale
distribution; sales and rental of heavy machinery and equipment; and internet data centers.
17. Subject to compliance with state siting criteria RCW Chapter 70.105 (See also Environmental
Regulations, Section 10, SMP).
18. Permitted when associated with water-dependent uses, public access, recreation, flood control or
channel management.
19. Permitted when the applicant has demonstrated a need for moorage and that the following alternatives
have been investigated and are not available or feasible:
a. commercial or marina moorage;
b. floating moorage buoys;
c. joint use moorage pier/dock.
20. Permitted if associated with water-dependent uses, public access, recreation, flood control, channel
management or ecological restoration.
21. Boats may only be moored at a dock or marina. No boats may be moored on tidelands or in the river
channel.
Page 9 of 41
22. Limited to athletic or health clubs.
23. Recreation structures such as benches, tables, viewpoints, and picnic shelters are permitted in the
buffer provided no such structure shall block views to the shoreline from adjacent properties.
24. Permitted only if water oriented.
25. Parks, recreation and open space facilities operated by public agencies and non-profit organizations
are permitted.
26. Plaza connectors between buildings and levees, not exceeding the height of the levee, are permitted
for the purpose of providing and enhancing pedestrian access along the river and for landscaping
purposes.
27. Additional development may be allowed consistent with Section 14.5.B.6. A shoreline conditional use
permit is required for water oriented accessory structures that exceed the height limits of the Shoreline
Residential environment.
28. Permitted in only in the Aquatic Environment and subject to the criteria in Section 9.12 E.
29. Patios and decks are permitted within the shoreline buffer so long as they do not exceed 18 inches in
height and are limited to a maximum of 200 square feet and 50% of the width of the river frontage
whichever is smaller. Decks or patios must be located landward of the top of the bank and be
constructed to be pervious and of environmentally-friendly materials. If a deck or patio will have an
environmental impact in the shoreline buffer, then commensurate mitigation shall be required.
30. Permitted when consistent with Section 9.13 of the SMP.
31. Permitted only if connecting public rights-of-way.
32. May be co-located with fire lanes.
33. Allowed if they require a physical connection to the shoreline to provide their support function, provided
they are located at or below grade and as far from the OHWM as technically feasible.
34. Regional detention facilities that meet the City’s Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards
along with their supporting elements such as ponds, piping, filter systems and outfalls vested as of the
effective date of this program or if no feasible alternative location exists. Any regional detention facility
located in the buffer shall be designed such that a fence is not required, planted with native vegetation,
designed to blend with the surrounding environment, and provide design features that serve both public
and private use, such as an access road that can also serve as a trail. The facility shall be designed
to locate access roads and other impervious surfaces as far from the river as practical.
18.44.040 Shoreline Buffers
A. Buffer widths. The following shoreline buffer widths apply in shoreline jurisdiction.
Environment Buffer width (1)(2) Modification
Shoreline Residential 50 feet OR the area needed to
achieve a slope no steeper than
2.5:1, measured from the toe of the
bank to the top of the bank, plus 20
linear feet measured from the top of
the bank landward, whichever is
greater
(3)
Urban
Conservancy
Areas without
levees
100 feet (4)
Areas with levees 125 feet (5)
High Intensity 100 feet (4)
Page 10 of 41
Aquatic Not Applicable
1. Unless otherwise noted, all buffers are measured landward from the OHWM.
2. In any shoreline environment where an existing improved street or road runs parallel to the river through the buffer, the
buffer ends on the river side of the edge of the improved right-of-way
3. Removal of invasive species and replanting with native species of high habitat value voluntary unless triggered by
requirement for a Shoreline Substantial Development permit.
4. The Director may reduce the standard buffer on a case-by-case basis by up to 50% upon construction of the following
cross section:
- a. Reslope bank from toe to be no steeper than 2.5:1 in the Urban Conservancy Environment or reslope
bank from OHWM (not toe) to be no steeper than 3:1 in the High Intensity Environment, using bioengineering techniques
- b. Minimum 20’ buffer landward from top of bank
- c. Bank and remaining buffer to be planted with native species with high habitat value
Maximum slope is reduced due to measurement from OHWM and to recognize location in the Transition Zone where
pronounced tidal influence makes work below OHWM difficult.
Any buffer reduction proposal must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that it will not result in direct, indirect or
long-term adverse impacts to the river. In all cases a buffer enhancement plan must also be approved and implemented
as a condition of the reduction. The plan must include using a variety of native vegetation that improves the functional
attributes of the buffer and provides additional protection for the shoreline ecological functions.
5. Upon reconstruction of levee to the levee standards of this chapter, the Director may reduce the buffer to actual width
required. for the levee. If fill is placed along the back slope of a new levee, the buffer may be reduced to the point where
the ground plane intersects the back slope of the levee. If the property owner provides a levee maintenance easement
landward from the landward toe of the levee or levee wall which 1) meets the width required by the agency providing
maintenance; 2) prohibits the construction of any structures and 3) allows the City to access the area to inspect the levee
and make any necessary repairs; then that area may be outside of the shoreline buffer and allow incidental uses such
as parking.
18.44.050 Development Standards
A. Applicability. The development standards of this chapter apply to work that meets the definition of
substantial development except for vegetation removal per TMC Section 18.44.060, which applies to all
shoreline development. The term “substantial development” applies to non-conforming, new or re-development.
Non-conforming uses, structures, parking lots and landscape areas, will be governed by the standards in TMC
Section 18.44.110(E), “Non-Conforming Development.”
B. Shoreline Residential Development Standards. A shoreline substantial development permit is not
required for construction within the Shoreline Residential Environment by an owner, lessee or contract
purchaser of a single family residence for his/her own use or for the use of a family member. Such construction
and all normal appurtenant structures must otherwise conform to this chapter. Short subdivisions and
subdivisions are not exempt from obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
1. Shoreline Residential Environment Standards. The following standards apply to the Shoreline
Residential Environment:
a. The development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district (Title 18, Tukwila
Municipal Code) shall apply.
b. New development and uses must be sited so as to allow natural bank inclination of 3:1 slope
with a 20-foot setback from the top of the bank. The Director may require a riverbank analysis as part of any
development proposal.
Page 11 of 41
c. Utilities such as pumps, pipes, etc., shall be suitably screened with native vegetation per the
standards in the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section.
d. New shoreline stabilization, repair of existing stabilization or modifications to the river bank
must comply with the standards in the Shoreline Stabilization Section, TMC Section 18.44.050(F).
e. Short plats of five to nine lots or formal subdivisions must be designed to provide public access
to the river in accordance with the Public Access Section, TMC Section 18.44.080. Signage is required to
identify the public access point(s).
f. Parking facilities associated with single family residential development or public recreational
facilities are subject to the specific performance standards set forth in the Off-Street Parking Section, TMC
Section 18.44.050(I).
g. Fences, freestanding walls or other structures normally accessory to residences must not block
views of the river from adjacent residences or extend waterward beyond the top of the bank. Chain link fencing
must be vinyl coated.
h. Recreational structures permitted in the buffer must provide buffer mitigation.
i. The outside edge of surface transportation facilities, such as railroad tracks, streets, or public
transit shall be located no closer than 50 feet from the OHWM, except where the surface transportation facility
is bridging the river.
j. Except for bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water-dependent uses and
their structures, the maximum height for structures shall be 30 feet. For bridges, approved above ground utility
structures, and water-dependent uses and their structures, the height limit shall be as demonstrated necessary
to accomplish the structure’s primary purpose. Bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water-
dependent uses and their structures greater than 35 feet in height require approval of a Shoreline Conditional
Use Permit.
2. Design Review. Design review is required for non-residential development in the Shoreline
Residential Environment.
C. High Intensity, Urban Conservancy and Aquatic Environment Development Standards.
1. Standards. The following standards apply in the High Intensity, Urban Conservancy and Aquatic
Environments.
a. The development standards for the applicable underlying zoning district (Title 18, Tukwila
Municipal Code) shall apply.
b. All new development performed by public agencies, or new multi-family, commercial, or
industrial development shall provide public access in accordance with the standards in the Public Access
Section.
c. Development or re-development of properties in areas of the shoreline armored with
revetments or other hard armoring other than levees, or with non-armored river banks, must comply with the
Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section, TMC Section 18.44.060.
d. Any new shoreline stabilization or repairs to existing stabilization must comply with Shoreline
Stabilization Section, TMC Section 18.44.050(F).
e. Over-water structures shall be allowed only for water-dependent uses and the size limited to
the minimum necessary to support the structure’s intended use and shall result in no net loss to shoreline
ecological function. Over-water structures must comply with the standards in the Over-water Structures Section,
TMC Section 18.44.050(K).
2. Setbacks and Site Configuration.
a. The yard setback adjacent to the river is the buffer width established for the applicable
shoreline environment.
b. A fishing pier, viewing platform or other outdoor feature that provides access to the shoreline
is not required to meet a setback from the OHWM.
3. Height Restrictions. Except for bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water-
dependent uses and their structures, to preserve visual access to the shoreline and avoid massing of tall
buildings within the shoreline jurisdiction, the maximum height for structures shall be as follows:
Page 12 of 41
a. 15 feet where located within the River Buffer;
b. 65 feet between the outside landward edge of the River Buffer and 200 feet of the OHWM.
c. Provided, no permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than
35 feet above average grade level on shorelines of the State that will obstruct the view of a substantial number
of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines. For any building that is proposed to be greater than 35 feet
in height in the shoreline jurisdiction, the development proponent must demonstrate the proposed building will
not block the views of a substantial number of residences. The Director may approve a 15 foot increase in
height for structures within the shoreline jurisdiction if the project proponent provides restoration and/or
enhancement of the entire shoreline buffer including but not limited to paved areas no longer in use on the
property in accordance with the standards of TMC Section 18.44.060, “Vegetation Protection and Landscaping.”
If the required buffer has already been restored, the project proponent may provide a 20% wider buffer, planted
in accordance with TMC Section 18.44.060 “Vegetation Protection and landscaping” in order to obtain the 15foot
increase in height .
4. Lighting. In addition to the lighting standards in TMC Chapter 18.60, “Board of Architectural
Review,” lighting for the site or development shall be designed and located so that:
a. The minimum light levels in parking areas and paths between the building and street shall be
one-foot candle.
b. Lighting shall be designed to prevent light spillover and glare on adjacent properties and on
the river channel to the maximum extent feasible, be directed downward so as to illuminate only the immediate
area, and be shielded to eliminate direct off-site illumination.
c. The general grounds need not be lighted.
d. The lighting is incorporated into a unified landscape and/or site plan.
D. Surface Water and Water Quality. The following standards apply to all shoreline development.
1. New surface water systems may not discharge directly into the river or streams tributary to the
river without pre-treatment to reduce pollutants and meet State water quality standards.
2. Such pre-treatment may consist of biofiltration, oil/water separators, or other methods approved
by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department.
3. Shoreline development, uses and activities shall not cause any increase in surface runoff, and
shall have adequate provisions for storm water detention/infiltration.
4. Stormwater outfalls must be designed so as to cause no net loss of shoreline ecological functions
or adverse impacts where functions are impaired. New stormwater outfalls or maintenance of existing outfalls
must include shoreline restoration as part of the project.
5. Shoreline development and activities shall have adequate provisions for sanitary sewer.
6. Solid and liquid wastes and untreated effluents shall not be allowed to enter any bodies of water
or to be discharged onto shorelands.
7. The use of low impact development techniques is required, unless such techniques conflict with
other provisions of the SMP or are shown to not be feasible due to site conditions.
E. Flood Hazard Reduction. The following standards apply to all shoreline development.
1. New structural flood hazard reduction structures shall be allowed only when it can be
demonstrated by a Riverbank Analysis that:
a. They are necessary to protect existing development;
b. Non-structural measures are not feasible; and
c. Impacts to ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully mitigated
so as to assure no net loss.
2. Flood hazard structures must incorporate appropriate vegetation restoration and conservation
actions consistent with the standards of the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section.
3. Publicly-funded structural measures to reduce flood hazards shall improve public access or
dedicate and provide public access unless public access improvements would cause unavoidable health or
safety hazards to the public, inherent and unavoidable security problems, or significant ecological impacts that
cannot be mitigated.
Page 13 of 41
4. Rehabilitation or replacement of existing flood control structures, such as levees, with a primary
purpose of containing the 1% to 0.02% annual chance flood event, shall be allowed where it can be
demonstrated by an engineering analysis that the existing structure:
a. Does not provide an appropriate level of protection for surrounding lands; or
b. Does not meet the a 2.5:1 riverside slope or other appropriate engineering design standards
for stability (e.g., over-steepened side slopes for existing soil and/or flow conditions); and
c. Repair of the existing structure will not cause or increase significant adverse ecological impacts
to the shoreline.
5. Rehabilitated or replaced flood hazard reduction structures shall not extend the toe of slope
any further waterward of the OHWM than the existing structure.
6. New structural flood hazard reduction measures, such as levees, berms and similar flood control
structures shall be placed landward of the floodway as determined by the best information available.
7. New, redeveloped or replaced structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be placed
landward of associated wetlands, and designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
8. No commercial, industrial, office or residential development shall be located within a floodplain
without a Flood Control Zone Permit issued by the City. No development shall be located within a floodway
except as otherwise permitted.
9. New, redeveloped or replaced flood hazard reduction structures must have an overall waterward
slope no steeper than 2.5:1 unless it is not physically possible to achieve such as slope. A floodwall may be
substituted for all or a portion of a levee back slope where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to a
structure legally constructed prior to the date of adoption of this subsection, whichhas not lost its nonconforming
status or to allow area for waterward habitat restoration development. The floodwall shall be designed to provide
15 feet of clearance between the levee and the building, or to preserve access needed for building functionality
while meeting all engineering safety standards. A floodwall may also be used where necessary to prevent the
levee from encroaching upon a railroad easement recorded prior to the date of adoption of this subsection.
F. Shoreline Stabilization. The provisions of this section apply to those structures or actions intended
to minimize or prevent erosion of adjacent uplands and/or failure of riverbanks resulting from waves, tidal
fluctuations or river currents. Shoreline stabilization or armoring involves the placement of erosion resistant
materials (e.g., large rocks and boulders, cement, pilings and/or large woody debris (LWD)) or the use of
bioengineering techniques to reduce or eliminate erosion of shorelines and risk to human infrastructure. This
form of shoreline stabilization is distinct from flood control structures and flood hazard reduction measures (such
as levees). The terms “shoreline stabilization,” “shoreline protection” and “shoreline armoring” are used
interchangeably.
1. Shoreline protection shall not be considered an outright permitted use and shall be permitted only
when it has been demonstrated through a riverbank analysis and report that shoreline protection is necessary
for the protection of existing legally established structures and public improvements.
2. New development and re-development shall be designed and configured on the lot to avoid the
need for new shoreline stabilization. Removal of failing shoreline stabilization shall be incorporated into re-
development design proposals wherever feasible.
3. Replacement of lawfully established, existing bulkheads or revetments are subject to the following
priority system:
a. The first priority for replacement of bulkheads or revetments shall be landward of the existing
bulkhead.
b. The second priority for replacement of existing bulkheads or revetments shall be to replace in
place (at the bulkhead’s existing location).
4. When evaluating a proposal against the above priority system, at a minimum the following criteria
shall be considered:
a. Existing topography;
b. Existing development;
c. Location of abutting bulkheads;
Page 14 of 41
d. Impact to shoreline ecological functions; and,
e. Impact to river hydraulics, potential changes in geomorphology, and to other areas of the
shoreline. 5. Proponents of new or replacement hard shoreline stabilization (e.g. bulkheads or revetments)
must demonstrate through a documented river bank analysis that bioengineered shoreline protection measures
or bioengineering erosion control designs will not provide adequate upland protection of existing structures or
would pose a threat or risk to adjacent property. The study must also demonstrate that the proposed hard
shoreline stabilization will not adversely affect other infrastructure or adjacent shorelines.
6. Shoreline armoring such as rip rap rock revetments and other hard shoreline stabilization
techniques are detrimental to river processes and habitat creation. Where allowed, shoreline armoring shall be
designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions, including fish habitat, and shall conform to the requirements of the 2004 Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife (or as amended) criteria and guidelines for integrated stream bank protection
(Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington), U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and other regulatory requirements. The
hard shoreline stabilization must be designed and approved by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington
and qualified to design shoreline stabilization structures.
7. Shoreline armoring shall be designed to the minimum size, height, bulk and extent necessary to
remedy the identified hazard.
8. An applicant must demonstrate the following in order to qualify for the RCW 90.58.030(30(e)(iii)(ii)
exemption from the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit for a proposed single
family bulkhead and to insure that the bulkhead will be consistent with the SMP:
a. Erosion from currents or waves is imminently threatening a legally established single family
detached dwelling unit or one or more appurtenant structures; and
b. The proposed bulkhead is more consistent with the City’s Master Program in protecting the
site and adjoining shorelines and that non-structural alternatives such as slope drainage systems,
bioengineering or vegetative growth stabilization, are not feasible or will not adequately protect a legally
established residence or appurtenant structure; and
c. The proposed bulkhead is located landward of the OHWM or it connects to adjacent, legally
established bulkheads; and
d. The maximum height of the proposed bulkhead is no more than one foot above the elevation
of extreme high water on tidal waters as determined by the National Ocean Survey published by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
9. Bulkheads or revetments shall be constructed of suitable materials that will serve to accomplish
the desired end with maximum preservation of natural characteristics. Materials with the potential for water
quality degradation shall not be used. Design and construction methods shall consider aesthetics and habitat
protection. Automobile bodies, tires or other junk or waste material that may release undesirable chemicals or
other material shall not be used for shoreline protection.
10. The builder of any bulkhead or revetment shall be financially responsible for determining the
nature and the extent of probable adverse effects on fish and wildlife or on the property of others caused by
his/her construction and shall propose and implement solutions approved by the City to minimize such effects.
11. When shoreline stabilization is required at a public access site, provision for safe access to the
water shall be incorporated in the design whenever possible.
12. Placement of bank protection material shall occur from the top of the bank and shall be supervised
by the property owner or contractor to ensure material is not dumped directly onto the bank face.
13. Bank protection material shall be clean and shall be of a sufficient size to prevent its being washed
away by high water flows.
14. When riprap is washed out and presents a hazard to the safety of recreational users of the river,
it shall be removed by the owner of such material.
15. Bank protection associated with bridge construction and maintenance may be permitted subject
to the provisions of the SMP and shall conform to provisions of the State Hydraulics Code (RCW 77.55) and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer regulations.
Page 15 of 41
G. Archaeological, Cultural and Historical Resources. In addition to the requirements of TMC
18.50.110, Archaeological/Paleontological Information Preservation Requirements, the following regulations
apply.
1. All land use permits for projects within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be coordinated with affected
tribes.
2. If the City determines that a site has significant archaeological, natural scientific or historical value,
a substantial development that would pose a threat to the resources of the site shall not be approved.
3. Permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources require a site inspection
or evaluation by a professional archaeologist in coordination with affected Indian tribes. The City may require
that development be postponed in such areas to allow investigation of public acquisition potential, retrieval and
preservation of significant artifacts and/or development of a mitigation plan. Areas of known or suspected
archaeological middens shall not be disturbed and shall be fenced and identified during construction projects
on the site.
4. Developers and property owners shall immediately stop work and notify the City of Tukwila, the
Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected Indian tribes if archaeological
resources are uncovered during excavation.
5. In the event that unforeseen factors constituting an emergency, as defined in RCW 90.58.030,
necessitate rapid action to retrieve or preserve artifacts or data identified above, the project may be exempted
from any shoreline permit requirements. The City shall notify the Washington State Department of Ecology, the
State Attorney General’s Office and the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office of
such an exemption in a timely manner.
6. Archaeological excavations may be permitted subject to the provision of this chapter.
7. On sites where historical or archaeological resources have been identified and will be preserved
in situ, public access to such areas shall be designed and managed so as to give maximum protection to the
resource and surrounding environment.
8. Interpretive signs of historical and archaeological features shall be provided subject to the
requirements of the Public Access Section when such signage does not compromise the protection of these
features from tampering, damage and/or destruction.
H. Environmental Impact Mitigation.
1. All shoreline development and uses shall at a minimum occur in a manner that results in no net
loss of shoreline ecological functions through the careful location and design of all allowed development and
uses. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from allowed development and uses are
unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this section; in that event, the “no
net loss” standard is met.
2. To the extent Washington's State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW,
is applicable, the analysis of environmental impacts from proposed shoreline uses or developments shall be
conducted consistent with the rules implementing SEPA (TMC Chapter 21.04 and WAC 197-11).
3. For all development, mitigation sequencing shall be applied in the following order of priority:
a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation
by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts.
c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations.
e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments.
f. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective
measures.
4. In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to shoreline development, lower
priority measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined by the City to be
infeasible or inapplicable.
Page 16 of 41
5. When mitigation measures are appropriate pursuant to the priority of mitigation sequencing above,
preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and in the
immediate vicinity of the impact. However, if mitigation in the immediate vicinity is not scientifically feasible due
to problems with hydrology, soils, waves or other factors, then off-site mitigation within the Shoreline Jurisdiction
may be allowed if consistent with the Shoreline Restoration Plan. Mitigation for projects in the Transition Zone
must take place in the Transition Zone. In the event a site is not available in the Transition Zone to carry out
required mitigation, the project proponent may contribute funds equivalent to the value of the required mitigation
to an existing or future restoration project identified in the CIP to be carried out by a public agency in the
Transition Zone.
I. Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements. In addition to the parking requirements in TMC
18.56, the following requirements apply to all development in the shoreline jurisdiction.
1. Any parking, loading, or storage facilities located between the river and any building must
incorporate additional landscaping in accordance with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section, or
berming or other site planning or design techniques to reduce visual and/or environmental impacts from the
parking areas utilizing the following screening techniques:
a. A solid evergreen screen of trees and shrubs a minimum of six feet high; or
b. Decorative fence a maximum of six feet high with landscaping. Chain link fence, where
allowed, shall be vinyl coated and landscaped with native trailing vine or an approved non-native vine other
than ivy, except where a security or safety hazard may exist; or
c. Earth berms at a minimum of four feet high, planted with native plants in accordance with the
Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section.
2. Where a parking area is located in the shoreline jurisdiction and adjacent to a public access
feature, the parking area shall be screened by a vegetative screen or a built structure that runs the entire length
of the parking area adjacent to the amenity. The landscape screening shall comply with the Vegetation
Protection and Landscaping Section.
3. Where public access to or along the shoreline exists or is proposed, parking areas shall provide
pedestrian access from the parking area to the shoreline.
4. Parking facilities, loading areas and paved areas shall incorporate low impact development
techniques wherever feasible, adequate storm water retention areas, oil/water separators and biofiltration
swales, or other treatment techniques and shall comply with the standards and practices formally adopted by
the City of Tukwila Public Works Department.
J. Land Altering Activities. All land altering activities in the shoreline jurisdiction shall be in conjunction
with an underlying land development permit, except for shoreline restoration projects. All activities shall meet
the following standards:
1. Clearing, Grading and Landfill.
a. Land altering shall be permitted only where it meets the following criteria:
(1) The work is the minimum necessary to accomplish an allowed shoreline use;
(2) Impacts to the natural environment are minimized and mitigated;
(3) Water quality, river flows and/or fish habitat are not adversely affected;
(4) Public access and river navigation are not diminished;
(5) The project complies with all federal and state requirements;
(6) The project complies with the vegetation protection criteria of the Vegetation Protection
and Landscaping Section;
(7) The project will achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes. In
cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from an otherwise allowed land altering project are
unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this section. In that event, the “no
net loss” standard is met; and
(8) Documentation is provided to demonstrate that the fill comes from a clean source.
b. Clearing, grading and landfill activities, where allowed, shall include erosion control
mechanisms, and any reasonable restriction on equipment, methods or timing necessary to minimize the
Page 17 of 41
introduction of suspended solids or leaching of contaminants into the river, or the disturbance of wildlife or fish
habitats in accordance with the standards in TMC Chapter 16.54, “Grading.”
2. Dredging.
a. Dredging activities must comply with all federal and state regulations. Maintenance dredging
of established navigation channels and basins must be restricted to maintaining previously dredged and/or
existing authorized location, depth, and width.
b. Where allowed, dredging operations must be designed and scheduled so as to ensure no net
loss to shoreline ecological functions or processes. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions
from allowed dredging are unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this
section; in that event, the “no net loss” standard is met.
K. Marinas, Boat Yards, Dry Docks, Boat Launches, Piers, Docks and Other Over-water Structures.
1. General Requirements.
a. A dock may be allowed when the applicant has demonstrated a need for moorage and that the
following alternatives have been investigated and are not available or feasible:
(1). commercial or marina moorage;
(2) floating moorage buoys;
(3). joint use moorage pier/dock.
b. Prior to issuance of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for construction of piers,
docks, wharves or other over-water structures, the applicant shall present proof of application submittal to State
or Federal agencies, as applicable.
c. Structures must be designed by a qualified engineer and must demonstrate the project will
result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function and will be stable against the forces of flowing water, wave
action and the wakes of passing vessels.
d. In-water structures shall be designed and located to minimize shading of native aquatic
vegetation and fish passage areas. Removal of shoreline, riparian and aquatic vegetation shall be limited to
the minimum extent necessary to construct the project. All areas disturbed by construction shall be replanted
with native vegetation as part of the project.
e. New or replacement in-water structures shall be designed and located such that natural
hydraulic and geologic processes, such as erosion, wave action or floods will not necessitate the following:
(1) reinforcement of the shoreline or stream bank with new bulkheads or similar artificial
structures to protect the in-water structure; or
(2) dredging.
f. No structures are allowed on top of over-water structures except for properties located north
of the Turning Basin.
g. Pilings or other associated structures in direct contact with water shall not be treated with
preservatives unless the applicant can demonstrate that no feasible alternative to protect the materials exists
and that non-wood alternatives are not economically feasible. In that case, only compounds approved for
marine use may be used and must be applied by the manufacturer per current best management practices of
the Western Wood Preservers Institute. The applicant must present verification that the best management
practices were followed. The preservatives must also be approved by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
h. All over-water structures shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition.
Abandoned or unsafe over-water structures shall be removed or repaired promptly by the owner. Accumulated
debris shall be regularly removed and disposed of properly so as not to jeopardize the integrity of the structure.
Replacement of in-water structures shall include proper removal of abandoned or other man-made structures
and debris.
h. Boat owners who store motorized boats on-site are encouraged to use best management
practices to avoid fuel and other fluid spills.
2. Marinas, Boat Yards and Dry Docks.
Page 18 of 41
a. All uses under this category shall be designed to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from uses allowed under this category are
unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this chapter; in that event, the “no
net loss” standard is met.
b. Commercial/industrial marinas and dry docks shall be located no further upriver than Turning
Basin #3.
c. Marinas shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to avoid or minimize adverse
impacts on fish, wildlife, water quality, native shoreline vegetation, navigation, public access, existing in-water
recreational activities and adjacent water uses.
d. Marinas shall submit a fuel spill prevention and contingency plan to the City for approval. Haul-
out and boat maintenance facilities must meet the City’s stormwater management requirements and not allow
the release of chemicals, petroleum or suspended solids to the river.
e. Marinas, boat yards and dry docks must be located a minimum of 100 feet from fish and wildlife
habitat areas.
f. New marinas, launch ramps and accessory uses must be located where water depths are
adequate to avoid the need for dredging.
3. Boat Launches and Boat Lifts.
a. Boat launch ramps and vehicle access to the ramps shall be designed to not cause erosion;
the use of pervious paving materials, such as grasscrete, are encouraged.
b. Boat launch ramps shall be designed to minimize areas of landfill or the need for shoreline
protective structures.
c. Access to the boat ramp and parking for the ramp shall be located a sufficient distance from
any frontage road to provide safe maneuvering of boats and trailers.
d. Launching rails shall be adequately anchored to the ground.
e. Launch ramps and boat lifts shall extend waterward past the OHWM only as far as necessary
to achieve their purpose.
f. Boat lifts and canopies must meet the standards of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional
General Permit Number 1 for Watercraft Lifts in Fresh and Marine/Estuarine Waters within the State of
Washington.
4. Over-water Structures. Where allowed, over-water structures such as piers, wharves, bridges,
and docks shall meet the following standards:
a. The size of new over-water structures shall be limited to the minimum necessary to support
the structure’s intended use and to provide stability in the case of floating docks. Structures must be compatible
with any existing channel control or flood management structures.
b. Over-water structures shall not extend waterward of the OHWM any more than necessary to
permit launching of watercraft, while also ensuring that watercraft do not rest on tidal substrate at any time.
c. Adverse impacts of over-water structures on water quality, river flows, fish habitat, shoreline
vegetation, and public access shall be minimized and mitigated. Mitigation measures may include joint use of
existing structures, open decking or piers, replacement of non-native vegetation, installation of in-water habitat
features or restoration of shallow water habitat.
d. Any proposals for in-water or over-water structures shall provide a pre-construction habitat
evaluation, including an evaluation of salmonid and bull trout habitat and shoreline ecological functions, and
demonstrate how the project achieves no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
e. Over-water structures shall obtain all necessary state and federal permits prior to construction
or repair.
f. All over-water structures must be designed by a qualified engineer to ensure they are
adequately anchored to the bank in a manner so as not to cause future downstream hazards or significant
modifications to the river geomorphology and are able to withstand high flows.
g. Over-water structures shall not obstruct normal public use of the river for navigation or
recreational purposes.
Page 19 of 41
h. Shading impacts to fish shall be minimized by using grating on at least 30% of the surface area
of the over-water structure on residential areas and at least 50% of the over-water structure on all other
properties. This standard may be modified for bridges if necessary to accommodate the proposed use. The
use of skirting is not permitted.
i. If floats are used, the flotation shall be fully enclosed and contained in a shell (such as
polystyrene) that prevents breakup or loss of the flotation material into the water, damage from ultraviolet
radiation, and damage from rubbing against pilings or waterborne debris.
j. Floats may not rest on the tidal substrate at any time and stoppers on the piling anchoring the
floats must be installed to ensure at least 1 foot of clearance above the substrate. Anchor lines may not rest
on the substrate at any time.
k. The number of pilings to support over-water structures, including floats, shall be limited to the
minimum necessary. Pilings shall conform to the pilings standards contained in the US Army Corps of
Engineers Regional General Permit No. 6.
l. No over-water structure shall be located closer than five feet from the side property line
extended, except that such structures may abut property lines for the common use of adjacent property owners
when mutually agreed upon by the property owners in an easement recorded with King County. A copy of this
agreement shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and accompany an application
for a development permit and/or Shoreline Permit.
5. Live-Aboards. New over-water residences are prohibited. Live-aboards may be allowed
provided that:
a. They are for single-family use only.
b. They are located in a marina that provides shower and toilet facilities on land and there are no
sewage discharges to the water.
c. Live-aboards do not exceed 10 percent of the total slips in the marina.
d. They are owner-occupied vessels.
e. There are on-shore support services in proximity to the live-aboards.
L. Signs in Shoreline Jurisdiction.
1. Signage within the shoreline buffer is limited to the following:
a. Interpretative signs and restoration signage, including restoration sponsor acknowledgment.
b. Signs for water-related uses.
c. Signs installed by a government agency for public safety along any public trail or at any public
park.
d. Signs installed within the rights of way of any public right-of-way or bridge within the shoreline
buffer. -.
e. Signs installed on utilities and wireless communication facilities denoting danger or other safety
information, including emergency contact information.
2. Billboards and other off-premise signs are strictly forbidden in the shoreline buffer.
(Ord. 2346 §7, 2011)
18.44.060 Vegetation Protection and Landscaping
A. Purpose, Objectives and Applicability.
1. The purpose of this section is to:
a. Regulate the protection of existing trees and native vegetation in the shoreline jurisdiction;
b. Establish requirements for removal of invasive plants at the time of development or re-
development of sites;
c. Establish requirements for landscaping for new development or re-development;
d. Establish requirements for the long-term maintenance of native vegetation to prevent
establishment of invasive species and promote shoreline ecosystem processes.
2. The City’s goal is to:
Page 20 of 41
a. Preserve as many existing trees as possible and increase the number of native trees, shrubs
and other vegetation in the shoreline because of their importance to shoreline ecosystem functions as listed
below:
(1) Overhead tree canopy to provide shade for water temperature control;
(2) Habitat for birds, insects and small mammals;
(3) Vegetation that overhangs the river to provide places for fish to shelter;
(4) Source of insects for fish;
(5) Filtering of pollutants and slowing of stormwater prior to its entering the river; and
(6) A long-term source of woody debris for the river.
b. In addition, trees and other native vegetation are important for aesthetics. It is the City’s goal
that unsightly invasive vegetation, such as blackberries, be removed from the shoreline and be replaced with
native vegetation to promote greater enjoyment of and access to the river.
c. The City will provide information and technical assistance to property owners for improving
vegetation in the shoreline jurisdiction and will work collaboratively with local citizen groups to assist property
owners in the removal of invasive vegetation and planting of native vegetation, particularly for residential areas.
3. With the exception of residential development/re-development of 4 or fewer residential units, all
activities and developments within the shoreline environment must comply with the landscaping and
maintenance requirements of this section, whether or not a shoreline substantial development permit is
required. Single family residential projects are not exempt if implementing a shoreline stabilization project or
overwater structure.
4. The tree protection and retention requirements and the vegetation management requirements apply
to existing uses as well as new or re-development.
5. Minor Activities Allowed without a Permit or Exemption.
a. The following activities are allowed without a permit or exemption:
(1) Maintenance of existing, lawfully established areas of crop vegetation, landscaping
(including paths and trails) or gardens within shoreline jurisdiction. Examples include, mowing lawns, weeding,
harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning, and planting of non-invasive ornamental vegetation or
indigenous native species to maintain the general condition and extent of such areas. Cutting down trees and
shrubs within the shoreline jurisdiction is not covered under this provision. Excavation, filling, and construction
of new landscaping features, such as concrete work, berms and walls, are not covered in this provision and are
subject to review;
(2) Noxious weed control within shoreline jurisdiction, if work is selective only for noxious
species; is done by hand removal/praying of individual plants; spraying is conducted by a licensed applicator
(with the required aquatic endorsements from WADOE if work is in an aquatic site); and no area-wide vegetation
removal or grubbing is conducted. Control methods not meeting these criteria may still be approved under other
provisions of this chapter.
B. Tree Retention and Replacement.
1. Retention.
a. As many significant trees and as much native vegetation as possible are to be retained on a site
proposed for development or re-development, taking into account the condition and age of the trees. As part
of a land use application such as but not limited to subdivision or short plat, design review, or development
permit review the Director of Community Development or the Board of Architectural Review may require
alterations in the arrangement of buildings, parking or other elements of proposed development in order to retain
significant non-invasive trees, particularly those that provide shading to the river.
b. . Topping of trees is prohibited. and will be regulated as removal with tree replacement required.
c. Trees may only be pruned to lower their height to prevent interference with an overhead utility line
with prior approval by the Director. The pruning must be carried out under the direction of a Qualified Tree
Professional or performed by the utility provider under the direction of a Qualified Tree Professional. The crown
shall be maintained to at least 2/3 the height of the tree prior to pruning.
Page 21 of 41
2. Permit Requirements. Prior to any tree removal or site clearing, a Type 2 Shoreline Tree
Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit application must be submitted to the Department of Community
Development (DCD) containing the following information:
a. A vegetation survey on a site plan that shows the diameter, species and location of all
significant trees and all existing native vegetation.
b. A site plan that shows trees and native vegetation to be retained and trees to be removed and
provides a table showing the number of significant trees to be removed and the number of replacement trees
required.
c. Tree protection zones and other measures to protect any trees or native vegetation that are to
be retained for sites undergoing development or re-development.
d. Location of the OHWM, river buffer, Shoreline Jurisdiction boundary and any critical areas with
their buffers.
e. A landscape plan that shows diameter, species name, spacing and planting location for any
required replacement trees and other proposed vegetation.
f. An arborist evaluation justifying the removal of hazardous trees if required by DCD.
g. An application fee per the current Land Use Permit Fee resolution.
3. Criteria for Shoreline Tree Removal.
a. The site is undergoing development or redevelopment; or
b. Tree poses a risk to structures; or
c. There is imminent potential for root or canopy interference with utilities; or
d. Trees interfere with the access and passage on public trails; or
e. Tree condition and health is poor, the City may require an evaluation by an International Society
of Arborists (ISA) certified arborist; or
f. Trees present an imminent hazard to the public. If the hazard is not readily apparent, the City may
require an evaluation by an International Society of Arborists (ISA) certified arborist.
4. Tree Replacement Requirements.
a. Significant trees that are removed, topped, or pruned by more than 25 percent within the shoreline
jurisdiction shall be replaced pursuant to the tree replacement requirements shown below, up to a density of
100 trees per acre (including existing trees).
b. Significant trees that are part of an approved landscape plan on a developed site are subject to
replacement per TMC 18.52. Dead or dying trees removed from developed or landscaped areas shall be
replaced 1:1 in the next appropriate season for planting.
c. Dead or dying trees located within the buffer or undeveloped upland portion of the Shoreline
Jurisdiction shall be left in place as wildlife snags, unless they present a hazard to structures, facilities or the
public. Removal of non-hazardous trees as defined by TMC 18.06 in non-developed areas are subject to the
tree replacement requirements listed in the table below.
d. The Director or Planning Commission may require additional trees or shrubs to be installed to
mitigate any potential impact from the loss of this vegetation as a result of new development.
Tree Replacement Requirements
Diameter* of Tree Removed (*measured at
height of 4.5 feet from the ground)
Number of Replacement
Trees Required
4 - 6 inches (single trunk);
2 inches (any trunk of a multi-trunk tree)
3
Over 6 - 8 inches 4
Over 8 - 20 inches 6
Over 20 inches 8
Page 22 of 41
e. The property owner is required to ensure the viability and long-term health of trees planted for
replacement through proper care and maintenance for the life of the project. Replaced trees that do not survive
must be replanted in the next appropriate season for planting.
f. If all required replacement trees cannot be reasonably accommodated on the site, off-site tree
replacement within the shoreline jurisdiction may be allowed at a site approved by the City. Priority for off-site
tree planting will be at locations within the Transition Zone. If no suitable off-site location is available, the
applicant shall pay into a tree replacement fund per the adopted fee resolution. .
5. Large Woody Debris. When a tree suitable for use as LWD is permitted to be removed from the
shoreline buffer, the tree trunk and root ball (where possible) will be saved for use in a restoration project
elsewhere in the shoreline jurisdiction. The applicant will be responsible for the cost of moving the removed
tree(s) to a location designated by the City. If no restoration project or storage location is available at the time,
the Director may waive this requirement. Trees removed in the shoreline jurisdiction outside the buffer shall be
placed as LWD in the buffer (not on the bank), if feasible. Priority for LWD placement projects will be in the
Transition Zone.
C. Tree Protection During Development and Redevelopment
All trees not proposed for removal as part of a project or development shall be protected using Best
Management Practices and the standards below.
1. The Critical Root Zones (CRZ) for all trees designated for retention, on site or on adjacent property as
applicable, shall be identified on all construction plans, including demolition, grading, civil and landscape
site plans.
2. Any roots within the CRZ exposed during construction shall be covered immediately and kept moist
with appropriate materials. The City may require a third-party Qualified Tree Professional to review
longterm viability of the tree.
3. Physical barriers, such as 6-foot chain link fence or plywood or other approved equivalent, shall be
placed around each individual tree or grouping at the CRZ.
4. Minimum distances from the trunk for the physical barriers shall be based on the approximate age of
the tree (height and canopy) as follows:
a. Young trees (trees which have reached less than 20% of life expectancy): 0.75 per
inch of trunk diameter.
b. Mature trees (trees which have reached 20-80% of life expectancy): 1 foot per inch of trunk
diameter.
c. Over mature trees (trees which have reached greater than 80% of life expectancy): 1.5 feet per
inch of trunk diameter.
5. Alternative protection methods may be used that provide equal or greater tree protection if approved by
the Director.
6. A weatherproof sign shall be installed on the fence or barrier that reads:
“TREE PROTECTION ZONE – THIS FENCE SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR ENCROACHED UPON. No
soil disturbance, parking, storage, dumping or burning of materials is allowed within the Critical Root Zone.
The value of this tree is $ [insert value of tree as determined by a Qualified Tree Professional here].
Damage to this tree due to construction activity that results in the death or necessary removal of the tree is
subject to the Violations section of TMC Chapter 18.44.”
7. All tree protection measures installed shall be inspected by the City and, if deemed necessary a
Qualified Tree Professional, prior to beginning construction or earth moving.
8. Any branches or limbs that are outside of the CRZ and might be damaged by machinery shall be
pruned prior to construction by a Qualified Tree Professional. No construction personnel shall prune
affected limbs except under the direct supervision of a Qualified Tree Professional.
9. The CRZ shall be covered with 4 to 6 inches of wood chip mulch. Mulch shall not be placed directly
against the trunk. A 6-inch area around the trunk shall be free of mulch. Additional measures, such as
fertilization or supplemental water, shall be carried out prior to the start of construction if deemed
Page 23 of 41
necessary by the Qualified Tree Professional’s report to prepare the trees for the stress of construction
activities.
10. No storage of equipment or refuse, parking of vehicles, dumping of materials or chemicals,
or placement of permanent heavy structures or items shall occur within the CRZ.
11. No grade changes or soil disturbance, including trenching, shall be allowed within the CRZ.
Grade changes within 10 feet of the CRZ shall be approved by the City prior to implementation.
12. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that the CRZ of trees on adjacent properties are
not impacted by the proposed development.
13. A pre-construction inspection shall be conducted by the City to finalize tree protection actions.
14. Post-construction inspection of protected trees shall be conducted by the City and, if deemed
necessary by the City, a Qualified Tree Professional. All corrective or reparative pruning will be
conducted by a Qualified Tree Professional.
D. Landscaping. This section presents landscaping standards for the Shoreline Jurisdiction and is
divided into a general section and separate sections for the River Buffer and for the remaining part of the
Shoreline Jurisdiction for each environment designation.
1. General Requirements. For any new development or redevelopment in the Shoreline
Jurisdiction, except single family residential development of 4 or fewer lots, invasive vegetation must be
removed and native vegetation planted and maintained in the River Buffer, including the river bank.
a. The landscaping requirements of this subsection apply for any new development or
redevelopment in the Shoreline Jurisdiction, except: single family residential development of 4 or fewer lots.
The extent of landscaping required will depend on the size of the proposed project. New development or full
redevelopment of a site will require landscaping of the entire site. For smaller projects, the Director will review
the intent of this section and the scope of the project to determine a reasonable amount of landscaping to be
carried out.
b. Invasive vegetation must be removed as part of site preparation and native vegetation planted,
including the river bank to OHWM.
c. On properties located landward of publicly maintained levees, an applicant is not required to
remove invasive vegetation or plant native vegetation within the buffer.
d. Removal of invasive species shall be done by hand or with hand-held power tools. Where not
feasible and mechanized equipment is needed, the applicant must obtain a Shoreline Tree Removal and
Vegetation Clearing Permit and show how the slope stability of the bank will be maintained. A plan must be
submitted indicating how the work will be done and what erosion control and tree protection features will be
utilized. Federal and State permits may be required for vegetation removal with mechanized equipment.
e. Trees and other vegetation shading the river shall be retained or replanted when riprap is
placed, as specified in the approved tree permit if a permit is required.
f. Removal of invasive vegetation may be phased over several years prior to planting, if such
phasing is provided for by a plan approved by the Director to allow for alternative approaches, such as sheet
mulching and goat grazing. The method selected shall not destabilize the bank or cause erosion.
g. A combination of native trees, shrubs and groundcovers (including grasses, sedges, rushes
and vines) shall be planted. The plants listed in the Riparian Restoration and Management Table of the 2004
Washington Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington
Department of Ecology, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington, as amended) shall provide
the basis for plant selection. Site conditions, such as topography, exposure, and hydrology shall be taken into
account for plant selection. Other species may be approved if there is adequate justification.
h. Non-native trees may be used as street trees or in approved developed landscape areas where
conditions are not appropriate for native trees (for example where there are space or height limitations or
conflicts with utilities).
i. Plants shall meet the current American Standard for Nursery Stock (American Nursery and
Landscape Association – ANLA).
Page 24 of 41
j. Plant sizes in the non-buffer areas of all Shoreline Environments shall meet the following
minimum size standards:
Deciduous trees 2-inch caliper
Conifers 6 – 8 foot height
Shrubs 24-inch height
Groundcover/grasses 4-inch or 1 gallon container
k. Smaller plant sizes (generally one gallon, bareroot, plugs, or stakes, depending on plant
species) are preferred for buffer plantings. Willow stakes must be at least 1/2-inch in diameter.
l. Site preparation and planting of vegetation shall be in accordance with best management
practices for ensuring the vegetation’s long-term health and survival.
m. Plants may be selected and placed to allow for public and private view corridors and/or access
to the water’s edge.
n. Native vegetation in the shoreline installed in accordance with the preceding standards shall
be maintained by the property owner to promote healthy growth and prevent establishment of invasive species.
Invasive plants (such as blackberry, ivy, knotweed, bindweed) shall be removed on a regular basis, according
to the approved maintenance plan.
o. Areas disturbed by removal of invasive plants shall be replanted with native vegetation where
necessary to maintain the density shown in TMC Section 18.44.060.B.4. and must be replanted in a timely
manner, except where a long term removal and re-vegetation plan, as approved by the City, is being
implemented.
p. Landscape plans shall include a detail on invasive plant removal and soil preparation.
q.. The following standards apply to utilities and loading docks located in the shoreline jurisdiction.
(1) Utilities such as pumps, pipes, etc. shall be suitably screened with native vegetation;
(2) Utility easements shall be landscaped with native groundcover, grasses or other low-
growing plants as appropriate to the shoreline environment and site conditions;
(3) Allowed loading docks and service areas located waterward of the development shall
have landscaping that provides extensive visual separation from the river.
2. River Buffer Landscaping Requirements in all Shoreline Environments. The River Buffer in
all shoreline environments shall function, in part, as a vegetation management area to filter sediment, capture
contaminants in surface water run-off, reduce the velocity of water run-off, and provide fish and wildlife habitat.
a. A planting plan prepared by an approved biologist shall be submitted to the City for approval
that shows plant species, size, number and spacing. The requirement for a biologist may be waived by the
Director for single family property owners (when planting is being required as mitigation for construction of
overwater structures or shoreline stabilization), if the property owner accepts technical assistance from City
staff.
b. Plants shall be installed from the OHWM to the upland edge of the River Buffer unless the
Director determines that site conditions would make planting unsafe.
c. Plantings close to and on the bank shall include native willows, red osier dogwood and other
native vegetation that will extend out over the water, to provide shade and habitat functions when mature.
Species selected must be able to withstand seasonal water level fluctuations.
d. Minimum plant spacing in the buffer shall follow the River Buffer Vegetation Planting Densities
Table shown in TMC Section 18.44.060.C.2. Existing non-invasive plants may be included in the density
calculations.
e. Irrigation for buffer plantings is required for at least two dry seasons or until plants are
established. An irrigation plan is to be included as part of the planting plan.
f. In the event that a development project allows for setback and benching of the shoreline along
an existing levee or revetment, the newly created mid-slope bench area shall be planted and maintained with a
variety of native vegetation appropriate for site conditions.
Page 25 of 41
g. The Department Director, in consultation with the City’s environmentalist, may approve the use
of shrub planting and installation of willow stakes to be counted toward the tree replacement standard in the
buffer if proposed as a measure to control invasive plants and increase buffer function.
River Buffer Vegetation Planting Densities Table
Plant Material Type Planting Density
Stakes/cuttings along river bank
(willows, red osier dogwood)
1 - 2 feet on center or per
bioengineering method
Shrubs 3 - 5 feet on center, depending
on species
Trees 15 – 20 feet on center,
depending on species
Groundcovers, grasses, sedges,
rushes, other herbaceous plants
1 – 1.5 feet on center, depending
on species
Native seed mixes 5 - 25 lbs per acre, depending on
species
3. Landscaping Requirements for the Urban Conservancy and High Intensity Environments —
Outside of the River Buffer. For the portions of property within the Shoreline Jurisdiction landward of the
River Buffer the landscape requirements in the General section of this chapter and the requirements for the
underlying zoning as established in TMC Chapter 18.52 shall apply except as indicated below.
a. Parking Lot Landscape Perimeters: One native tree for each 20 lineal feet of required
perimeter landscaping, one shrub for each 4 lineal feet of required perimeter landscaping, and native
groundcovers to cover 90% of the landscape area within 3 years, planted at a minimum spacing of 12 inches
on-center.
b. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: Every 300 square feet of paved surface requires 10 square
feet of interior landscaping within landscape islands separated by no more than 150 feet between islands.
c. Landscaping shall be provided at yards not adjacent to the river, with the same width as
required in the underlying zoning district. This standard may be reduced as follows:
(1) Where development provides a public access corridor between off-site public area(s)
and public shoreline areas, side yard landscaping may be reduced by 25 percent to no less than 3 feet; or
(2) Where development provides additional public access area(s) (as allowed by the High
Intensity and Urban Conservancy Environment Development Standards) equal in area to at least 2.5% of total
building area, front yard landscaping may be reduced by 25 percent.
E. Vegetation Management in the Shoreline Jurisdiction. The requirements of this section apply to
all existing and new development within the shoreline jurisdiction.
1. Trees and shrubs may only be pruned for safety, to maintain views or access corridors and trails
by pruning up or on the sides of trees, to maintain clearance for utility lines, and/or for improving shoreline
ecological function. No more than 25% may be pruned from a tree within a 36 month period without prior City
review. This type of pruning is exempt from any permit requirements.
2. Plant debris from removal of invasive plants or pruning shall be removed from the site and
disposed of properly.
3. Use of pesticides.
a. Pesticides (including herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) shall not be used in the shoreline
jurisdiction except where:
(1) Alternatives such as manual removal, biological control, and cultural control are not
feasible given the size of the infestation, site characteristics, or the characteristics of the invasive plant species;
(2) The use of pesticides has been approved through a comprehensive vegetation or pest
management and monitoring plan;
(3) The pesticide is applied in accordance with state regulations;
(4) The proposed herbicide is approved for aquatic use by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; and
Page 26 of 41
(5) The use of pesticides in the shoreline jurisdiction is approved in writing by the
Department of Ecology or Washington Department of Agriculture.
b. Self-contained rodent bait boxes designed to prevent access by other animals are allowed.
c. Sports fields, parks, golf courses and other outdoor recreational uses that involve maintenance
of extensive areas of turf shall provide and implement an integrated turf management program or integrated
pest management plan designed to ensure that water quality in the river is not adversely impacted.
4. Restoration Project Plantings: Restoration projects may overplant the site as a way to
discourage the re-establishment of invasive species. Thinning of vegetation to improve plant survival
and health without a separate shoreline vegetation removal permit may be permitted five to ten years
after planting if this approach is approved as part of the restoration project’s maintenance and
monitoring plan.
F. Maintenance and Monitoring.
1. Tree Replacement and Vegetation Clearing Permit Requirements
a. Schedule an inspection with the Urban Environmentalist to document planting of the correct
number and type of plants.
b. Submit annual documentation of tree and vegetation health for three years.
2. Restoration and Mitigation Project Requirements
a. A five-year maintenance and monitoring plan must be approved by the City prior to permit
issuance. The montoring period will begin when the restoration is accepted by the City and
as-built plans have been submitted.
b. Monitoring reports shall be submitted annually for City review up until the end of the Monitoring
period. Reports shall measure survival rates against project goals and present contingency
plans to meet project goals.
c. Mitigation will be complete after project goals have been met and and accepted by City
environmentalist.
d. A performance bond or financial security equal to 150% of the cost of labor and materials
required for implementation of the planting, maintenance and monitoring shall be submitted
prior to City acceptance of project.
(Ord. 2346 §8, 2011)
18.44.070 Environmentally Critical Areas within the Shoreline Jurisdiction
A. Applicable Critical Areas Regulations
1. The following critical areas shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance TMC Chapter 18.45, adopted [Date to be added], which is herein incorporated by reference
into this SMP, except for the provisions excluded in subsection A.2 of this Section. Said provisions shall apply
to any use, alteration, or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written
statement of exemption is required. Unless otherwise stated, no development shall be constructed, located,
extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided without full compliance with the provision adopted by
reference and the Shoreline Master Program. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of RMC TMC Chapter
18.45 shall be liberally construed together with the Shoreline Master Program to give full effect to the objectives
and purposes of the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. If there is
a conflict or inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline Master Program, the
most restrictive provisions shall prevail.
1. Wetlands
2. Watercourses (Type F, Type Np, Type Ns)
3. Areas of potential geologic instability
4. Abandoned mine areas
5. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
B. The following provisions in TMC Chapter 18.45 do not apply:
Page 27 of 41
1. Reasonable Use Exception (TMC Section 18.45.180) Exceptions within shoreline
jurisdiction shall require a shoreline variance based on the variance criteria listed in TMC Section 18.44.130.
D and WAC 173-27-170.
2.Activities and alterations to shorelines of the state and their buffers shall be subject to the provisions of this
Master Program.
3.Shoreline buffer widths are defined in TMC Section 18.44.040 .
4.Future amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance require Department of Ecology approval of an
amendment to this Master Program to incorporate updated language.
5. If provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance conflict with provisions of this Master Program, the provisions
the most protective of the ecological resource shall apply, as determined by the Director.
6. If there are provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance that are not consistent with the Shoreline
Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW, and supporting Washington Administrative Code chapters, those
provisions shall not apply.
C. Areas of seismic instability are also defined as critical areas. These areas are regulated by the
Washington State Building Code, rather than by Section 18.44.070 of this chapter. Additional building
standards applicable to frequently flooded areas are included in the Flood Zone Management Code (TMC
Chapter 16.52).
18.44.080 Public Access to the Shoreline
A. Applicability.
1. Public access shall be provided on all property that abuts the Green/Duwamish River shoreline in
accordance with this section as further discussed below where any of the following conditions are present:
a. Where a development or use will create increased demand for public access to the shoreline,
the development or use shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. For the purposes of this section, an
“increase in demand for public access” is determined by evaluating whether the development reflects an
increase in the land use intensity (for example converting a warehouse to office or retail use), or a significant
increase in the square footage of an existing building. A significant increase is defined as an increase of 3,000
square feet.
b. Where a development or use will interfere with an existing public access way, the development
or use shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. Impacts to public access may include blocking access
or discouraging use of existing on-site or nearby accesses.
c. Where a use or development will interfere with a public use of lands or waters subject to the
public trust doctrine, the development shall provide public access to mitigate this impact.
d. Where the development is proposed by a public entity or on public lands.
e. Where identified on the Shoreline Public Access Map in the Shoreline Master Program.
f. Where a land division of five or greater lots, or a residential project of five or greater residential
units, is proposed.
2. The extent of public access required will be proportional to the amount of increase in the demand
for public access. For smaller projects, the Director will review the intent of this section and the scope of the
project to determine a reasonable amount of public access to be carried out. Depending on the amount of
increase, the project may utilize the alternative provisions for meeting public access in TMC Section
18.44.080(F). The terms and conditions of TMC Sections 18.44.080(A) and (B) shall be deemed satisfied if the
applicant and the City agree upon a master trail plan providing for public paths and trails within a parcel or group
of parcels.
3. The provisions of this section do not apply to the following:
a. Short plats of four or fewer lots;
b. Where providing such access would cause unavoidable health or safety hazards;
c. Where an area is limited to authorized personnel and providing such access would create
inherent and unavoidable security problems that cannot be mitigated through site design or fencing; or
d. Where providing such access would cause significant ecological impacts that cannot be
mitigated.
Page 28 of 41
An applicant claiming an exemption under items 3(b) - (d) above must comply with the procedures
in TMC Section 18.44.080(F).
B. General Standards.
1. To improve public access to the Green/Duwamish River, sites shall be designed to provide:
a. Safe, visible and accessible pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle connections between
proposed development and the river’s edge, particularly when the site is adjacent to the Green River Trail or
other approved trail system; and
b. Public pathway entrances that are clearly visible from the street edge and identified with
signage; and
c. Clearly identified pathways that are separate from vehicular circulation areas. This may be
accomplished through the use of distinct paving materials, changes in color or distinct and detailed scoring
patterns and textures.
d. Site elements that are organized to clearly distinguish between public and private access and
circulation systems.
2. Required public access shall be fully developed and available for public use at the time of
occupancy in accordance with development permit conditions except where the decision maker determines an
appropriate mechanism for delayed public access implementation is necessary for practical reasons. Where
appropriate, a bond or cash assignment may be approved, on review and approval by the Director of Community
Development, to extend this requirement for 90 days from the date the Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
3. Public access easements and related permit conditions shall be recorded on the deed of title or
the face of the plat, short plat or approved site plan as a condition tied to the use of the land. Recording with
the County shall occur prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit or final plat approval. Upon re-development
of such a site, the easement may be relocated to facilitate the continued public access to the shoreline.
4. Approved signs indicating the public’s right of access and hours of access, if restricted, shall be
constructed, installed and maintained by the applicant in conspicuous locations at public access sites. Signs
should be designed to distinguish between public and private areas. Signs controlling or restricting public
access may be approved as a condition of permit approval.
5. Required access must be maintained in perpetuity.
6. Public access features shall be separated from residential uses through the use of setbacks, low
walls, berms, landscaping, or other device of a scale and materials appropriate to the site.
7. Shared public access between developments is encouraged. Where access is to be shared
between adjacent developments, the minimum width for the individual access easement may be reduced,
provided the total width of easements contributed by each adjacent development equals a width that complies
with Fire Department requirements and/or exceeds the minimum for an individual access.
8. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public area (e.g., street, public park,
or adjoining public access easement). Where connections are not currently possible, the site shall be designed
to accommodate logical future connections.
C. Requirements for Shoreline Trails. Where public access is required under TMC Section
18.44.080(A)1 above, the requirement will be met by provision of a shoreline trail as follows:
1. Development on Properties Abutting Existing Green River Trail. An applicant seeking to
develop property abutting the existing trail shall meet public access requirements by upgrading the trail along
the property frontage to meet the standards of a 12-foot-wide trail with 2-foot shoulders on each side. If a 12
foot wide trail exists on the property it shall mean public access requirements have been met if access to the
trail exists within 1000 feet of the property.
2. Development on Properties Where New Regional Trails are Planned. An applicant seeking
to develop property abutting the river in areas identified for new shoreline trail segments shall meet public
access requirements by dedicating an 16-foot-wide trail easement to the City for public access along the river.
3. On-site Trail Standards. Trails providing access within a property, park or restoration site shall be
developed at a width appropriate to the expected usage and environmental sensitivity of the site.
D. Publicly-Owned Shorelines.
Page 29 of 41
1. Shoreline development by any public entities, including but not limited to the City of Tukwila, King
County, port districts, state agencies, or public utility districts, shall include public access measures as part of
each development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security,
impact to the shoreline environment or other provisions listed in this section.
2. The following requirements apply to street ends and City-owned property adjacent to the river.
a. Public right-of-way and "road-ends," or portions thereof, shall not be vacated and shall be
maintained for future public access.
b. Unimproved right-of-ways and portions of right-of-ways, such as street ends and turn-outs,
shall be dedicated to public access uses until such time as the portion becomes improved right-of-way. Uses
shall be limited to passive outdoor recreation, hand carry boat launching, fishing, interpretive/educational uses,
and/or parking that accommodates these uses, and shall be designed so as to not interfere with the privacy of
adjacent residential uses.
c. City-owned facilities within the Shoreline Jurisdiction shall provide new trails and trail
connections to the Green River Trail in accordance with approved plans and this SMP.
d. All City-owned recreational facilities within the Shoreline Jurisdiction, unless qualifying for an
exemption as specified in this chapter, shall make adequate provisions for:
(1) Non-motorized and pedestrian access;
(2) The prevention of trespass onto adjacent properties through landscaping, fencing or
other appropriate measures;
(3) Signage indicating the public right-of-way to shoreline areas; and
(4) Mechanisms to prevent environmental degradation of the shoreline from public use.
E. Public Access Incentives.
1. The minimum yard setback for buildings, uses, utilities or development from non-riverfront lot lines
may be reduced as follows:
a. Where a development provides a public access corridor that connects off-site areas or public
shoreline areas to public shoreline areas, one side yard may be reduced to a zero lot line placement; or
b. Where a development provides additional public access area(s) equal in area to at least 2.5%
of total building area, the front yard (the landward side of the development) may be reduced by 50%.
2. The maximum height for structures withiin the shoreline jurisdiction may be increased by 15feet
when:
a. Development devotes at least 5% of its building or land area to public shoreline access; or
b. Development devotes at least 10% of its land area to employee shoreline access.
3. The maximum height for structures within the shoreline jurisdiction may be increased by 15
feet for properties that construct a 12-foot-wide paved trail with a 2-foot-wide shoulder on each side for public
access along the river in areas identified for new shoreline trail segments, or where, in the case of properties
containing or abutting existing public access trails, the existing trail either meets the standard of a 12-foot-wide
trail with 2-foot-wide shoulders on either side or the property owner provides any necessary easements and
improvements to upgrade the existing trail to that standard along the property frontage.
4. During the project review, the project proponent shall affirmatively demonstrate that the
increased height will:
a. Not block the views of a substantial number of residences;
b. Not cause environmental impacts such as light impacts adversely affecting the river corridor;
c. Achieve no net loss of ecological function; and
d. Not combine incentives to increase the allowed building height above the maximum height in
the parcel’s zoning district.
F. Exemptions from Provision of On-Site Public Access.
1. Requirements for providing on-site general public access, as distinguished from employee
access, will not apply if the applicant can demonstrate one or more of the following:
a. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist such as active railroad tracks or
hazardous chemicals related to the primary use that cannot be prevented by any practical means.
Page 30 of 41
b. The area is limited to authorized personnel and inherent security requirements of the use
cannot be satisfied through the application of alternative design features or other solutions.
c. The cost of providing the access, easement or other public amenity on or off the development
site is unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term cost of the proposed development.
d. Unavoidable environmental harm or net loss of shoreline ecological functions that cannot be
adequately mitigated will result from the public access.
e. Access is not feasible due to the configuration of existing parcels and structures, such that
access areas are blocked in a way that cannot be remedied reasonably by the proposed development.
f. Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between the proposed access and adjacent uses
would occur and cannot be mitigated.
g. Space is needed for water-dependent uses or navigation.
2. In order to meet any of the above-referenced conditions, the applicant must first demonstrate, and
the City determine in its findings through a Type II decision, that all reasonable alternatives have been
exhausted including, but not limited to:
a. Regulating access by such means as maintaining a gate and/or limiting hours of use;
b. Designing separation of uses and activities through fencing, terracing, hedges or other design
features; or
c. Providing access on a site geographically separate from the proposal such as a street end
cannot be accomplished.
3. If the above conditions are demonstrated, and the proposed development is not subject to the
Parks Impact Fee, alternative provisions for meeting public access are required and include:
a. Development of public access at an adjacent street end; or
b. Protection through easement or setbacks of landmarks, unique natural features or other areas
valuable for their interpretive potential; or
c. Contribution of materials and/or labor toward projects identified in the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, the Shoreline Restoration Plan, or other City adopted plan; or
d. In lieu of providing public access under this section, at the Director’s discretion, a private
applicant may provide restoration/enhancement of the shoreline jurisdiction to a scale commensurate with the
foregone public access.
(Ord. 2346 §10, 2011)
18.44.090 Shoreline Design Guidelines
The Green/Duwamish River is an amenity that should be valued and celebrated when designing projects
that will be located along its length.. If any portion of a project falls within the shoreline jurisdiction, then the
entire project will be reviewed under these guidelines as well as the relevant sections of the Design Review
Chapter of the Zoning Code (TMC Chapter 18.60). The standards of TMC Chapter 18.60 shall guide the type
of review, whether administrative or by the Board of Architectural Review.
A. The following standards apply to development, uses and activities in the Urban Conservancy and High
Intensity Environments and non-residential development in the Shoreline Residential Environment.
1. Relationship of Structure to Site. Development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall
demonstrate compliance with the following:
a. Respect and reflect the shape of the shoreline;
b. Orient building elements to site such that public river access, both visual and physical is
enhanced;
c. Orient buildings to allow for casual observation of pedestrian and trail activity from interior
spaces;
d. Site and orient buildings to provide maximum views from building interiors toward the river and
the shoreline;
e. Orient public use areas and private amenities to the river;
Page 31 of 41
f. Clearly allocate spaces, accommodating parking, vehicular circulation and buildings to
preserve existing stands of vegetation or trees so that natural areas can be set aside, improved, or integrated
into site organization and planning;
g. Clearly define and separate public from non-public spaces with the use of paving, signage,
and landscaping.
2. Building Design. Development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall demonstrate compliance
with the following:
a. To prevent building mass and shape from overwhelming the desired human scale along the
river, development shall avoid blank walls on the public and river sides of buildings.
b. Buildings should be designed to follow the curve of the river and respond to changes in
topography; buildings must not “turn their back” to the river.
c. Design common areas in buildings to take advantage of shoreline views and access;
incorporate outdoor seating areas that are compatible with shoreline access.
d. Consider the height and scale of each building in relation to the site.
e. Extend site features such as plazas that allow pedestrian access and enjoyment of the river to
the landward side of the buffer’s edge.
f. Locate lunchrooms and other common areas to open out onto the water-ward side of the site
to maximize enjoyment of the river.
g. Design structures to take advantage of the river frontage location by incorporating features
such as:
(1) plazas and landscaped open space that connect with a shoreline trail system;
(2) windows that offer views of the river; or
(3) pedestrian entrances that face the river.
h. View obscuring fencing is permitted only when necessary for documentable use requirements
and must be designed with landscaping per the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. Other fencing,
when allowed, must be designed to complement the proposed and/or existing development materials and
design; and
i. Where there are public trails, locate any fencing between the site and the landward side of the
shoreline trail.
3. Design of Public Access. Development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall demonstrate
compliance with the following:
a. Public access shall be barrier free, where feasible, and designed consistent with the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
b. Public access landscape design shall use native vegetation, in accordance with the standards
in the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. Additional landscape features may be required where
desirable to provide public/private space separation and screening of utility, service and parking areas.
c. Furniture used in public access areas shall be appropriate for the proposed level of
development, and the character of the surrounding area. For example, large urban projects should provide
formal benches; for smaller projects in less-developed areas, simpler, less formal benches or suitable
alternatives such as boulders are appropriate.
d. Materials used in public access furniture, structures or sites shall be:
(1) Durable and capable of withstanding exposure to the elements;
(2) Environmentally friendly and take advantage of technology in building materials,
lighting, paved surfaces, porous pavement, etc, wherever practical; and
(3) Consistent with the character of the shoreline and the anticipated use.
e. Public-Private Separation.
(1) Public access facilities shall look and feel welcoming to the public, and not appear as
an intrusion into private property.
(2) Natural elements such as logs, grass, shrubs, and elevation separations are
encouraged as means to define the separation between public and private space.
Page 32 of 41
4. Design of Flood Walls. The exposed new floodwalls should be designed to incorporate brick or
stone facing, textured concrete block, design elements formed into the concrete or vegetation to cover the
wall within 3 years
(Ord. 2346 §11, 2011)
18.44.100 Shoreline Restoration
A. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Not Required. Shoreline restoration projects shall be
allowed without a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit when these projects meet the criteria established
by WAC 173-27-040(o) and (p) and RCW 90.58.580.
B. Changes in Shoreline Jurisdiction Due to Restoration.
1. Relief may be granted from Shoreline Master Program standards and use regulations in cases
where shoreline restoration projects result in a change in the location of the OHWM and associated Shoreline
Jurisdiction and/or critical area buffers on the subject property and/or adjacent properties, and where application
of this chapter’s regulations would preclude or interfere with the uses permitted by the underlying zoning, thus
presenting a hardship to the project proponent.
a. Applications for relief, as specified below, must meet the following criteria:
(1) The proposed relief is the minimum necessary to relieve the hardship;
(2) After granting the proposed relief, there is net environmental benefit from the restoration
project; and
(3) Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the shoreline restoration
project and with the Shoreline Master Program.
(4) Where a shoreline restoration project is created as mitigation to obtain a development
permit, the project proponent required to perform the mitigation is not eligible for relief under the provisions of
this section.
b. The Department of Ecology must review and approve applications for relief.
c. For the portion of property that moves from outside Shoreline Jurisdiction to inside Shoreline
Jurisdiction as a result of the shoreline restoration project, the City may consider the following, consistent with
the criteria in TMC Section 18.44.100.B.1.a.
(1) permitting development for the full range of uses of the underlying zoning consistent
with the Zoning Code, including uses that are not water oriented;
(2) waiving the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit if it is
otherwise exempt from the requirement for a substantial development permit;
(3) waiving the provisions for public access;
(4) waiving the requirement for shoreline design review; and
(5) waiving the development standards set forth in this chapter.
d. The intent of the exemptions identified above in subparagraphs B.1.c.(1) to B.1.c.(5) is to
implement the restoration projects of the Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan, which reflects the projects
identified in the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Plan pursuant to Policy 5.2 of the SMP.
2. Consistent with provisions in 18.44.050, building heights may be increased if the project proponent
provides additional restoration and/or enhancement of the shoreline buffer, beyond what may otherwise be
required in accordance with the standards of TMC Section 18.44.060, “Vegetation Protection and Landscaping.”
Additional Restoration and/or enhancement shall include
a. creation of shallow-water (max slope 5H:1V) off channel rearing habitat and/or
b. removal of fish passage barriers to known or potential fish habitat, and restoration of the barrier
site.
3. Consistent with the provisions of subparagraphs B.1.a, 1.b and 1.c above, the Shoreline Residential
Environment, High Intensity, Urban Conservancy Environment, or critical area buffer width may be reduced to
no less than 25 feet measured from the new location of the OHWM for the portion of the property that moves
from outside the Shoreline Jurisdiction to inside Shoreline Jurisdiction as a result of the shoreline restoration
project, subject to the following standards:
Page 33 of 41
a. The 25-foot buffer area must be vegetated according to the requirements of the Vegetation
Protection and Landscaping Section or as otherwise approved by the City; and
b. The proponents of the restoration project are responsible for the installation and maintenance
of the vegetation.
4. The habitat restoration project proponents must record with King County a survey that identifies
the location of the OHWM location prior to implementation of the shoreline restoration project, any structures
that fall within the Shoreline Jurisdiction, and the new location of the OHWM once construction of the shoreline
restoration project is completed.
5. Shoreline restoration projects must obtain all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife approvals as well as written approval from the City.
(Ord. 2346 §12, 2011)
18.44.110 Administration
A. Applicability of Shoreline Master Program and Substantial Development Permit.
1. Development in the Shoreline Jurisdiction. Based on guidelines in the SMA for a Minimum
Shoreline Jurisdiction, Tukwila's Shoreline Jurisdiction is defined as follows: The Tukwila Shoreline Jurisdiction
includes the channel of the Green/Duwamish River, its banks, the upland area which extends from the OHWM
landward for 200 feet on each side of the river, floodways and all associated wetlands within its floodplain. The
floodway shall not include those lands that have historically been protected by flood control devices and
therefore have not been subject to flooding with reasonable regularity.
2. Applicability. The Tukwila SMP applies to uses, change of uses, activities or development that
occurs within the above-defined Shoreline Jurisdiction. All proposed uses and development occurring within
the Shoreline Jurisdiction must conform to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the SMA, and this chapter whether or not a
permit is required.
B. Relationship to Other Codes and Regulations
1. Compliance with this Master Program does not constitute compliance with other federal, state,
and local regulations and permit requirements that may apply. The applicant is responsible for
complying with all other applicable requirements.
2. Where this Master Program makes reference to any RCW, WAC, or other state or federal law or
regulation, the most recent amendment or current edition shall apply.
3. In the case of any conflict between any other federal, state, or local law and this Master
Program, the provision that is most protective of shoreline resources shall prevail, except when
constrained by federal or state law, or where specifically provided in this Master Program.
4. Relationship to Sensitive Areas Regulations.
A. For protection of critical areas where they occur in shoreline jurisdiction, this Master
Program adopts by reference the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance, which is incorporated into
this Master Program with specific exclusions and modifications in TMC Section 18.44.070.
B. All references to the Critical Areas Ordinance are for the version adopted [CAO adoption
date]. Pursuant to WAC 173-26-191(2)(b), amending the referenced regulations in the
Master Program for those critical areas under shoreline jurisdiction will require an
amendment to the Master Program and approval by the Department of Ecology.
C. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the Critical Areas Ordinance shall be liberally construed
together with this Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the
provisions of this Master Program and Chapter 90.58 RCW.
Page 34 of 41
C. Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews. Requirements to obtain
a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other review to
implement the Shoreline Management Act do not apply to the following described in WAC 173-27-044 and WAC
173-27-045:
1. Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial action at a
facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW, or to
the department of ecology when it conducts a remedial action under chapter 70.105D RCW.
2. Boatyard improvements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any
person installing site improvements for storm water treatment in an existing boatyard facility to meet
requirements of a national pollutant discharge elimination system storm water general permit.
3. WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.356, Washington
State Department of Transportation projects and activities meeting the conditions of RCW 90.58.356 are not
required to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or
other local review.
4. Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant to RCW
90.58.045. (v) Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process, pursuant to
chapter 80.50 RCW.
D. Substantial Development Permit Requirements.
1. Permit Application Procedures. Applicants for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
shall comply with permit application procedures in TMC Chapter 18.104.
2. Exemptions.
a. To qualify for an exemption, the proposed use, activity or development must meet the
requirements for an exemption as described in WAC 173-27-040, except for properties that meet the
requirements of the Shoreline Restoration Section, TMC Section 18.44.100. The purpose of a shoreline
exemption is to provide a process for uses and activities which do not trigger the need for a Substantial
Development Permit, but require compliance with all provisions of the City’s SMP and overlay district.
b. The Director may impose conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses
as necessary to assure compliance of the project with the SMA and the Tukwila SMP, per WAC 173-27-040(e).
For example, in the case of development subject to a building permit but exempt from the shoreline permit
process, the Building Official or other permit authorizing official, through consultation with the Director, may
attach shoreline management terms and conditions to building permits and other permit approvals pursuant to
RCW 90.58.140.
3. A substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is
consistent with:
a. The policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act.
b. The provisions of Chapter 173-27, WAC; and
c. This Shoreline Master Program.
E. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
1. Purpose. As stated in WAC 173-27-160, the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is to
allow greater flexibility in the application of use regulations of this chapter in a manner consistent with the
policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit
by the City or the Department of Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or assure
consistency of the project with the SMA and the City’s SMP. Uses which are specifically prohibited by the
Shoreline Master Program may not be authorized with approval of a CUP.
2. Application. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits are a Type 4 Permit processed under TMC
Chapter 18.104.
3. Application requirements. Applicants must meet all requirements for permit application and
approvals indicated in TMC Chapter 18.104 and this chapter.
4. Approval Criteria.
a. Uses classified as shoreline conditional uses may be authorized, provided that the applicant
can demonstrate all of the following:
Page 35 of 41
(1) The proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the policies
of the Tukwila Shoreline Master Program;
(2) The proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;
(3) The proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other
permitted uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and this
chapter;
(4) The proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment
in which it is to be located; and
(5) The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
b. In the granting of all Conditional Use Permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative
impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if Conditional Use Permits were granted
to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also
remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58 and all local ordinances and shall not produce substantial
adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
F. Shoreline Variance Permits.
1. Purpose. The purpose of a Shoreline Variance Permit is strictly limited to granting relief from
specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this chapter where there are extraordinary or
unique circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict
implementation of this chapter will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the Shoreline
Management Act policies as stated in RCW 90.58.020. Reasonable use requests that are located in the
shoreline must be processed as a variance, until such time as the Shoreline Management Act is amended to
establish a process for reasonable uses. Variances from the use regulations of this chapter are prohibited.
2. Application requirements. Applicants must meet all requirements for a Type 3 permit application
and approvals indicated in TMC Chapter 18.104.
3. Shoreline Variance Permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would
result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must
demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist and the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental
effect.
4. Approval Criteria. A Shoreline Variance Permit for a use, activity or development that will be
located landward of the ordinary high water mark and/or landward of any wetland may be authorized provided
the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
a. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this
chapter preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by this
chapter.
b. The hardship described in TMC Section 18.44.110.D.4. is specifically related to the property
and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of
this chapter, and not from the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary
because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other
properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated.
c. The design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with
uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to
adjacent properties or the shoreline environment.
d. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in
the area.
e. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief.
f. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
g. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of
additional requests for like actions in the area such that the total of the variances would remain consistent with
RCW 90.58.020 and not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
5. Shoreline Variance Permits Waterward of OHWM.
Page 36 of 41
a. Shoreline variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located either waterward
of the ordinary high water mark or within any critical area may be authorized only if the applicant can
demonstrate all of the following:
(1) The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in this
Master Program preclude all reasonable permitted use of the property;
(2) The proposal is consistent with the criteria established under TMC Section
18.44.110.D.4., “Approval Criteria;” b. through g., and
(3) The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected
by the granting of the variance.
G. Non-Conforming Development.
1. Non-Conforming Uses. Any non-conforming lawful use of land that would not be allowed under
the terms of this chapter may be continued as an allowed, legal, non-conforming use, defined in TMC Chapter
18.06 or as hereafter amended, so long as that use remains lawful, subject to the following:
a. No such non-conforming use shall be enlarged, intensified, increased, moved or extended to
occupy a greater use of the land, structure or combination of the two, than was occupied at the effective date
of adoption of this chapter except as authorized in TMC Section 18.66.120 or upon approval of a conditional
use permit.
b. If any such non-conforming use ceases for any reason for a period of more than 24 consecutive
months, the non-conforming rights shall expire and any subsequent use shall conform to the regulations
specified by in this chapter for the shoreline environment in which such use is located, unless re-establishment
of the use is authorized through a Type 2 permit which must be applied for within the two-year period. Water-
dependent uses should not be considered discontinued when they are inactive due to dormancy, or where the
use is typically seasonal. Upon request of the owner, prior to the end of the 24 consecutive months and upon
reasonable cause shown, the City may grant an extension of time beyond the 24 consecutive months using the
criteria set forth in TMC Section 18.44.1030.G.4.
c. If a change of use is proposed to a use determined to be non-conforming by application of
provisions in this chapter, the proposed new use must be a permitted use in this chapter or a use approved
under a Type 2 permit with public notice process. For purposes of implementing this section, a change of use
constitutes a change from one permitted or conditional use category to another such use category as listed
within the Shoreline Use Matrix.
d. A structure that is being or has been used for a non-conforming use may be used for a different
non-conforming use only upon the approval of a Type 2 permit subject to public notice. Before approving a
change in non-conforming use, the following findings must be made:
(1) No reasonable alternative conforming use is practical.
(2) The proposed use will be at least as consistent with the policies and provisions of the
SMP and as compatible with the uses in the area as the non-conforming use.
(3) The use or activity is enlarged, intensified, increased or altered only to the minimum
amount necessary to achieve the intended functional purpose.
(4) The structure(s) associated with the non-conforming use shall not be expanded in a
manner that increases the extent of the non-conformity.
(5) The change in use will not create adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions
and/or processes.
(6) The applicant restores and/or enhances the entire shoreline buffer , including but not
limited to, paved areas no longer in use on the property, to offset the impact of the change of use per the
vegetation management standards of this chapter. This may include the restoration of paved areas to vegetated
area if no longer in use.
(7)
The preference is to reduce exterior uses in the buffer to the maximum extent possible.
2. Non-Conforming Structures. Where a lawful structure exists on the effective date of adoption
of this chapter that could not be built under the terms of this chapter by reason of restrictions on height, buffers
Page 37 of 41
or other characteristics of the structure, it may be continued as an allowed, legal structure so long as the
structure remains otherwise lawful subject to the following provisions:
a. Such structures may be repaired, maintained, upgraded and altered provided that:
(1) The structure may not be enlarged or altered in such a way that increases its degree of
nonconformity or increases its impacts to the functions and values of the shoreline environment except as
authorized in TMC Section 18.66.120; and
(2) If the structure is located on a property that has no reasonable development
potential outside the shoreline buffer, there shall be no limit on the cost of alterations. If the structure
is located on a property that has reasonable development potential outside the shoreline buffer,the
cost of the alterations may not exceed an aggregate cost of 50% of the value of the building or
structure in any 3-year period based upon its most recent assessment, unless the amount over 50%
is used to make the building or structure more conforming, or is used to restore to a safe condition
any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority.
(3) Maintenance or repair of an existing private bridge is allowed without a conditional use permit
when it does not involve the use of hazardous substances, sealants or other liquid oily substances.
b. Should such structure be destroyed by any accidental means, the structure may be
reconstructed to its original dimensions and location on the lot provided application is made for permits within
two years of the date the damage occurred and all reconstruction is completed within two years of permit
issuance. In the event the property is redeveloped, such redevelopment must be in conformity with the
provisions of this chapter.
c. Should such structure be moved for any reason or any distance, it must be brought as closely
as practicable into conformance with the applicable master program and the act.
d. When a non-conforming structure, or structure and premises in combination, is vacated or
abandoned for 24 consecutive months, the structure, or structure and premises in combination, shall thereafter
be required to be in conformance with the regulations of this chapter. Upon request of the owner, prior to the
end of the 24 consecutive months and upon reasonable cause shown an extension of time beyond the 24
consecutive months may be granted using the criteria in TMC Section 18.44.110.E.4.
e. Residential structures located in any Shoreline Residential Environment and in existence at
the time of adoption of this chapter shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of height, residential use, or
location provisions of this title. Such buildings may be rebuilt after a fire or other natural disaster to their original
dimensions, location and height, but may not be changed except as provided in the non-conforming uses section
of this chapter.
f. Single-family structures in the Shoreline Residential Environment that have legally non-
conforming setbacks from the OHWM per the SMP buffer shall be allowed to expand the ground floor only along
the existing building line(s) as long as the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the OHWM
is not reduced and the square footage of new intrusion into the buffer does not exceed 50% of the square
footage of the current intrusion. As a condition of building permit approval, a landscape plan showing removal
of invasive plant species within the entire shoreline buffer and replanting with appropriate native species must
be submitted to the City. Plantings should be maintained through the establishment period.
3. For the purposes of this section, altered or partially reconstructed is defined as work that does not
exceed 50% of the assessed valuation of the building over a three-year period.
4. Requests for Time Extension—Non-conforming Uses and Structures.
a. A property owner may request, prior to the end of the two–year period, an extension of time
beyond the two-year period. Such a request shall be considered as a Type 2 permit under TMC Chapter 18.104
and may be approved only when:
(1) For a non-conforming use, a finding is made that no reasonable alternative conforming
use is practical.
(2) For a non-conforming structure, special economic circumstances prevent the lease or
sale of said structure within 24 months.
Page 38 of 41
(3) The applicant restores and/or enhances the shoreline buffer on the property to offset
the impact of the continuation of the non-conforming use. For non-conforming uses, the amount of buffer to be
restored and/or enhanced will be determined based on the percentage of the existing building used by the non-
conforming use for which a time extension is being requested. Depending on the size of the area to be restored
and/or enhanced, the Director may require targeted plantings rather than a linear planting arrangement. The
vegetation management standards of this program shall be used for guidance on any restoration/enhancement.
For non-conforming structures, for each six-month extension of time requested, 15% of the available buffer
must be restored/enhanced.
b. Conditions may be attached to the permit that are deemed necessary to assure compliance
with the above findings, the requirements of the Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act and to
assure that the use will not become a nuisance or a hazard.
5. Building Safety. Nothing in this SMP shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring
to a safe condition of any non-conforming building or part thereof declared to be unsafe by order of any City
official charged with protecting the public safety.
a. Alterations or expansion of a non-conforming structure that are required by law or a public
agency in order to comply with public health or safety regulations are the only alterations or expansions allowed.
b. Alterations or expansions permitted under this section shall be the minimum necessary to meet
the public safety concerns.
6. Non-Conforming Parking Lots.
a. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to require a change in any aspect of a
structure or facility covered thereunder including, without limitation, parking lot layout, loading space
requirements and curb-cuts, for any structure or facility which existed on the date of adoption of this chapter.
b. If a change of use takes place or an addition is proposed that requires an increase in the
parking area by an increment less than 100%, the requirements of this chapter shall be complied with for the
additional parking area.
c. If a property is redeveloped, a change of use takes place or an addition is proposed that
requires an increase in the parking area by an increment greater than 100%, the requirements of this chapter
shall be complied with for the entire parking area.
d. If no change in parking lot area is proposed, a non-conforming parking lot may be upgraded to
improve water quality or meet local, state, and federal regulations.
7. Non-Conforming Landscape Areas.
a. Adoption of the vegetation protection and landscaping regulations contained in this chapter
shall not be construed to require a change in the landscape improvements for any legal landscape area that
existed on the date of adoption of this chapter, unless and until the property is redeveloped or alteration of the
existing structure is made beyond the thresholds provided herein.
b. At such time as the property is redeveloped or the existing structure is altered beyond the
thresholds provided herein and the associated premises does not comply with the vegetation protection and
landscaping requirements of this chapter, a landscape plan that conforms to the requirements of this chapter
shall be submitted to the Director for approval.
H. Revisions to Shoreline Permits
1. Revisions to previously issued shoreline permits shall be reviewed under the SMP in effect at the
time of submittal of the revision, and not the SMP under which the original shoreline permit was
approved and processed in accordance with WAC 173-27-100.
I. Time Limits on Shoreline Permits
1. Consistent with WAC 173-27-090, shoreline permits are valid for two years, and the work authorized
under the shoreline permit must be completed in five years. Construction activity must begin within
this two-year period. If construction has not begun within two years, a one-time extension of one
year may be approved by the Director based on reasonable factors. The permit time period does
not include the time during which administrative appeals or legal actions are pending or due to the
need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the project.
Page 39 of 41
2. Upon a finding of good cause, based on the requirements and circumstances of a proposed project,
and consistent with the City’s Shoreline Master Program, the City may adopt a different time limit
for a shoreline substantial development permit as part of an action on a shoreline substantial
development permit.
(Ord. 2346 §13, 2011)
18.44.120 Appeals
Any appeal of a decision by the City on a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional
Use or Shoreline Variance must be appealed to the Shoreline Hearing Board.
(Ord. 2346 §14, 2011)
18.44.130 Enforcement and Penalties
A. Violations. The following actions shall be considered violations of this chapter:
1. To use, construct or demolish any structure, or to conduct clearing, earth-moving, construction or
other development not authorized under a Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit or Variance
Permit, where such permit is required by this chapter.
2. Any work which is not conducted in accordance with the plans, conditions, or other requirements
in a permit approved pursuant to this chapter, provided that the terms or conditions are stated in the permit or
the approved plans.
3. To remove or deface any sign, notice, complaint or order required by or posted in accordance with
this chapter.
4. To misrepresent any material fact in any application, plans or other information submitted to obtain
any shoreline use or development authorization.
5. To fail to comply with the requirements of this chapter.
B. Enforcement. It shall be the duty of the Director to enforce this chapter subject to the terms and
conditions of TMC Chapter 8.45.
C. Inspection Access.
1. For the purpose of inspection for compliance with the provisions of a permit or this chapter,
authorized representatives of the Director may enter all sites for which a permit has been issued.
2. Upon completion of all requirements of a permit, the applicant shall request a final inspection by
contacting the planner of record. The permit process is complete upon final approval by the planner.
D. Penalties.
1. Any violation of any provision of the SMP, or failure to comply with any of the requirements of this
chapter shall be subject to the penalties prescribed in Chapter 8.45 of the Tukwila Municipal Code
(“Enforcement”) and shall be imposed pursuant to the procedures and conditions set forth in that chapter.
2. Penalties assessed for violations of the SMP shall be determined by TMC Chapter
8.5.120,Penalties.
3. It shall not be a defense to the prosecution for failure to obtain a permit required by this chapter,
that a contractor, subcontractor, person with responsibility on the site, or person authorizing or directing the
work, erroneously believed a permit had been issued to the property owner or any other person.
4. Penalties for Tree Removal
a. Each unlawfully removed or damaged tree shall constitute a separate violation.
b. The amount of the penalty shall be $1,000 per tree or up to the marketable value of each tree
removed or damaged as determined by an ISA certified arborist. The Director may elect not to
seek penalties or may reduce the penalties if he/she determines the circumstances do not warrant
imposition of any or all of the civil penalties.
c. Any illegal removal of required trees shall be subject to obtaining a tree permit and replacement with
trees that meet or exceed the functional value of the removed trees. In addition, any shrubs and
groundcover removed without City approval shall be replaced.
d.To replace the tree canopy lost due to the tree removal, additional trees must be planted on-
site. Payment may be made into the City’s Tree Fund if the number of replacement trees cannot
Page 40 of 41
be accommodated on-site. The number of replacement trees required will be based on the size
of the tree(s) removed as stated in TMC 18.44.060 B 4.
E. Remedial Measures Required. In addition to penalties provided in TMC Chapter 8.45, the Director
may require any person conducting work in violation of this chapter to mitigate the impacts of unauthorized work
by carrying out remedial measures.
1. Remedial measures must conform to the policies and guidelines of this chapter and the Shoreline
Management Act.
2. The cost of any remedial measures necessary to correct violation(s) of this chapter shall be borne
by the property owner and/or applicant.
F. Injunctive Relief.
1. Whenever the City has reasonable cause to believe that any person is violating or threatening to
violate this chapter or any rule or other provisions adopted or issued pursuant to this chapter, it may, either
before or after the institution of any other action or proceeding authorized by this ordinance, institute a civil
action in the name of the City for injunctive relief to restrain the violation or threatened violation. Such action
shall be brought in King County Superior Court.
2. The institution of an action for injunctive relief under this section shall not relieve any party to such
proceedings from any civil or criminal penalty prescribed for violations of the Master Program.
G. Abatement. Any use, structure, development or work that occurs in violation of this chapter, or in
violation of any lawful order or requirement of the Director pursuant to this section, shall be deemed to be a
public nuisance and may be abated in the manner provided by the Tukwila Municipal Code 8.45.100.
(Ord. 2346 §15, 2011)
18.44.150 Liability
A. Liability for any adverse impacts or damages resulting from work performed in accordance with a
permit issued on behalf of the City within the City limits shall be the sole responsibility of the owner of the site
for which the permit was issued.
B. No provision of or term used in this chapter is intended to impose any duty upon the City or any of its
officers or employees that would subject them to damages in a civil action.
(Ord. 2346 §16, 2011)
Page 41 of 41
AMENDMENTS TO OTHER ZONING CODE SECTIONS
18.52.030 Shoreline Landscape Requirements
Additional landscape requirements apply in the Shoreline Overlay District, as directed by TMC 18.44.060,
Vegetation Protection and Landscaping.
18.60.050 Board of Architectural Review
H. Shoreline Design Criteria. The criteria contained in the Shoreline Design Guidelines (18.44.090) shall
be used whenever the provisions of this title require a design review decision on a proposed or modified
development in the Shoreline Overlay District.
18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications
TYPE 2 DECISIONS
TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY
Shoreline buffer reduction Community Development Director State Shoreline Hearings Board
Extension of time for continuing a shoreline nonconforming use or structure Community Development Director State Shoreline Hearings Board
TYPE 3 DECISIONS TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Hearing Examiner APPEAL BODY State Shoreline Hearings Board
Matrix of Proposed SMP Edits
Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation PC Action
Chapter 4
Comment letter D6 requested several updates and edits to this Chapter.
However this is a summary of the existing Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization Report and updating this underlying document is not within
the scope of this periodic update.
Staff recommends the following clarifying comments but
these should not imply that the report itself has been
updated.
Public - D6 p.3-
4 No action required
Chapter 4
While the report has been finalized, the City continues to utilize the most
recent information available, such as the recently updated 9/15/2017 FEMA
Revised Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM), which were
issued after the completion of the Inventory and Characterization report.
Commenter asked what is the date of the referenced
DFIRM maps on this page? Public - D6 p.3
Staff - Add new
language
No change to Public
Review Draft
Chapter 4.1
Aside fromThe Tukwila 205 certified levee on the left bank of the river in the
Urban Center is not certified and areas protected by this levee have been
designated as “secluded”and regulated as outside of the 100-year Special
Flood Hazard on the proposed 9/15/2017 FEMA Revised Preliminary Digital
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM).Other levees in the City also do not
meet COE standards and are mapped as floodplain. These include portions
of the newly annexed Tukwila South area and levees along the right bank of
the river.Current development proposals in Tukwila South include the
relocation of the cross-valley levee and reconstruction of the non-certified
levees to meet COE standards. The permitting for this work is on-going.
Commenter asks about the statements on the
inadequacy of the Tukwila South levee and relocation of
the cross-valley levee and permitting to address these
issues. Staff proposes the clarification shown. Public - D6 p.3
Staff - Change as
shown Change as shown
Chapter 4.2
The entire length of the Green/Duwamish River within the City of Tukwila has
been declared “critical habitat” for Chinook salmon, Steelhead trout and bull
trout. BothThese species are listed as threatened under the Federal
Endangered Species Act.
Commenter notes that Steelhead trout are also listed
under the Endangered Species Act and are found in the
Green/Duwamish River. Public - D6 p.3
Staff - Change as
shown Change as shown
Chapter 4.2
Changes to hydrology are the result of modified flow regime due to dam
construction, diversion, and urban development. River management,piping
of streams including the use of tide-gates,pumped storm discharges,and
levees have reduced the connection between the rivers and their floodplains,
changing the spatial extent of habitats, and increasing the potential for
negative water quality impacts. Disturbances to the channel banks have
resulted in areas that are dominated by non-native invasive species and
generally devoid of sufficient riparian vegetation. Wood, in the form of
riparian trees and in-channel wood, is generally lacking throughout the
system, which negatively impacts riparian and aquatic habitats as well as
river temperatures that periodically exceed state standards and create lethal
and sublethal conditions for adult salmon.
Commenter states that this section should be modified to
note that lack of trees affects water temperatures which
exceed state standards and create lethal and sublethal
conditions for adult salmon. Public - D6 p.3
Staff - Change as
shown Change as shown
SMP Edits Page 1
Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation PC Action
Chapter 4.3
In general, these changes have reduced the amount of water flowing through
the Green/Duwamish River to about one third of historic conditions and
eliminated significant fish habitat.
Commenter notes that the rerouting of the Cedar and
White Rivers eliminated the Black River, lowered the
flow, and reduced the source of wood and sediment.
Staff suggests the proposed edit. Public - D6 p.3
Staff - Change as
shown
Change to read "to
approximately one
third of historic
conditions and have
impacted fish habitat."
Chapter 4.4
Discussion of shoreline planning for the Green River in Tukwila must
acknowledge the fact that, in light of the existing system of levees (including
the federally certified authorized “205” levees) and revetments, the City
cannot act alone. There are a variety of regulatory jurisdictions outside of the
City with different responsibilities for maintenance and,management and
regulating of the levee system, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(the Corps), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the King
County River and Floodplain Management Unit(acting as part of the Green
River Flood Control Zone District) Flood Control District (KCFCD), and private
property owners. The City of Tukwila Public Works Department has overall
responsibility for maintenance of all levees, including the federally authorized
certified Tukwila 205 Levee, which extends from about the I-405 crossing to
the south city limits approximately S. 196th Street. The actual maintenance
work on this public levees is performed by the KCFCDcontracted by the City
to King County .
Commenter asked if all of the levees in Tukwila are
certified and stated that the references to the Green
River Flood Control District should be changed to King
County. Public - D6 p.3
Staff - Change as
shown Change as shown
Chapter 4.5
Issues of concern today are focused on uncertainties about the ability of
reconstructing existing levees and revetments to protect existing development
from flood hazards, an effort that will take place over a number of years in
coordination with the King County Flood Control Zone District, King County
and state and federal agencies. There are many opportunities for
conservation and restoration actions in the City to restore or replace habitat
while managing natural hazard areas.
Commenter states that there is no mention of the Lower
Green River Flood Hazard Management and Corridor
Plan that is being developed. As that plan is still in the
development process Staff suggests the language in red. Public - D6 p.4
Staff - Change as
shown Change as shown
Chapter 5
Comment letter D6 requested several updates and edits to this Chapter.
However this is a summary of the existing Shoreline Restoration Plan and
updating this underlying document is not within the scope of this periodic
update.
Staff recommends the following clarifying comments but
these should not imply that the Plan itself has been
updated. Public - D6 p.4 No action required
Chapter 5.3
Tukwila has worked within the larger Green/Duwamish River Ecosystem
restoration project to acquire or donate properties for restoration that are
either currently functioning (Cecil B. Moses Park, Codiga Farm,), or have the
potential for restoration (North Winds Weir, Duwamish Gardens).
Commenter states that the proposed restoration projects
on this page need updating. Public - D6 p.4 Change as shown
SMP Edits Page 2
Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation PC Action
Chapter 5.4
· Removing fish barriers where tributary streams discharge to the
river. This action would remove flap gates and install fish-friendly flap
gates at the mouths of Tukwila’s three major streams (Gilliam, Southgate
and Riverton) and possibly restore habitat area at these locations in the
shoreline jurisdiction. Many fish barriers on WSDOT roadways are
required to be replaced by 2030 per the Federal Court injunction under
U.S. v. Washington.
While the WSDOT decision was subsequent to the Plan
it does reflect the current regulatory environment. Public - D6 p.4
Staff - Add new
language Change as shown
Chapter 7.2
· The entire Green/Duwamish river including its tributaries is a critical
resource for federally protected Muckleshoot Indian Tribe fishing.
Commenter states that the information regarding
Muckelshoot fishing needs to be changed. Public - D6 p.4
Staff - Add new
language Change as shown
Chapter 7.4
The Director may reduce the standard buffer on a case-by-case basis by up
to 50% upon construction of the following cross section: reslope bank from
toe to be no steeper than 2.53:1 using bioengineering techniques; Minimum
20’ buffer landward from top of bank; Bank and remaining buffer to be planted
with native species with high habitat value.
This is a voluntary incentive for property owners to lay
their non-levee riverbank back to a stable angle and plant
with native species. The change to a slightly flatter slope
would improve planting success and improve slope
stability.Staff
PC - Make change D4
p.3 - No change
Retain current 2.5:1
slope in Urban
Conservancy
Chapter 7.5
Commenter: The City needs to explain why 100' buffer is sufficient to provide
the suite of functions fully discussed in WDFW and NOAA rationale for buffer
widths. Please explain how the proposed shoreline buffer widths considered
the recommendations from the Green River TMDL River improvement plan
(WDOE, 2011).
Commenter says that the statement regarding buffer
widths for different riparian functions is incorrect and not
supported by various scientific studies and literature.
Staff responds that changing shoreline jurisdiction, buffer
widths or environment designations is not within the
scope of this periodic update. Public - D6 p.4 Staff - No change
No change to Public
Review Draft
Chapter 7.5, 7.7
Do not require that new or repaired levees meet the "Briscoe" profile. Use it
as an example but allow flexibility to address site conditions as long as overall
2.5:1 slope is achieved.
The most recent COE levee repairs did not use the
Briscoe profile but meet flood prevention and habitat
goals.Staff PC - Make change
No change to Public
Review Draft
Chapter 7.5
Commenter: The levee designs referenced here did not consider the extent of
trees needed for water temperature compliance nor the extent of rearing
habitat created under flow conditions when juvenile salmon would be using
these areas.
Staff is proposing greater flexibility in levee design to
allow for site specific solutions. Public - D6 p.5
Staff - No additional
changes
No change to Public
Review Draft
Chapter 7.7
Allow greater flexibility in the use of flood walls to lessen impacts on adjacent
property owners, avoid encroachment on a railroad easement or provide area
for habitat restoration.
This flexibility may increase the feasibility of
reconstructing levees to protect against 500 year floods
while limiting the additional width and property acquisition
required.Staff PC - Make change
No change to Public
Review Draft
Chapter 7.7
Commenter: Floodwalls, if allowed, should be reviewed with Corps to ensure
they meet Corps requirements and avoid the Kent Briscoe Site 1 outcomes.
Staff is proposing greater flexibility in levee design to
allow for site specific solutions that would be reviewed by
all agencies with jurisdiction. Public - D6 p.5
Staff - No additional
changes
No change to Public
Review Draft
Chapter 10
A second area where improvement is needed in public access relates to boat
launches for small hand launched boats. Several potential sites have been
identified in the Tukwila Parks Department Capital Improvement Program to
address this need at City-owned sites. A comprehensive regional inventory of
public access points to the River should be completed to identify gaps and
opportunities.
Commenter encourages the city to undertake a
comprehensive inventory of public access points within
shoreline jurisdiction and establish standards for
appropriate levels of access, especially for more
impactful types of access like boat ramps. Staff suggests
the language in red.Public - D8 p.2
Staff - Add new
language Change as shown
SMP Edits Page 3
Matrix of Proposed 18.44 Edits
Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation PC Action
18.44.010
Purpose and Applicability
Commenter: The purpose should include fiscal prudence and respect of
private property rights. Has an analysis of economic impact been made with
respect to the SMP and these proposed changes? The indifference to
economic impact is not only extremely risky but contrary to portions of the
economic development element of the Comp Plan.
The proposed changes do not expand the existing
buffers or significantly change the permitted shoreline
uses.They are unlikely to create new non-conformities.
From the Department of Ecology: It’s reasonably
clear that most common forms of regulations limiting
property use does not require compensation, even
where a property's value has been significantly
diminished. This holds as long as the regulation is
reasonably related to protecting legitimate public
interests. The SMA addresses the takings issue by
identifying the public purposes of the law and requiring
appropriate flexibility in its implementation.Public - D4 p.1 Staff - No change No action required
18.44.030
Shoreline Use Matrix:
Fill for remediation, flood hazard reduction, or ecological restoration
Request to clarify that fill that occurs as part of a flood
hazard reduction action is a permitted rather than
conditional use.
Public - D1 item
1 Staff - Make Change Change as shown
18.44.030
Shoreline Use Matrix:
Recreational facilties, including boat launching (public) - Permitted subject to
notes 3 and 23.
Commenter stated that these uses should be kept as
conditional due to the impacts to a Shoreline of State
Wide Significance. Staff responds that due the
emphasis on public access and enjoyment in the SMA it
is appropriate to allow these uses without the additional
barrier of a CUP. Public D8 p.2 Staff - No change
No change from the
Staff Draft
18.44.030
Shoreline Use Matrix:
Piers, Docks and other overwater structures - Permitted Conditional in the
buffer subject to notes 19, 20, 21
Commenter states given the known ecological impacts
associated with overwater structures we strongly
encourage the higher standard of conditional use. There
is some protection built into the requirements in the
notes but Staff supports the change. Public D8 p.2 Staff - Make Change
No change from the
Staff Draft
18.44.030
Shoreline Use Matrix: Edit to note
11. The maximum height of the fence along the shoreline shall not exceed
four feet in residential areas or, except a maximum height of six feet in
commercial areas may be allowed where there is a demonstrated need to
ensure public safety and security of property., and so long as the fence is
located directly adjacent to existing paved areas, and tThe fence shall not
extend waterward beyond the top of the bank. Chain-link fences must be
vinyl coated.
Commenter states that fencing is important to the safety
of the public and the security of goods and materials
stored on property and proposes adding the language
shown in red. Staff suggests the revisions to that
language in blue. Public - D5 p.3
Staff - Make the
combined public and
staff changes
Change per staff
recommendation
18.44.030
Shoreline Use Matrix:
Note 29. Patios and decks are permitted within the shoreline buffer so long
as they do not exceed 18 inches in height, are limited to a maximum of 200
square feet and 50% of the width of the river frontage. Decks or patios must
be located landward of the top of the bank and be constructed to be pervious
and of environmentally-friendly materials.
This current code language has been moved into a
footnote of the use table. Commissioner Mann
expressed concern that this was too limiting. The
dimensions of the permitted deck would vary due to lot
width. This limitation has not been a subject of public
complaints. PC Staff - No change
No change from the
Staff Draft
TMC 18.44 Edits Page 1
Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation PC Action
18.44.030
Shoreline Use Matrix: Vehicle
Bridges (public) Add a new note 35. Not permitted in the transition zone.
Per note 31 vehicle bridges are already limited to
locations where they connect public rights-of-way.
Essential streets are defined as limited to locations
"where no feasible alternative location exists based on
an analysis of technology and system efficiency."
18.06.285 Public - D4 p. 3
Staff - Do not add
language
No change from the
Staff Draft
18.44.040 A
4. The Director may reduce the standard buffer on a case-by-case basis by
up to 50% upon construction of the following cross section: a. Reslope bank
from OHWM (not toe) to be no steeper than 3:1, using bioengineering
techniques b. Minimum 20’ buffer landward from top of bank c. Bank and
remaining buffer to be planted with native species with high habitat value
Commenter states that given Tukwila's urban
landscape, the existing required buffers are already
below BAS for fully functioning riparian buffers.
Reducing the buffer by 50% is not founded in BAS. We
encourage the City to apply the standard in the CAO.
Staff responds that this is an example of the incentives
praised by commenter. In most cases the width needed
to provide the cross section would not allow for a full
50% reduction. This is a provision found in our current
code and not a new proposal. Public D8 p.2 Staff - No change
Retain current 2.5:1
slope in Urban
Conservancy
18.44.040 A
5. Upon reconstruction of a levee to the levee standards of this chapter, the
Director may reduce the buffer to actual width required for the levee. If fill is
placed along the back slope of a new levee, the buffer may be reduced to
the point where the ground plane intersects the back slope of the levee. If the
property owner provides a 15-foot levee maintenance easement landward
from the landward toe of the levee or levee wall which: 1) meets the width
required by the agency providing maintenance; 2) prohibits the construction
of any structures and 3) allows the City to access the area to inspect the
levee and make any necessary repairs; then that area may be outside of the
shoreline buffer and allow incidental uses such as parking.
The King County Flood Control District which currently
provides maintenance and inspection of levees within
Tukwila has increased its access road standard from 10
to 15 feet. This may be modified again in the future so
instead of providing a specific number Staff's suggestion
is to reference whatever standard is in place at the time
of levee reconstruction.
Staff/Public - D1
Item 2 Staff - Make Change Change as shown
18.44.050 C 3.
b. 45 feet between the outside landward edge of the River Buffer and 200
feet of the OHWM
This current code language limits building height in the
shoreline for those zones with allowed heights greater
than 45 feet - TUC-CC, TUC-WP, HI, MIC-H, TVS. This
can cause developers to place parking within shoreline
jurisdiction rather than the proposed building. If the
height limit was removed the incentive below would no
longer apply. All projects over 35 feet would still be
subject to the State standard of not blocking the views of
a substantial number of residences. PC Staff - No change
Change to 65 foot
height limit
TMC 18.44 Edits Page 2
Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation PC Action
18.44.050 C 3.
d.The Director may approve a 3015%increase in height for structures within
the shoreline jurisdiction if the project proponent provides additional
restoration and/or enhancement of the entire shoreline buffer,beyond what
may otherwise be required including,but not limited to,paved areas no
longer in use on the property in accordance with the standards of TMC
Section 18.44.080060,“Vegetation Protection and Landscaping.” If the
required buffer has already been restored, the project proponent may
provide a 20% wider buffer,planted accordance with TMC Section
18.44.060,“Vegetation Protection and Landscaping”and/or enhanced in
order to obtain the 1530% increase in height.in accordance with TMC
Section 18.44.080060,“Vegetation Protection and Landscaping.”
e.Incentives may not be used to increase building height above that
permitted in the underlying zoning district.
Increasing the height incentive from 15% (6.75 feet) to
30% (13.5 feet) may increase its use. Rogers
commented that 35% (15.75 feet) would better align with
the height needed for a commercial building story.
Haffner commented that a non-building incentive should
be available for sites devoted to parking. WRIA 9
commented that they are encouraged to see various
incentives being used to increase the likelihood that
shoreline restoration will occur.
Staff/Public - D1
item 3, D4 p. 4,
D8 p.1
Staff - Make change to
16' and drop
percentage language.
Drop percentage
language and allow a
15 foot height incentive
18.44.050 E 9.
New, redeveloped or replaced flood hazard reduction structures may deviate
from the minimum levee profile only as follows must have an overall
waterward slope no steeper than 2.5:1 unless it is not physically possible to
achieve such a slope. A floodwall may be substituted for all or a portion of a
levee back slope only where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to
a structure legally constructed prior to the date of adoption of this subsection,
and which structure has not lost its nonconforming status or to allow area for
waterward habitat restoration development. The floodwall shall be designed
to be the minimum necessary to provide 1510 feet of clearance between the
levee and the building, or the minimum necessary to preserve access
needed for building functionality while meeting all engineering safety
standards. A floodwall may also be used where necessary to prevent the
levee from encroaching upon a railroad easement recorded prior to the date
of adoption of this subsection.
Commenter asks that floodwalls be allowed to preserve
private property in any situation where there is no loss
of ecological function in the shoreline. No specific
language proposed. Public - D4 p. 4
Staff - No further
change
No change from the
Staff Draft
18.44.050 H 1.
Halting the continuing decline of Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Southern
Resident Orca calls for an improvement to current shoreline conditions,
which have been degraded by human activity over time.All shoreline
development and uses shall at a minimum occur in a manner that results in
no net loss of shoreline ecological functions through the careful location and
design of all allowed development and uses. In cases where impacts to
shoreline ecological functions from allowed development and uses are
unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of
this section; in that event, the “no net loss” standard is met.
Commenter states that staff's proposed new language
calling for an improvement in shoreline conditions is
contrary to the no net loss standard and should
therefore not be added. Staff's intent with the language
was informational and consistent with the Shoreline
Restoration Plan discussed in Chapter 5 of the SMP.
Comp Plan Goal 5.9 calls for "restored, enhanced and
protected natural environment" and Goal 5.10 calls for
"improved water quality and quantity control programs...
that improve the river's water quality."
Public - D1 item
4
Staff - Delete the first
sentence but keep "at a
minimum." Change as shown
TMC 18.44 Edits Page 3
Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation PC Action
18.44.050 F 6
Shoreline armoring such as rip rap rock revetments and other hard shoreline
stabilization techniques are detrimental to river processes and habitat
creation. Where allowed, shoreline armoring shall be designed, constructed
and maintained in a manner that does not result in a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions, including fish habitat, and shall conform to the
requirements of the 2004 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
(or as amended) criteria and guidelines for integrated stream bank protection
(Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department
of Ecology and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington), U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers and other regulatory requirements. The hard
shoreline stabilization must be designed and approved by an engineer
licensed in the State of Washington and qualified to design shoreline
stabilization structures.
Commenter: The proposed initial new comment about
hard revetments is contrary to the rest of the paragraph,
and other parts of the SMP, that allow them when
appropriate. Staff: The added language explains why
there are limitations on the use of shoreline armoring. Public - D4 p.4
Staff - Keep language
as proposed.
No change from the
Staff Draft
18.44.050 K 4.
4. Over-water Structures. Where allowed, over-water structures such as
piers, wharves,bridges,and docks shall meet the following standards:
h. Shading impacts to fish shall be minimized by using grating on at least
30% of the surface area of the over-water structure on residential areas and
at least 50% of the over-water structure on all other properties.This standard
may be modified for bridges if necessary to accommodate the proposed use.
The use of skirting is not permitted.
Commenter: The standard for shading should not be
modified for bridges. Strike new language. Staff:
Bridges provide essential connectivity in our urban
environment. Grating can create safety issues for
bicycle traffic and therefore some flexibility should be
allowed in order to maximize multi-modal use. Public - D4 p. 4
Staff - Keep proposed
language from staff
draft shown in red
No change from the
Staff Draft
18.44.060 A
5. a. (2) (2) Noxious weed control within vegetative buffers, if work is
selective only for noxious species; is done by hand removal/spraying of
individual plants; spraying is conducted by a licensed applicator (with the
required aquatic endorsements from WADOE if work is in an aquatic site);
and no area-wide vegetation removal or grubbing is conducted. Control
methods not meeting these criteria may still apply for a restoration
exemption, or other authorization as applicable.
Commenter: This is nicely worded. You may want to add
that the "licensed herbicide applicator" needs to have
the required aquatic herbicide permits from WA Ecology
if the application occurs in an aquatic site. Public - D7 p.1
Staff - Add new
language Change as shown
18.44.060 C
Tree Protection
10.No storage of equipment or refuse,parking of vehicles,dumping of
materials or chemicals,or placement of permanent heavy structures or items
shall occur within the CRZ.
Commenter: Parking of vehicles within a CRZ (critical
root zone) should be allowed if the parking preceded the
planting. Staff: This section only applies when a site is
developed or redeveloped, at which time the site should
be brought up to current code. Public - D4 p. 4
Staff - Keep proposed
language from staff
draft
Change as shown,
Heading changed to C.
Tree Protection During
Development and
Redevelopment
18.44.060 D
3. a.(6)The use follows Best Management Practices as described by the
KCNWCP current practice documents.
King County Noxious Weed Control Program also has
jurisdiction in this area. Public - D7 p.2
Staff - Add new
language Change as shown
18.44.060 D
4. Restoration Project Plantings: Restoration projects may overplant the site
as a way to discourage the re-establishment of invasive species. Thinning of
vegetation to improve plant survival and health without a separate shoreline
vegetation removal permit may be permitted five to ten years after planting if
this approach is approved as part of the restoration project’s maintenance
and monitoring plan and with approval by the City prior to thinning work.
Commenter recommends adding language about the
purpose of thinning for these densely planted restoration
sites. Staff proposes the additional language in red. Public - D8 p.1
Staff - Add new
language Change as shown
TMC 18.44 Edits Page 4
Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation PC Action
18.44.080 C
1. Development on Properties Abutting Existing Green River Trail.An
applicant seeking to develop property abutting the existing trail shall meet
public access requirements by upgrading the trail along the property frontage
to meet the standards of a 1412-foot-wide trail with 2-foot shoulders on each
side.If a 12 foot wide trail exists on the property it shall mean public access
requirements have been met if access to the trail exists within 1000 feet of
the property.
The proposed change clarifies when a trail fulfills the
public access requirements for a property. Staff
PC - Add the proposed
language from staff
draft
No change from the
Staff Draft
18.44.080 C
2. Development on Properties Where New Regional Trails are Planned.
An applicant seeking to develop property abutting the river in areas identified
for new shoreline trail segments shall meet public access requirements by
dedicating an 1816-foot-wide trail easement to the City for public access
along the river.
3.On-Site Trail Standards.Trails providing access within a property,park
or restoration site shall be developed at a width appropriate to the expected
usage and environmental sensitivity of the site.
Commenter encourages the City to add smaller trail
width standards to address different circumstances
including a minimal width for natural areas to minimize
impacts to critical areas and shoreline environments
while still encouraging access. Staff proposes an
additional standard for paths through natural areas not
used for regional access. Public - D8 p.2
Staff - Add new
language Change as shown
18.44.090
The Green/Duwamish River is an amenity that should be valued and
celebrated when designing projects that will be located along its length.The
river and its tributaries support salmon runs and resident trout,including ESA-
listed Chinook salmon,Bull Trout and Steelhead.If any portion of a project
falls within the shoreline jurisdiction, then the entire project will be reviewed
under these guidelines as well as the relevant sections of the Design Review
Chapter of the Zoning Code (TMC Chapter 18.60). The standards of TMC
Chapter 18.60 shall guide the type of review, whether administrative or by
the Board of Architectural Review.
Commenter states that the placement of this language
infers that ESA requirements would apply to upland
parts of projects adjacent to the shoreline and that this
language would be better placed in the Ordinance
Whereas clauses not regulations. Staff's intent was to
further explain the intent behind the regulations.
Staff/Public - D1
item 5
Staff - Delete the
proposed new
language. Change as shown
TMC 18.44 Edits Page 5
Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation PC Action
18.44.090 4. Design of Flood walls
To prevent long stretches of blank walls the exposed portion of new
floodwalls should be designed to incorporate brick or stone facing,textured
concrete block,design elements formed into the concrete or vegetation to
cover the wall within 3 years.
With greater flexibility in the use of floodwalls more may
be constructed in the coming years. Requiring design
standards will help to mitigate their appearance.PC
Staff - Add new
language
Add "The exposed new
floodwalls should be
designed to incorporate
brick or stone facing,
textured concrete block,
design elements formed
into the concrete or
vegetation to cover the
wall within 3 years."
18.44.100 B. Changes in Shoreline Jurisdiction Due to Restoration.
1. Relief may be granted from Shoreline Master Program standards and
use regulations in cases where shoreline restoration projects result in a
change in the location of the OHWM and associated Shoreline Jurisdiction
and/or critical area buffers on the subject property and/or adjacent
properties, and where application of this chapter’s regulations would
preclude or interfere with the uses permitted by the underlying zoning, thus
presenting a hardship to the project proponent.
This section allows relief for adjacent parcels when a
restoration project causes the movement of the OHWM
and extends shoreline jurisdiction onto areas that were
not previously subject to shoreline regulations. Wetlands
may also be created as part of restoration projects. If so
these wetland buffer impacts are also eligible to be
modified.Staff
PC - Add the proposed
language from staff
draft
No change from the
Staff Draft
3. Consistent with the provisions of subparagraphs B.1.a, 1.b and 1.c above,
the Shoreline Residential Environment Buffer, High Intensity,or Urban
Conservancy Environment, or critical area Buffer width may be reduced to no
less than 25 feet measured from the new location of the OHWM for the
portion of the property that moves from outside the Shoreline Jurisdiction to
inside Shoreline Jurisdiction as a result of the shoreline restoration project,
subject to the following standards:
The legislative intent is to relieve adjacent properties of
regulation due solely to the restoration work so to be
effective we need to be able to grant relief from both
shoreline and wetland buffers. Staff
PC - Add the proposed
language from staff
draft
No change from the
Staff Draft
18.44.110
G 2 a. (2) If the structure is located on a property that has no reasonable
development potential outside the shoreline buffer, there shall be no limit on
the cost of alterations. If the structure is located on a property that has
reasonable development potential outside the shoreline buffer, the cost of
the alterations may not exceed an aggregate cost of 50% of the value of the
building or structure in any 3-year period based upon its most recent
assessment, unless the amount over 50% is used to make the building or
structure more conforming, or is used to restore to a safe condition any
portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority.
Commenter states that the limitation on improvements to
non-conforming structures results in their being left
vacant because they cannot be improved sufficiently to
make them marketable. Either repair and maintenance
should be allowed without limits or add the proposed
language. Staff's response is that "reasonable
development potential" is a subjective standard that
would be difficult to apply consistently. The intent of non-
conforming regulations is to limit reinvestment in
properties and buildings that are not consistent with
area goals. Shoreline variances may be used for cases
of true hardship.Public - D5 p.1 Staff - No change Change as shown
TMC 18.44 Edits Page 6
Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation PC Action
18.44.110
G 2 a. (3) Maintenance, repair or replacement of an existing private bridge is
allowed, without a conditional use permit, when it the maintenance, repair or
replacement does not involve the use of hazardous substances, sealants or
other liquid oily substances, and provided the location of a replaced bridge
may not encroach further into the shoreline buffer than the existing bridge.
Commenter requests that repair, maintenance and
replacement of private bridges be expressly allowed
without cost limits or a conditional use permit and has
proposed new language. Staff agrees for repair and
maintenance but replacing a bridge should be subject to
review. Staff recommends striking the language in blue
from the suggested additions.Public - D5 p.2
Staff - add the
proposed language in
red
Change per staff
recommendation
18.44.110
G 6 e. The area beneath a non-conforming structure may be converted to
parking lot area if the non-conforming structure is demolished.
Commenter requests clarification that if a non-
conforming structure is demolished the footprint can be
incorporated into an existing parking lot. Staff agrees
that this would be the least intrusive use of the new
area.Public - D5 p.3
Staff - add the
proposed new
language
Add "G 6 e. The area
beneath a non-
conforming structure
may be converted to a
contiguous parking lot
area if the non-
conforming structure is
demolished."
18.44.110
H 1. Revisions to previously issued shoreline permits shall be reviewed
under the SMP in effect at the time of submittal of the revision, and not the
SMP under which the original shoreline permit was approved and processed
in accordance with WAC 173-27-100.
Commenter states we strongly support the new
language for time limits. Shoreline permits should not be
treated as existing in perpetuity and reasonable time
limits should be instituted.Public - D8 p.2
Staff - No change from
the staff draft
No change from the
Staff Draft
18.44.110
Commenter suggests that a vesting provision be added to the Shoreline
regulations to assure that when a project is phased into first land
development (grading, utilities) followed by building permits those later
permits are vested to the version of the shoreline regulations in effect when
the shorelline work was done.
Staff responds that unlike critical areas regulations the
shoreline buffer width changes much less frequently (in
Tukwila once in 45 years) and shoreline jurisdiction is
fixed by state law. Public - D2 p.1 Staff - No change
No change from the
Staff Draft
TMC 18.44 Edits Page 7
TO: Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director – City of Tukwila
CC: Minnie Dhaliwal, City of Tukwila, Dan Nickel, The Watershed Company
Jackie Chandler, Shoreline Administrator, WA Department of Ecology
FROM: Misty Blair, Senior Shoreline Planner, WA Department of Ecology
Date: June 6, 2019
Subject: SMP Periodic Review - Determination of initial concurrence
Sent via email to: Nora.Gierloff@TukwilaWA.gov; Minnie.Dhaliwal@TukwilaWA.gov;
DNickel@watershedco.com; jcha461@ecy.wa.gov
Brief Description of Proposed Amendment
The City of Tukwila (City) has submitted Shoreline Master Program (SMP) amendments to Ecology for
initial determination of concurrence to comply with periodic review requirements of RCW 90.58.080(4).
The City has elected to utilize the optional joint review process for SMP amendments available per WAC
173-26-104; therefore Ecology is required under WAC 173-26-104(3)(b) to make an initial determination
of consistency with applicable laws and rules. The City proposes amendments to bring the SMP into
compliance with requirements of the Act or State Rules that have been added or changed since the
City’s comprehensive SMP update. The City is also proposing updates to the critical areas regulations
that are incorporated by reference into the SMP, and miscellaneous amendments to streamline and
eliminate duplicity for improve the clarity, consistency and administration of the SMP.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Need for amendment
The City’s comprehensive update to their SMP went into effect in 2011. The proposed amendments are
needed to comply with the statutory deadline for a periodic review of the City’s Shoreline Master
Program pursuant to RCW 90.58.080(4). The City has identified that this periodic review will result in
amendments to the SMP to address updates to the Act or implementing State Rules, changed local
circumstances, new information and improved data.
SMP provisions to be changed by the amendment as proposed
The City’s proposed changes fall primarily into four categories:
those required to incorporate changes in State law (RCW 90.58) or State rule (WAC 173-26 &
WAC 173-27);
those related to the reorganization of the SMP from a standalone document into a partially
integrated document with references to codified development regulations;
those incorporating updated critical areas provisions; and
those locally initiated changes to add flexibility for levee profiles, address river bank re-sloping
standards, and streamline language for ease of implementation.
City of Tukwila
SMP Periodic Review - Determination of Initial Concurrence
2
The City filled out the Ecology SMP Periodic Review checklist to address requirements of the act or state
rules that have been added or changed since the last SMP amendment. Those proposed changes along
with the City’s locally initiated proposed changes modify the following SMP sections:
SMP Section 1 Introduction – Narrative edits proposed to reflect current SMP and remove unnecessary
historical information from the SMP Comprehensive Update.
SMP Section 2 Tukwila’s Shoreline Master Program – Edits proposed to streamline and remove
duplicative language and to update references to the Comprehensive Plan for SMP Policies and Tukwila
Municipal Code (TMC) for codified shoreline regulations.
SMP Section 3 Definitions – All definitions in this section were deleted and replaced with a reference to
TMC 18.06 Zoning Code Definitions.
SMP Section 4 Shoreline Inventory and Characterization-Summary– Minor edits proposed mostly in
response to public comment. Includes update to Map 2 – Duwamish River Transition Zone to reflect that
this zone has expanded from river mile 7 to river mile 9.
SMP Section 5 Shoreline Restoration Plan-Summary– No changes proposed.
SMP Section 6 Shoreline Goals and Policies – This section is deleted and replaced with a reference to
Shoreline Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
SMP Section 7 Shoreline Environment Designations – Edits proposed to clarify and remove outdated or
unnecessary references and historical information. Add clarity around the Aquatic shoreline
environment designation. Change bank re-sloping standards from “no steeper than” 2.5:1 to 3:1 to
provide greater stability and opportunity for planting on the slope. Eliminates the “minimum profile” for
levees to allow more flexibility. The existing “minimum profile” is now referred to as the “Briscoe Levee
Profile” and is still in the code as a preferred option, but is no longer the required profile. Increases the
levee maintenance easement from 10 feet to 15 feet. Set a minimum buffer of at least 50 feet for all
alternative buffer allowances and options.
SMP Section 8 Shoreline Use Regulations and SMP Section 9 Development Standards–Section 9 is
combined with Section 8, most all of the text is deleted and replaced with references to Tukwila
Municipal Code (TMC) 18.44.030 and a general reference to TMC 18.44 for other development
standards and administrative procedures.
SMP Section 10 Environmentally Critical Areas within the Shoreline Jurisdiction– This section is re-
numbered Section 9 and mostly deleted and replaced with references to TMC 18.45. The Purpose and
Goals statements remain along with a list of provisions excluded from incorporation.
SMP Section 11 Public Access to the Shoreline– This section is re-numbered Section 10 and mostly
deleted and replaced with a general reference to TMC 18.44 for public access requirements.
SMP Section 12 Shoreline Design Guidelines– This section is re-numbered Section 11 and is mostly
deleted and replaced with a reference to TMC 18.44 and 18.60.
SMP Section 13 Shoreline Restoration– This section is re-numbered Section 12 and mostly deleted and
replaced with a reference to the Shoreline Restoration Plan in Appendix B.
City of Tukwila
SMP Periodic Review - Determination of Initial Concurrence
3
SMP Section 14 Administration– This is re-numbered Section 13 and is modified to include an
applicability section and Relationships to Other Codes and Regulations sections. Sections related to
permits types and non-conformity are proposed to be deleted.
SMP Section 15 Appeals– This is re-numbered Section 14 and is mostly deleted with only a reference to
the Shoreline Hearings Board remaining.
SMP Section 16 Enforcement and Penalties– This section is entirely deleted. Staff notes that
enforcement provisions have been codified under TMC 18.44.
SMP Section 17 Master Program Review and Amendments– This is re-numbered Section 15 and is
modified to add more specific reference to RCW 90.58.080 and WAC 173-26-090.
SMP Section 18 Liability– No amendment is proposed, but this section is re-numbered Section 16.
Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.44 – edits throughout to:
Reconcile differences between the codified version and the provisions contained within the SMP
Address items on the Periodic Review Checklist
Respond to public or planning commission comments
Address implementation issues identified by City staff
Consolidate duplicative language, such as combining the use matrix and narrative list of uses into
one table with footnotes for clarity
TMC 18.45 Critical Areas Protection – The City is also updating TMC 18.45 at this time, and an updated
draft of this code was not submitted with this initial determination submittal. Additional review of the
final version of TMC 18.45 will need to be completed prior approval of this incorporation.
Amendment History, Review Process
The City prepared a public participation program in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(a) to inform,
involve and encourage participation of interested persons and private entities, tribes, and applicable
agencies having interests and responsibilities relating to shorelines. The City executed this plan by
hosting an open house, creating a web page, and initiating outreach to directly to shoreline property
owners, neighboring jurisdictions and tribes.
The City used Ecology’s checklist of legislative and rule amendments to review amendments to chapter
90.58 RCW and department guidelines that have occurred since the master program was last amended,
and determine if local amendments were needed to maintain compliance in accordance with WAC 173-
26-090(3)(b)(i). The City also reviewed changes to the comprehensive plan and development regulations
to determine if the shoreline master program policies and regulations remain consistent with them in
accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(ii). The City considered whether to incorporate any
amendments needed to reflect changed circumstances, new information or improved data in
accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(iii). The City consulted with Ecology and solicited comments
throughout the review process.
The City provided public notice of the SMP Periodic Review process and promoted public input via:
city-wide mailing;
City of Tukwila
SMP Periodic Review - Determination of Initial Concurrence
4
posted in the September 2018 eHazelnut;
flyers in January 2019 City water bills;
created an email list serve for interested parties to self-sign-up for future notifications;
held an open house on October 18, 2018; and
held planning commission work session on October 25, 2018;
The SMP Periodic Review and associated amendments were presented to and considered by the City’s
Community Development and Neighborhoods Committee on June 12, 2018 and February 12, 2019.
The City and Ecology held a joint local/state comment period on the proposed amendments following
procedures outlined in WAC 173-26-104. The comment period began on March 14 and continued
through April 12, 2019. A joint local/state public hearing was held on March 28, 2019.
The City provided notice to local interested parties, including a statement that the hearings were
intended to address the periodic review in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(c)(ii). Ecology
distributed notice of the joint comment period and public hearing to state interested parties on March
13, 2019.
Eight (8) written comments were received on the proposed amendments. The City prepared a comment
response matrix, noted as Attachment: E1 Matrix of Proposed SMP Edits, E2 Matrix of Proposed 18.44
Edits, which summarizes the comments and provides the City’s staff discussion and recommendation.
Edits were made to the public comment draft reflect responses to public comment, City staff
recommendations, and Planning Commission directives. The City Planning Commission made final
changes to the public comment period draft during their April 25th 2019 meeting and recommended it
onto City Council. These modifications were integrated into the draft prior to initial submittal of the SMP
amendments to Ecology.
The City provided their initial submittal of the proposed SMP amendments to Ecology pursuant to WAC
173-26-104 via email on May 9, 2019 and the submittal was determined to be complete. This began
Ecology’s review and initial determination.
The City subsequently issued a SEPA a non-project action Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for
the City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Periodic Update on May 15, 2019. This DNS was based on
the April 25, 2019 Planning Commission recommended version. A copy of this DNS was provided to
Ecology for this SMP Amendment adoption record.
Consistency with Chapter 90.58 RCW
The proposed amendments have been reviewed for consistency with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and
the approval criteria of RCW 90.58.090(3), (4) and (5). The City has also provided evidence of its
compliance with SMA procedural requirements for amending their SMP contained in RCW 90.58.090(1)
and (2).
Consistency with applicable guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC, Part III)
The proposed amendment has been reviewed for compliance with the requirements of the applicable
Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through 251 and 173-26-020 definitions). This
included review of a SMP Periodic Review Checklist, which was completed by the City.
City of Tukwila
SMP Periodic Review - Determination of Initial Concurrence
5
Consistency with SEPA Requirements
The City submitted evidence of SEPA compliance in the form of a SEPA checklist and issued a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposed SMP amendments. Ecology did not comment
on the DNS.
Other Studies or Analyses supporting the SMP update
Ecology also reviewed supporting documents prepared for the City in support of the SMP amendment.
These documents include a public participation plan, a periodic review checklist, and Gap Analysis
Report.
Summary of Issues Identified by Ecology as Relevant to Its Decision
Ecology is required to review all SMPs to ensure consistency with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA)
and implementing rules including WAC 173-26, State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures
and Master Program Guidelines. WAC 173-26-186(11) specifies that Ecology “shall insure that the
state’s interest in shorelines is protected, including compliance with the policy and provisions of RCW
90.58.020.”
Based on review of the proposed amendments to the SMP for consistency with applicable SMP
Guidelines requirements and the Shoreline Management Act, and consideration of supporting materials
in the record submitted by the City, the following issues remain relevant to Ecology’s final decision on
the proposed amendments to the City’s SMP, with Findings specific to each issue identifying
amendments needed for compliance with the SMA and applicable guidelines:
SMP Content and Location
The City is proposing to go from a standalone Shoreline Master Program to a more integrated approach
which includes SMP policies and regulations in other Tukwila Municipal Code Sections. In order to
successfully make this transition the City must identify all code sections that will be utilized to meet the
SMP policy and regulation requirements. These provisions will be incorporated by reference as part of
the SMP, as such they need to be identified with a specific dated ordinance number, and it should be
clear within the SMP that any subsequent updates or modifications to these codified provisions will not
be effective in the shoreline jurisdiction until a formal SMP amendment has been approved by Ecology is
accordance with WAC 173-26-110.
Ecology has identified changes to the City’s proposed SMP and TMC 18.44 that are necessary for
consistency with WAC 173-26-191(2)(b) & (c) (Attachment 1, Items Req-1, Req-2, Req-3, and Req-4)
Finding. Ecology finds that the propose SMP amendment does not clearly incorporate the specific goals,
policies and regulations, including the critical areas provisions, necessary for compliance with the SMA
minimum requirements for an SMP. ). It appears that the City is proposing to include the Shoreline
Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, along with portions of TMC 18.06, TMC 18.44, TMC 18.45,
TMC 18.52 and TMC 18.60 as the relevant policies and codified regulations that would now constitute
the SMP along with the background and overview information still contained within the Shoreline Master
Program document.
Ecology finds that the City needs to identify all the SMP components in at least one central location with
dated ordinances references. Ecology also finds that additional modifications are necessary for
implementation and internal consistency amongst the various SMP components.
City of Tukwila
SMP Periodic Review - Determination of Initial Concurrence
6
SMP Administration, Permits and Procedures
Ecology has identified changes to the City’s proposed amendment permit, procedures, and
administration provisions that are necessary for consistency with RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-27
(Attachment 1, Items Req-5 and Req-7). The proposed changes to provide a “Type 2 permit” process for
shoreline buffer reductions and time extensions with appeals to the State Shoreline Hearings Board.
Finding. Ecology finds that RCW 90.58.180 only allows appeals of shoreline permits (substantial
development, conditional use, and variance permits) to the State Shorelines Hearings Board. Ecology also
finds that the SMA establishes that substantial development and its associated use are is reviewed via a
substantial development permit, certain established uses and unclassified uses are authorized via a
shoreline conditional use permit, and development that doesn’t meet the bulk, dimensional, or
performance standards of the SMP can only be authorize with a Shoreline Variance.
Ecology finds that additional permit types are not authorized by the SMA; Type 2 permit references
should be removed for the SMP amendment for consistency with the statute and guideline.
Shoreline Restoration Projects
Ecology has identified that a change to the proposed SMP’s shoreline restoration project provisions of
TMC 18.44.100 is necessary to ensure the SMP is consistent with the RCW 90.58.580 and WAC 173-27-
215 (Attachment 1, Item Req-8). The City proposes to add critical area buffers to the relief allowances of
TMC 18.44.100B.(1) and (3). However, this relief allowance must be provided consistent with the SMA
and Guidelines, which provide that relief may be granted from Master Program development standards
and use regulations resulting from shoreline restoration projects that shift the OHWM. Restoration
projects that result in a change in the location of a critical area buffer do not result in a shift in the
shoreline OHWM and would not be subject to new shoreline use and development regulations.
Shoreline jurisdiction is extended to include the any associated wetlands, but not their buffers. So larger
critical area buffers as a result of a shoreline restoration would not extend the shoreline jurisdiction and
its use or development regulations onto portions of the property where it did not previously exist.
Therefore, this relief mechanism is not applicable to changes in critical area buffers resulting from
restoration projects.
New proposed subsection TMC 18.44.100.B.2 is inaccurately located within the Changes in Shoreline
Jurisdiction Due to Restoration section. This is more accurately a shoreline restoration incentive, and is
not associated with RCW 90.58.580 Shoreline Restoration Project Relief. This new section should be
relocated outside of TMC 18.44.100.B, proposed change is to create new TMC 18.44.100.C (Attachment
1, Item Req-8).
Findings. Ecology finds that the proposed provision references RCW 90.58.580 and WAC 173-27-215 as
shoreline restoration project approval criteria. Ecology finds that addition of critical areas buffers to this
provision is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.580 and WAC 173-27-215, which authorizes a relief mechanism
and approval criteria for granting relief from the SMP use and development standards when a
restoration project results in a landward shift in the OHWM that brings additional properties into the
shoreline jurisdictions or add additional regulatory requirements. Ecology finds that this provision as
proposed may not be implemented consistent with the SMA, and that revisions are necessary for
consistency with RCW 90.58.580 and WAC 173-27-215. Ecology further finds that substantive restoration
required provides an overriding public interest consistent with the principals of RCW 90.58.320, if
implemented in conjunction with view impacts analysis that demonstrates the additional height will not
City of Tukwila
SMP Periodic Review - Determination of Initial Concurrence
7
obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences. Ecology finds that these provision should be
excluded from the SMP or modified to achieve consistency with the statute and guideline.
Parking
Ecology has identified that a change to the proposed SMP’s non-conforming parking lot provisions of
TMC 18.44.110 is necessary to ensure the SMP is consistent with the WAC 173-26-241(3)(k)
Transportation and Parking (Attachment 1, Item Req-6). The City proposes to allow non-conforming
structures to be replaced with non-conforming parking lots. WAC 173-26-241(3)(k) provides,
Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and shall be allowed only as necessary to support
an authorized use.
Findings. Ecology finds that the proposed provision is not consistent with WAC 173-26-241. Ecology finds
that this provision does not consider the necessity of the parking or even require it be associated with an
authorized use. Ecology finds that this provision as proposed may not be implemented consistent with
the SMA, and that revisions are necessary for consistency with WAC 173-26-241 and to implement the
use preference of the SMA. Ecology finds that this provision should be removed from the proposed SMP
amendment to achieve consistency with the statute and guideline.
Additional items identified as recommended changes
In addition to the issues identified above as requiring changes to ensure consistency with the SMA and
its implementing guidelines, Ecology has also identified changes recommended to fix minor errors,
provide clarity or improve implementation. These items can be found within Attachment 1, items Rec-1
through Rec-3.
Findings. Ecology finds that Attachment 1, items Rec-1 through Rec-3 recommended changes, if
implemented would be consistent with the policy and standards of RCW 90.58 and the applicable
guidelines, however, the inclusion of these changes are at the discretion of the City and are not necessary
in order to approve this Periodic Review amendment.
INITIAL DETERMINATION
After review by Ecology of the complete record submitted, Ecology has determined that the City
proposed amendments, subject to and including Ecology’s required and recommended changes
(itemized in Attachment 1), are consistent with the policy and standards of RCW 90.58.020 and RCW
90.58.090 and the applicable SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through 251 and .020 definitions).
Next Steps
Please provide the final version of TMC 18.45 proposed for incorporation into the SMP for formal
SMA consistency review.
Consider the changes recommended by Ecology as required and recommended to resolve the
issues identified above and within Attachment 1. Please let me know if you would like to discuss
alternative language or different approaches for resolving these issues.
If these issues are resolved prior to local adoption, we anticipate being able to approve your SMP
Periodic Review amendment promptly after formal submittal is provided consistent with WAC
173-26-110.
City of Tukwila
SMP Periodic Review - Determination of Initial Concurrence
8
6.6.2019 City of Tukwila SMP Periodic Review Initial Determination of Consistency - Attachment 1
Page 1 of 9
Ecology Recommendations to Resolve Issues Identified as Required and Recommended, June 6, 2019
The changes in red are required to comply with the SMA (RCW 90.58) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III). Changes in blue are recommended and consistent with
SMA (RCW 90.58) policy and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173 -26, Part III).
ITE
M
SMP
Submittal
PROVISION
BILL FORMAT CHANGES (underline = additions; strikethrough =
deletions)
RATIONALE
Req-
1
SMP Section
2
Tukwila’s
Shoreline
Master
Program
2.1 SMP Components
To comply with the SMA, Tukwila has included the following components in this
Shoreline Master Program (SMP):
This SMP document contains the SMA overview and background related to the
development of the SMP Comprehensive Update in 2011 as updated through the
2019 Periodic Review process.
Outreach including a citizen participation process, coordination with state
agencies, Indian tribes, and other local governments (see Section 2.4
below)
Inventory, analysis and characterization of shoreline conditions,
environmental functions and ecosystem -wide processes
Analysis of potential shoreline restoration opportunities
Establishment of shoreline environment designations
Evaluation and consideration of cumulative impacts
The Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Contains the SMP gGoals and policies that have been adopted in the
Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance #, date)
The Shoreline Regulations
Development regulations that have been codified in TMC 18.44
(Ordinance #, date); and
Development regulations that have been codified in TMC 18.45
(Ordinance #, date)
Shoreline Design Guidelines that have been codified in TMC 18.44
(Ordinance #, date)
Board of Architectural Review Shoreline Design Criteria found in MC
18.60.050 (Ordinance #, date)
Shoreline Landscape Requirements that have been codified in TMC
18.52 (Ordinance #, date)
Definitions provided in TMC 18.06 (Ordinance #, date)
The City is proposing to go from a standalone Shoreline Master Program to a more integrated
approach which includes SMP policies and regulations in other Tukwila Municipal Code
Sections. In order to successfully make this transition the City must identify all code sections
that will be utilized to meet the SMP policy and regulation requirements. These provisions will
be incorporated by reference as part of the SMP, as such they need to be identified with a
specific dated ordinance number, and it should be clear within the SMP that any subsequent
updates or modifications to these codified provisions will not be effective in the shoreline
jurisdiction until a formal SMP amendment has been approved by Ecology is accordance with
WAC 173-26-110.
WAC 173-26-191(2)(b) provides, in relevant part,
Shoreline master programs may include other policies and regulations by referencing a specific, dated
edition. When including referenced regulations within a master program, local governments shall ensure
that the public has an opportunity to participate in the formulation of the regulations or in their incorporation
into the master program, as called for in WAC 173-26-201 (3)(b)(i). In the approval process the department
will review the referenced development regulation sections as part of the master program. A copy of the
referenced regulations shall be submitted to the department with the proposed master program or
amendment. If the development regulation is amended, the edition referenced within the master program
will still be the operative regulation in the master program. Changing the referenced regulations in the
master program to the new edition will require a master program amendment.
WAC 173-26-191(2)(c) also provides that,
Local governments shall identify all documents which contain master program provisions and which
provisions constitute part of the master program. ..
In this case it appears that the City is proposing to include the Shoreline Element of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, along with portions of TMC 18.06, TMC 18.44, TMC 18.45, TMC 18.52
and TMC 18.60 as the relevant policies and codified regulations that would now constitute the
SMP along with the background and overview information still contained within the Shoreline
Master Program document. (Ordinance #, date) should be added at the time of local adoption of
this SMP Periodic Review amendment and must be included with the formal submittal to
Ecology for final approval.
6.6.2019 City of Tukwila SMP Periodic Review Initial Determination of Consistency - Attachment 1
Page 2 of 9
Portions of the Critical Areas Protection Provisions that have been codified in
TMC 18.45 (Ordinance #, date) with exclusions identified in Subsection 9 of this
document and within TMC 18.44.
Req-
2
SMP Section
3
Definitions
-------------------
TMC 18.06 –
Definitions
Definitions used in the administration of the Shoreline Master Program and are
incorporated into the Definitions Chapter of the Zoning Code TMC 18.06. In
addition to the definitions provided in TMC 18.06, Chapter 90.58 RCW, Chapter
173-26 WAC, and Chapter 173-27 WAC apply within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Where definitions in TMC conflict with state definitions, the definitions provided in
RCW or WAC shall control.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.06.210 Development
“Development” means the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural
alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure that requires a building
permit. “Development” does not include dismantling or rem oving structures if
there is no other associated development or re-development.
18.06.217 Development, Shoreline
“Development, shoreline” means, when conducted within the Shoreline
Jurisdiction on shorelands or shoreland areas as defined herein, a use consisting
of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping;
filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; construction of bulkheads; driving
of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary
nature that interferes with the normal public use of the waters overlying lands
subject to the Shoreline Management Act at any stage of water level.
“Development, shoreline” does not include dismantling or removing structures if
there is no other associated development or re-development.
Large Woody Debris (LWD): means whole trees with root wars and limbs
attached, cut loges at least 4 inches in diameter along most of their length, root
wads at least 6.5 feet long and 8 inches in diameter. Large woody debris is
installed to address a deficiency of habitat and natural chanel forming processes.
Non-conforming Structure, Shoreline: means a structure legally established
prior to the effective date of the Shoreline Master Program, but which does not
conform to present regulations or standards of the program.
The City proposed to reference the zoning code definitions section in TMC 18.06 rather than
have those definitions housed in the SMP or duplicated in both the SMP and the codified TMC
sections of 18.06 and 18.44. This approach is fine, but the definitions must be consistent with
those previously approved in the SMP and with the SMA and Guideline definitions of RCW
90.58.030, WAC 173-26-020 and WAC 173-27-030. Ordinance 2347 adopted in 2011 codified
the SMP section 3 definitions into TMC 18.06. However, having all these definitions housed in
one place outside the SMP could result in definitions within TMC 18.06 that are not consistent
with definitions within the SMA. Additional clarification is required to ensure that if a conflict does
exist, the SMA and Guideline definition shall prevail. This is necessary to ensure that the
purpose, intent, and goals of the SMA are given the required weight when reviewing projects
within the shoreline jurisdiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the Periodic Review Checklist, the state definition of “development” was amended to
clarify that demolition is not development in the shoreline. The City has added this clarification
to the wrong definition. The required changes noted to TMC 18.06.210 and 18.06.217 are
necessary for consistency with the SMA.
Large Woody Debris and Non-conforming Structures definitions from the SMP are proposed to
be deleted and replaced with a reference to TMC 18.06, but these definitions are not in 18.06.
Need to add to 18.06 or explain why these definitions are no longer needed.
6.6.2019 City of Tukwila SMP Periodic Review Initial Determination of Consistency - Attachment 1
Page 3 of 9
18.06.710 – 18.06.730 Change references from Sensitive Area to Critical Area.
Critical Sensitive Area
Sensitive Areas should be changed to Critical Areas. This term has been changed throughout
the City’s code. It should be updated here as well for internal consistency and implementation.
Req-
3
SMP Section
6
Shoreline
Goals and
Policies
The goals and policies that lead and inspire Tukwila’s shoreline actions are found
in the Shoreline Element of the City’s 2015 Comprehensive Plan. These, along
with the narrative in that Chapter, were updated based on the 2009 SMP and
2011 revisions approved by the Department of Ecology.
The City has proposed to delete this entire section, except for the first sentence that references
the Shoreline Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan as noted in the column to the left. The
City Staff comment for this proposed change, notes that minor edits to the Element are needed
to match the 2011 revisions approved by Ecology. The proposed language in SMP Section 6
Shoreline Goals and Policies is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the SMA and the
existing Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan has not been reviewed for consistency
with the SMA as part of a SMP amendment; therefore it cannot be used to fulfill the SMA policy
and goal requirements of the City’s SMP.
Required:
The 2011 Approved SMP Policies cannot be deleted from SMP Section 6 unless they are
formally replaced by the Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan – any inconsistency
between these two sets of policies and goals must be rectified during this Periodic Review
Process. This can be accomplished by:
Providing a strikethrough/underline version of the 2011 SMP Section 6 Goals and
Policies identifying the changes necessary to replace it with the current Shoreline
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This is a SMP amendment and must be reviewed
for consistency with the SMA and Guidelines. –OR–
Modifying the current Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan to match the
already approved 2011 SMP Section 6 Goals and Policies. This would not require
additional Ecology review for consistency with the SMA and Guidelines, because this
would not include any edits to the approved language – it would only be a re-
organization that changed where the City houses these policies and goals.
In coordination with the incorporation by reference noted in Req-1, the City must identify the
exact version of the Shoreline Element that will be utilized to meet the SMA requirements. Once
an option is chosen to resolve this issue, an Ordinance No. and date will need to be added to
any Shoreline Element reference, because these Policies and Goals cannot be modified or
edited without a formal SMP amendment.
Req-
4
SMP Section
9
Environmentally
Critical Areas
Within The
Shoreline
*Also
TMC 18.44.070
9.1 Applicable Critical Areas Regulations
A. The following critical areas shall be regulated in accordance with the
provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance TMC Chapter 18.45 (Ordinance #,
date), adopted [Date to be added], which is herein incorporated by reference into
this SMP, except for the provisions excluded in subsection B of this Section:
1. Wetlands
2. Watercourses (Type F, Type Np, Type Ns)
3. Areas of potential geologic instability
Critical areas provisions proposed to be incorporated by reference into the SMP must include a
“specific, dated edition.” To meet this requirement the Ordinance number and dated must be
added at the time of local adoption.
The City is also undertaking a Critical Areas Ordinance Update at this time. An update version
of all CAO provisions proposed for incorporation into the SMP must be included in the final
submittal for this SMP amendment, because all SMP provisions must use “the most current,
accurate and complete scientific and technical information available” [WAC 173-26-201 (2)(a)].
6.6.2019 City of Tukwila SMP Periodic Review Initial Determination of Consistency - Attachment 1
Page 4 of 9
4. Abandoned mine areas
5. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
Such critical area provisions shall apply to any use, alteration, or development
within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement
of exemption is required. Unless otherwise stated, no development shall be
constructed, located, extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided
without full compliance with the provision adopted by reference and the Shoreline
Master Program. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of TMC Chapter
18.45 shall be liberally construed together with the Shoreline Master Program to
give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the provisions of the Shoreline
Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. If there is a conflict or
inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline
Master Program, the most restrictive provisions shall prevail.
B. The following provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45 do not apply within the
Shoreline jurisdiction:
1. Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC Section 18.45.160)
2. Reasonable Use Exception (TMC Section 18.45.180).
3. Permitting, Appeals, and Enforcement Procedures
C. Critical areas comprised of frequently flooded areas and areas of seismic
instability are regulated by the Flood Zone Management Code (TMC Chapter
16.52) and the Washington State Building Code, rather than by TMC Section
18.44.090.
9.2 Purpose
A. The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) and Shoreline Management Act
(RCW 90.58) requires protection of critical areas (sensitive areas), defined as
wetlands, watercourses, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas,
critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife conservation areas, and
abandoned mine areas.
B. The purpose of protecting environmentally critical areas within the shoreline
jurisdiction is to:
1. Minimize developmental impacts on the natural functions and values of these
areas.
2. Protect quantity and quality of water resources.
3. Minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and fish-bearing waters and
maintain wildlife habitat.
4. Prevent erosion and the loss of slope and soil stability caused by the removal
of trees, shrubs, and root systems of vegetative cover.
All sections of TMC 18.45 will need to be reviewed to ensure that regulations and procedures
that are not consistent with the SMA or associated Guidelines, such as reasonable use
exceptions, administrative exemptions, waivers, appeals, permit procedures, and enforcement,
are excluded from incorporation into the SMP. See our SMP Handbook Chapter 18 for
additional guidance on this topic.
*The required changes herein are based on the language provided within SMP Section 9.
A final version or updated draft of the CAO proposed to be incorporated must be
submitted to Ecology for review for consistency with the SMA and applicable guidelines
of WAC 173-26. This may result in additional required changes necessary to ensure that
critical areas protection, reviews, and permitting are conducted consistent w ith the SMA
and Guidelines.
9.2 - Change required for consistency with WAC 173-26-221 and RCW 36.70A.480. Critical
areas within the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the SMP. Those specific (based on
ordinance # and date) provisions are incorporated into the SMP to meet the critical area
protection requirements of the SMA and will be administered through the authorities of the SMA.
The GMA (RCW 36.70A.480(4) provides that,
Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located within
shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to
sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines adopted
pursuant to RCW 90.58.060.
RCW 36.70A030(5) of the GMA defines critical areas as,
"Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a
critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas. "Fish
and wildlife habitat conservation areas" does not include such artificial features or constructs as
irrigation delivery systems, irrigation infrastructure, irrigation canals, or drainage ditches that lie
within the boundaries of and are maintained by a port district or an irrigation district or company.
The SMA Guideline (WAC 173-26-020(8) defines critical areas as,
(8) "Critical areas" as defined under chapter 36.70A RCW includes the following areas and
ecosystems:
6.6.2019 City of Tukwila SMP Periodic Review Initial Determination of Consistency - Attachment 1
Page 5 of 9
5. Protect the public against avoidable losses, public emergency rescue and relief
operations cost, and subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide, subsidence,
erosion and flooding.
6. Protect the community’s aesthetic resources and distinctive features of natural
lands and wooded hillsides.
7. Balance the private rights of individual property owners with the preservation of
environmentally sensitive areas.
8. Prevent the loss of wetland and watercourse function and acreage, and strive
for a gain over present conditions.
9. Give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessar y
to protect or enhance anadromous fisheries.
10. Incorporate the use of best available science the most current, accurate, and
complete scientific and technical information available in the regulation and
protection of critical areas as required by the state Growth Management Act
Shoreline Management Act, according to WAC 173-26-201 and WAC 173-26-
221. 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and WAC 365-190-080.
C. The goal of these critical area regulations is to achieve no net loss of wetland,
watercourse, or fish and wildlife conservation area or their functions is to provide
a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that
assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain
shoreline natural resources. Critical areas currently identified in the shoreline
jurisdiction are discussed in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report,
which forms part of this Shoreline Master Program. The locations are mapped on
the Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline Jurisdiction Map – Map 5. This map is based
on assessment of current conditions and review of the best available information.
However, additional sensitive areas may exist within the shoreline jurisdiction and
the boundaries of the sensitive areas shown are not exact. It is the responsibility
of the property owner to determine the presence of sensitive areas on the
property and to verify the boundaries in the field. Sensitive area provisions for
abandoned mine areas do not apply as none of these areas is located in the
shoreline jurisdiction.
(a) Wetlands;
(b) Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable waters;
(c) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
(d) Frequently flooded areas; and
(e) Geologically hazardous areas.
Abandoned mines are not on the above referenced list and according to the City’s Inventory and
Characterization completed as part of the SMP Comprehensive update in 2011, there are no
abandoned mine areas located within the shoreline; therefore abandoned mine areas should be
removed from the SMP critical areas list.
The protection and regulation of critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction is governed by the
SMA, not the GMA. These references were updated to reflect the accurate WACs.
*Similar issues with TMC 18.44.070 please amend both the SMP Section 9 and TMC 18.44.070
for internal consistency and consistency with the above referenced RCW and WAC
requirements.
Req-
5
TMC
18.104.010
Classification
of Project
Permit
Applications
Type 2 Decisions Matrix
Type of Permit Initial Decision Maker Appeal Body
Shoreline buffer reduction Community Development Director State Shoreline Hearings Board
Extension of time for continuing Community Development Director State Shoreline Hearings Board
a shoreline nonconforming use
or structure
Shoreline buffer reductions and time extension for nonconforming uses/structures are not a
shoreline permit type. All development and new uses within the shoreline jurisdiction must be
reviewed for consistency with the City’s SMP, but the only permit types that exist within the
shoreline authorized by the SMA are Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Shoreline
Conditional Use Permits, and Shoreline Variances. All development that occurs within the
shoreline jurisdiction must be processed as a shoreline substantial development permit, unless
the activity meets the one of the narrowly construed exemptions from the Shoreline Substantial
6.6.2019 City of Tukwila SMP Periodic Review Initial Determination of Consistency - Attachment 1
Page 6 of 9
Development Permit process. These permit types are not consistent with RCW 90.58 or WAC
173-27, and need to be deleted.
Rec-
1
TMC
18.44.120
Appeals
Any appeal of a decision by the City on a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, or Shoreline Variance must be
appealed to the Shoreline Hearings Board. Any person aggrieved by the granting,
denying, or rescinding of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit, or Shoreline Variance may seek review from the
shorelines hearings board by filing a petition for review within twenty-one days of
the date of filing of the decision as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6).
This provisions is not consistent with RCW 90.58.180, which provides that
(1) Any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit on shorelines
of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 may seek review from the shorelines hearings
board by filing a petition for review within twenty-one days of the date of filing of the
decision as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6).
RCW 90.58.140(6) establishes the “date of filing” and therefore the start of the 21-day state
appeal period. The City’s decision on a shoreline conditional use permit or variance is not the
final decision because Ecology has final decision making authority on those permit types.
Replacement language is suggested to more to accurately describe SMP permit appeal
procedures for City staff, applicants, and the general public. This is not a section that the City is
currently proposing to amendment and the procedural requirements of the SMA and WAC 173-
27 apply regardless of the specific language in the SMP, so this is being suggested as a
recommended change rather than a required change.
Rec-
2
Req-
6
TMC
18.44.110
Subsection
G.6.
Non-Conforming Parking Lots.
a. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to require a change in
any aspect of a structure or facility covered thereunder including, without
limitation, parking layout, loading space requirements and curb-outs, for any
structure or facility which existed on the date of adoption of this chapter,
unless the property is proposed for a change of use or otherwise
redeveloped.
b. If a change of use takes place or an addition is proposed that requires an
increase in the area by an increment of less than 0100%, the requirements of
this chapter shall be complied with for the additional parking area.
c. If a property is redeveloped, a change of use takes place, or an addition is
proposed that requires an increase in the parking area by an increment
greater than 100%, the requirements of this chapter shall be complied with for
the entire parking area. If no change in parking area is proposed, a non-
conforming parking lot An existing non-conforming parking lot, which is not
otherwise subject to the requirements of this chapter, may be upgraded to
improve water quality or meet local, state, federal regulations provided the
upgrade does not result in an increase in non-conformity.
d. The area beneath a non-conforming structure may be converted to a
contiguous parking lot area if the non-conforming structure is demolished.
a. The City staff comment on the proposed SMP draft indicates that the City has a lot of
parking areas within the shoreline buffer, however, they debate how this section guides their
use when the site is redeveloped or changes use. Recommend adding language to clarify
that no changes to existing non-conforming parking is required unless the site is
redeveloped or the use is changed as described the subsections below.
c. Proposed re-wording to clarify that this is applicable if no changes to a non-conforming
parking area is required rather than if it is not proposed. Also recommend adding clarification
that any water quality improvements cannot result in increased non-conformity. For example, if
an existing gravel parking area is paved and treatment or detention is added the proposed
upgrades cannot impact existing shoreline buffer vegetation, encroach closer to the OHWM, or
include new impacts within the buffer such as stormwater treatment or detention facilities.
d. This allowance is not consistent with the WAC 173-26-241(3)(k) Transportation and
parking, which provides in relevant part,
Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and shall be allowed only as
necessary to support an authorized use. Shoreline master programs shall include
policies and regulations to minimize the environmental and visual impacts of parking
facilities.
6.6.2019 City of Tukwila SMP Periodic Review Initial Determination of Consistency - Attachment 1
Page 7 of 9
As proposed, this allowance to convert a non-conforming structure into non-conforming
parking has no use nexus and could be applied on vacant property (with no authorized use)
or associated with an unauthorized use.
Req-
7
Rec-
3
TMC
18.44.110
Subsection
G.1.b
If any such non-conforming use ceases for any reason for a period of more than
24 consecutive months the non-conforming rights shall expire and any
subsequent use shall conform to the regulations specified by in this chapter for
the shoreline environment in which such use is located, unless re-establishment
of the use is authorized through a Type 2 permit which must be applied for
through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit which must be applied for within the
two-year period. Water-dependent uses should not be considered discontinued
when they are inactive due to dormancy, or where the use is typically seasonal.
Upon request of the owner, prior to the end of the 24 consecutive months and
upon reasonable cause shown, the City may grant an extension of time beyond
the 24 consecutive months using the criteria set forth in TMC Section
18.44.100.G.4
See also Req-5. The SMA only provides for shoreline substantial development permits,
shoreline conditional use permits, and shoreline variances. The State Shorelines Hearings
Board is only authorized to review these types of permits. The authorization must fit into one of
these permit types.
A shoreline substantial development permit would not be triggere d, so the only potential
shoreline permit to review this under would be the Shoreline Conditional Use permit process.
It doesn’t appear that this is the right cross reference.
Req-
8
TMC
18.44.100
Shoreline
Restoration
Subsection B.
Changes in
Shoreline
Jurisdiction
Due to
Restoration.
1. Relief may be granted from Shoreline Master Program standards and use
regulations in cases where shoreline restoration projects result in a change in the
location of the OHWM and associated Shoreline Jurisdiction and/or critical area
buffers on the subject property and/or adjacent properties, and where application
of this chapter’s regulations would preclude or interfere with the uses permitted by
the underlying zoning, thus presenting a hardship to the project proponent.
a. Applications for relief, as specified below, must meet the following criteria:
(1) The proposed relief is the minimum necessary to relieve the hardship;
(2) After granting the proposed relief, there is net environmental benefit from the
restoration project; and
(3) Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the shoreline
restoration project and with the Shoreline Master Program.
(4) Where a shoreline restoration project is created as mitigation to obtain a
development permit, the project proponent required to perform the mitigation is
not eligible for relief under the provisions of this section.
b. The Department of Ecology must review and approve applications for relief.
c. For the portion of property that moves from outside Shoreline Jurisdiction to
inside Shoreline Jurisdiction as a result of the shoreline restoration project, the
City may consider the following, consistent with the criteria in TMC Section 18.44.
100.B.1.a.
(1) permitting development for the full range of uses of the underlying zoning
consistent with the Zoning Code, including uses that are not water oriented;
The City proposes to add critical area buffers to the relief allowances of TMC 18.44.100.B(1)
and (3). However, this relief allowance must be provided consistent with the SMA and
Guidelines, which provide that relief may be granted from Master Program development
standards and use regulations resulting from shoreline restoration projects that shift the OHWM.
Restoration projects that result in a change in the location of a critical area buffer do not result in
a shift in the shoreline OHWM and would not be subject to new shoreline use and development
regulations. Shoreline jurisdiction is extended to include the any associated wetlands, but not
their buffers. So larger critical area buffers as a result of a shoreline restoration would not
extend the shoreline jurisdiction and its use or development regulations onto portions of the
property where it did not previously exist. Therefore, this relief mechanism is not applicable to
changes in critical area buffers resulting from restoration projects.
6.6.2019 City of Tukwila SMP Periodic Review Initial Determination of Consistency - Attachment 1
Page 8 of 9
(2) waiving the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit
if it is otherwise exempt from the requirement for a substantial development
permit;
(3) waiving the provisions for public access;
(4) waiving the requirement for shoreline design review; and
(5) waiving the development standards set forth in this chapter.
d. The intent of the exemptions identified above in subparagraphs B.1.c.(1) to
B.1.c.(5) is to implement the restoration projects of the Shoreline Master Program
Restoration Plan, which reflects the projects identified in the Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Plan pursuant to Policy 5.2 of the SMP.
2. Consistent with provisions in TMC Section 18.44.050. C, building heights within
shoreline jurisdiction may be increased if the project proponent provides
additional restoration and/or enhancement of the shoreline buffer, beyond what
may otherwise be required in accordance with the standards of TMC Section
18.44.060, “Vegetation Protection and Landscaping.” Additional Restoration
and/or enhancement shall include:
a. creation of shallow-water (max slope 5H:1V) off channel rearing habitat and/or
b. removal of fish passage barriers to known or potential fish habitat, and
restoration of the barrier site.
3.2. Consistent with the provisions of subparagraphs B.1.a, 1.b and 1.c above,
the Shoreline Residential Environment, High Intensity, or Urban Conservancy
Environment Shoreline Buffer, or critical area Bbuffer width may be reduced to no
less than 25 feet measured from the new location of the OHWM for the portion of
the property that moves from outside the Shoreline Jurisdiction to inside Shoreline
Jurisdiction as a result of the shoreline restoration project, subject to the following
standards:
a. The 25-foot buffer area must be vegetated according to the requirements of the
Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section or as otherwise approved by the
City; and
b. The proponents of the restoration project are responsible for the installation
and maintenance of the vegetation.
4. The habitat restoration project proponents must record with King County a
survey that identifies the location of the OHWM location prior to implementation of
the shoreline restoration project, any structuresthat fall within the Shoreline
Jurisdiction, and the new location of the OHWM once construction of the
shoreline restoration project is completed.
5. Shoreline restoration projects must obtain all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife approvals as well as
written approval from the City.
The proposed addition of subsection 2 to 18.44.100.B is not appropriately located within
subsection B because this section is title Changes in Shoreline Jurisdiction Due to Restoration.
See suggested relocation into new subsection C. Shoreline Restoration Building Height
Incentive. However, the allowance provided along with TMC 18.44.050 appear consistent with
addresses the necessary view blockage issues consistent with RCW 90.58.320, which provides,
No permit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter for any new or expanded building or structure of more
than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a
substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does
not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served.
6.6.2019 City of Tukwila SMP Periodic Review Initial Determination of Consistency - Attachment 1
Page 9 of 9
C. Shoreline Restoration Building Height Incentive
1. Consistent with provisions in TMC Section 18.44.050. C, building heights within
shoreline jurisdiction may be increased if the project proponent provides
additional restoration and/or enhancement of the shoreline buffer, beyond what
may otherwise be required in accordance with the standards of TMC Section
18.44.060, “Vegetation Protection and Landscaping.”
Additional Restoration and/or enhancement shall include:
a. creation of shallow-water (max slope 5H:1V) off channel rearing habitat and/or
b. removal of fish passage barriers to known or potential fish habitat, and
restoration of the barrier site.