The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSpecial 2013-09-19 Item 2 - Comprehensive Plan UpdatesTO: City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Committee of the Whole !Jh FROM: Jack Pace, Director Department of Community Development BY: Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner DATE: September 12, 2013 SUBJECT: Work Session — Comprehensive Plan Update ISSUE The City Council is continuing its review of the 2013 portion of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, per RCW 36.70A.130. A work session will be held on September 19, 2013 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. in Conference Room #2, 6300 Building. (Please note location!) DISCUSSION On July 30 and 31, 2013, the City Council held work sessions on the Planning Commission's recommended changes to the Southcenter, Natural Environment, Shoreline, Capital Facilities, Utilities and Transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing was held on August 12, 2013. Comments that were received from the public and the City Council members at the work sessions, hearing and subsequent meetings with individual Council members were placed in matrix format, and reviewed on September 9, 2013. Items that required further discussion after the September 9 meeting have been place in a edited /shortened matrix format. RECOMMENDATION The Council is being asked to consider the remaining proposed changes that were set aside at its work session on September 9, 2013, and to provide direction at the work session on September 19, 2013. ATTACHMENTS A) Edited Matrix, including: 1. Natural Environment 2. Southcenter 3. Utilities 4. Capital Facilities 5. Transportation B) Staff Memo on Off -Site Mitigation /Natural Environment (9/11/13) * *Please bring all Comprehensive Plan materials including Comprehensive Plan notebooks, Matrix from 9/9/13 and edited Matrix. ** * *Note Meeting Location — Conference Room #2, 6300 Building ** Attachment A Comprehensive Plan Update Issues that were "tabled" for further discussion at the 9 -9 -13 work session Issue (highlighted in underline where possible) Comment Date/ Source Staff comment /analysis /options Natural Environment Element 6 17 18 19 20 21 32 Pg. 7, of SO /UL, under Climate Change. Comment: global warming will have other impacts besides sea level rises - add some discussion about temperature effects, such as the importance of trees to help mitigate heat island effects. 8/21/13, CM Robertson Proposed addition to the paragraph: Increases in temperatures could exacerbate existing heat island effects in the highly developed areas of the City where there is a significant amount of impervious surfaces (buildings and parking lots). This underscores the importance of increasing tree canopy in these areas to help reduce temperatures during the summer months. High water temperatures are already a problem for salmon in the Green /Duwamish River, where there is a lack of shade from trees on the shoreline. Restoration plantings and maintaining large trees on the shoreline will help improve conditions for salmon in the river and in its tributaries and help to reduce even greater water temperatures. Pgs. 20 -21 of SO /UL, Policy 4.6.5, The policy needs to ensure that downstream and other drainage impacts do not occur from allowing off -site mitigation. Therefore revise the policy to read: "Allow off -site wetland mitigation only when there is greater functional benefit, no significant adverse impact to the drainage 8/21/13, CM Robertson Staff concurs. See staff memo dated 9/11/14 for further discussion about off -site wetland mitigation. Revised staff recommendation per staff memo dated 9/11/13 - -. Proposed Policy 4.6.5 to read: "Allow off -site wetland mitigation only when there is greater functional benefit, no significant impact to the drainage sub -basin adjacent property, and no signficant adverse impact to existing wetlands or watercourses. Preference shall be given first to mitigation sites within Tukwila's portion of the Green - Duwamish followed by located in the adverse sub -basin adjacent property, and no signficant adverse impact to existing wetlands or watercourses. Preference shall be first to mitigation sites watershed, sites elsewhere watershed." given within Tukwila's of the Green Duwamish watershed, portion followed by located in the watershed." sites elsewhere Pg. 21 of SO /UL, Policy 4.6.6: Delete this policy - we should not be allowing mitigation outside the City. "Consider allowing 8/21/13, CM Robertson This policy and Policy 4.6.7 were included because Federal and State wetland guidance favor in -lieu fee programs to allow for larger & potentially more successful wetland mitigation sites instead of on -site mitigation at wetlands that are likely fragmented in the landscape. This policy was phrased "consider" so that the pros and cons of this approach could be fleshed out for further consideration by the Council. See staff memo dated 9/11/14 for further discussion about off -site wetland mitigation.. •e• e. •e- a . Tukwila benefits will be where ecological of such actions significantly than mitigation locations in the City'. greater Pg. 21 of SO /UL, Policy 4.6.7: Delete this "Consider 8/21/13, CM Robertson See staff memo dated 9/11/14 for further discussion about off -site wetland mitigation. policy. -- • - •• e. • _ . _ . . .. _ . . .. .. . _ _ with King County to in lieu fee in collaborate establish sites Tukwila for wetland restoration including along projects, projects the Green /Duwamish River shoreline." Pg. 21 of SO /UL, Fifth Implementation Strategy bullet: delete "Encourage off -site wetland mitigation and "; new strategy would read: "Encourage off site wetland mitigation and oOffer assistance 8/21/13, CM Robertson See staff memo dated 9/11/14 for further discussion about off -site wetland mitigation. to property owners interestedin providing mitigation sites, where appropriate." Pg. 21 of SO /UL, Sixth Implementation Strategy: Delete this strategy " - e e e e • . - - e - - 8/21/13, CM Robertson If the Council deletes Policies 4.6.6 and 4.6.7, then deleting this implementation strategy would be appropriate. Revised staff recommendation per memo staff memo dated 9/11/13: Delete policy 4.6.6 and revise implementation strategy to read "Evaluate establishing an in -lieu fee wetland mitigation program in the City and present recommedations to decision - makers" .. _ . ..•e . ..•• _ . discuss options for using County designated sites in Tukwila. Provide recommendations to decision makers." Pg. 25 of SO /UL, Add language to the appropriate policy requiring that engineering measures identified in the studies be implemented by the applicant. 8/21/13; CM Robertson Current SAO code (TMC 18.45.120 and 130) clearly requires the preparation of geotechnical report prepared by a professional geotechnical engineer for any development proposal containing an area of potential geologic instability Class 2 or higher or in coal mine areas. The code also states that it is the responsibility of the applicant to submit, consistent with the findings of the geotech report, structural plans prepared and stamped by the structural engineer, accompanied by a letter from the geotech engineer stating if the plans conform to the recommendations in the geotech report. In practice, Public Works also requires the applicant to pay for a peer review by a contracted geotechnical engineer. If the City's geotech engineer does not agree with the original recommendations, the applicant must have the original recommendations revised. No permit is issued until all issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the City. Public Works may condition a permit requiring that the recommendations be implemented and also can require that a geotechnical engineer be on -site during construction to confirm installation of the required measures. Staff recommendation: since this policy is already codified, delete the policy altogether. Page 1 9/12/2013 Attachment A Issue (highlighted in underline where possible) Comment Date/ Source Staff comment /analysis /options Southcenter Element 12 Policy 10.2.3 Site Development. Suggested revision of 2nd bullet: supporting motor vehicle; and transit service, while giving Robertson. 7.27.13 Add wording as follows: Require all new streets, street improvements, property developments and property improvements to provide sidewalks and other non - motorized infrastructure consistent with adopted standards and subarea plans. non - motorized traffic equal importance. 13 Want stronger language regarding providing safe pedestrian pathways internal to a site, including being able to walk from a parked car to a building in a large parking lot, as well as through a large parking lot from the sidewalk to a building. Proposed policy language does not go far enough in providing this direction. Robertson. CC worksession 7.30.13 Recommendation: Add NEW Policy 10.2.4. Pedestrian Accessibility. Ensure that pedestrians have safe, convenient, and comfortable paths from adjacent public ways to key building entrances. This could include utilizing driveways or internal streets with sidewalks for access to primary entrances, or by providing clearly marked pathways through large parking lots from the public sidewalks and from parked cars to key building entrances. There should be minimum interruption to the pedestrian pathway by driveways and other vehicular conflicts. Renumber subsequent policies accordingly. 15 (New) Policy 10.2.4 (see above) - Implementation Strategies. Suggested NEW bullet: Develop design standards for parking lots Robertson. 7.27.13 Recommendation: Make the proposed change. that encourage walking to, from, and between properties. 16 Policy 10.2.4. Suggests the following revision: Siting and orientation of buildings and parking lots should shall create an Robertson. CC worksession 7.30.13 & separately on 8.27.13 Recommendation: Make the proposed change. environment that is conducive to walking in the northern part of the Southcenter area, particularly in the area between the Mall, the bus transit center, Tukwila Pond, and the Sounder Commuter rail /Amtrak Station. 18 Policy 10.2.7 Parking - Implementation strategies. 2nd bullet. Concern about the use of the concept "transit tradeoffs" in "Investigate alternative parking strategies such as shared parking, transit tradeoffs, etc." Is this something that the City wants to encourage now? Other CC comments were that it should be left as is since this is a long term plan. Robertson. CC worksession 7.30.13 Page 2 9/12/2013 Attachment A Issue (highlighted in underline where possible) Comment Date/ Source Staff comment /analysis /options Utilities Element 2 New policy requested: Support the City's position in dealing with Puget Sound Energy regarding the natural gas franchise, public improvements and the role in public improvements. Robertson 7/31 Request clarification of Council intent 3 12.1.18 (formatted) "Give priority to residential neighborhoods for city - planned utility improvements and extensions in order to improve and sustain their quality and livability." Reword to reflect more "subtle" approach...Not just single family residential vs commercial, but also new projects vs repair and maintenance, and generally balancing investment. Robertson and Hougardy 7/31 Work Session Request additional guidance from Council- - i.e. Is the intent to acknowledge the importance of good and available utilities in residential neighborhoods as a way to ensure neighborhood livability, or is the intent to give priority to residential neighborhoods over other parts of the city? 4 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS • New policy in utilities element (12.1.xx SOUL) states: "Give priority to residential neighborhoods for city - planned utility improvements and extensions in order to improve and sustain their quality and livability." It appears that this policy would suggest a lower priority for serving new development and Tukwila's regional growth and manufacturing /industrial centers. It would be helpful to describe in the element how this prioritization would not be to the detriment of the city's regional growth and manufacturing /industrial centers (i.e. there will be sufficient resources to support both the centers and existing residential neighborhoods). Comment letter from Yorik Stevens- Wadja of PSRC (8/6/13) (SEE ABOVE) Request additional guidance from Council. If the policy is desired, staff recommends adding explanatory wording to address the PSRC comment, as follows: Utilities in the residential neighborhoods have been significantely improved over the past 20 years. Maintenance and new facilities for these areas is largely complete, and remaining needs have been factored into the Capital Improvement Program, as have requirements for improvements in the Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center area, and the Manufacturing Industrial Center. 5 NEW Renewable Energy Generation Goal 12.1.43 Actively support the use of local, renewable energy generation techniques for both residential and commercial Tukwila properties with the goal of generating 5.5% of total City electricity use by the year 2025 from a combination of rooftop solar power, solar water heating, and utility scale solar power. Robertson, CC Worksessio n 7/31/13 Tukwila consumers have access to electrical energy derived from hydropower,but there are challenges for securing long -term reliable energy and for becoming more energy efficient. Consistent with CPP: EN -19 Promote energy efficiency, conservation methods and sustainable energy sources to support climate change reduction goals PF -14 Reduce the rate of energy consumption through efficiency and conservation as a means to lower energy costs and mitigate environmental impacts associated with traditional energy supplies. PF -15 Promote the use of renewable and alternative energy resources to help meet the county's long -term energy needs, reduce environmental impacts associated with traditional energy supplies, and increase community sustainability. RECOMMENDATION: Include a local generation goal. Consider expanding this goal to express goals for energy consumption that include both local generation and conservation. NEW GOAL: Actively support the use of local, renewable energy generation techniques for both residential and commercial Tukwila properties with the goal of generating 5.5% of total City electricity use by the year 2025 from a combination of rooftop solar power, solar water heating, and utility scale solar power NEW GOAL: Actively support conservation techniques and programs for both residential and commercial Tukwila properties with the goal of reducing 25% of the total City electricity use by the year 2025. 6 Implementation Strategies (Renewable Energy): 1) Support the enabling of third -party financing to lower the upfront cost of solar PV for consumers and businesses. This is where the solar electricity company installs the rooftop solar panels at little or no cost to property owners, retains ownership of the panels, and provides the electricity to the property owner. 2) Support renewing and expanding state and federal incentive programs for rooftop solar power systems. 3) Support expanding opportunities for net metering by raising the net metering cap statewide to a minimum of 5% of the utility peak aggregate demand. Net metering basically requires utilities to credit customers who produce solar electricity at the retail rate for every kilowatt -hour they produce. 4) Support establishing a feed -in tariff program for large solar energy systems to encourage development of commercial -scale solar installations. 5) Support eliminating some siting restrictions for community solar projects that stop solar projects in local government owned property, schools, churches or other non - profit organizations. 6) Additional implementation strategies relating to local electricity generation through solar and conservation 7) Support the state creating a net -zero energy building code. (new impl. Strategy) CM Robertson, CC work session 7/31 & 8/27 RECOMMENDATION: Consolidate these implementation strategies to address supportive actions, i.e.: Support regional, state, federal initiatives and programs that encourage local renewable energy production such as: 1) Third -party financing to lower upfront costs of solar panels; 2) Incentive programs for rooftop solar systems; 3) Expanded opportunities for net metering; 4) Establish feed -in tariff programs; 5) Net -zero energy building code statewide; 6) Expanded opportunities for net - metering through raising net - metering cap statewide OPTION: In addition to consolidating the implementation strategies above, consider adding local actions to support local energy generation over which Tukwila has greater control, including amendments to development codes: 1) Exempt solar panels and wind turbines from maximum height standards 2) Allow the creation of solar access easements; 3) Streamlined permit process for alternative energy production projects, including waiving permit fees; 4) Develop incentives to encourage local electrial generation and conservation projects. Additional actions could include: 1) Make City properties available for community solar access or pilot programs; 2) Install solar panels on existing City properties such as TCC and Golf Course 3) Prioritize installing solar panels at new City facilities; 4) Use franchise agreements to leverage electric utilties actions re solar and renewable power, including expanded programs and plan. Page 3 9/12/2013 Attachment A Issue (highlighted in underline where possible) Comment Date/ Source Staff comment /analysis /options Capital Facilities Element 8 Formatted Element page 14 -5 Foster Golf Course - This is a publicly owned facility funded by operating revenues, that is user fees; citizen's general obligation bonds; Councilmanic bonds; as well as sale of merchandise, and transfers in from the General Fund. It will be able to meet its capital and operating needs over the 20 -year planning period and maintain a rate structure competitive with nearby municipal courses " The City chose to list the Foster Golf Course as an enterprise fund; clarify narrative and strike sentence that says it is able to meet its capital and operating needs. Add that the Golf Course, unlike the other enterprise funds is allowed to make a profit that may then be transferred into the General Fund. CM Robertson 8/28/2013 Recommend the following changes: Foster Golf Course — This is facility funded by that is a publicly owned operating revenues, primarily user fees; but also by citizens' general obligation bonds; Councilmanic bonds; as wcIl as salc of merchandise, and transfers in from the General Fund. The City has chosen to account for the golf course as an enterprise fund for a number of reasons. Enterprise funds may be used to report any activity for which a fee is charged to users for goods or services and the enterprise fund structure provides transparent accounting of costs and revenues. Within the current financial structure, the golf is It be to its course expected will able meet capital and operating needs over the 20 year planning period and maintain rate structure competitive with nearby municipal courses. All capital improvements will be funded from the above mentioned revenues. The golf Golf Course Enterprise Fund accounts for operation, maintenance, and improvements of the municipal golf facility. The difference between the Golf Enterprise Fund and other utility enterprise funds is that the Golf Fund serves voluntary customers as opposed to the users of the water, sewer, and surface water funds who have no choice in service provider. 12 Policies 14.1.1 — 14.1.3 are new, Councilmember Robertson wants to discuss as a Council as to whether they are appropriate. CM Robertson July 2013 Work Session 13 14.1.2 The City's management of its capital facilities shall follow this ordera -. 2 Regular inspection of system for evaluation and to ensure conformity with current safety standards; 2.1 Prioritizing projects when making improvement if the public health and safety is at risk; 3. Preventive maintenance and cost effective replacement of aging elements; and 4. Planning for the orderly extension and upgrading of capital systems. CM Robertson 8/28/13 - Switch order of priority as shown. Inspection required to identify risk. 25 Add State standards to list of requirements: 14.1.32 — Utility rates and charges shall be structured to ensure adequate infrastructure development, in addition to operation and maintenance and compliance with State and Federal requirements. July 2013 Work Sessions Red is suggested language by CM Robertson. 29 Modification of language in red: 14.2.2 The design of infrastructure improvements shall include conservation of resources, such as water reuse and energy efficient electric fixtures and the use of local power generation. CM Robertson 8/28/2013 Red is suggested language by CM Robertson. Transportation Element 5 Strengthen policy 13.1.11 for vehicle charging stations 8/31/13, CM Robertson Background: Per RCW 19.27.540, Tukwila is required to make provisions for electric vehicle charging stations. Tukwila Ordinance #2324.(2/11) amended sections of TMC 9, 18 and 21 to adopt regulations for electric vehicle infrastructure. No minimum number of charging station places was required. The thinking was if the market demands, it will happen. An electric vehicle charging space may be included in the calculation for minimum required spaces. Options: 1) Leave as is. 2) Add implementation strategy: Provide at least one electric vehicle charging station at all City facilities 3)Add implementation strategy: Amend TMC !8 to require a minimum # of electric charging stations per x parking spaces for new development.. 10 ADD WORDING FOR BETTER CIRCULATION AMONG PARKING LOTS -- Policy 13.2.5 CM Robertson, 8/28/13 Add wording as follows: Require all new streets, street improvements, property developments and property improvements to provide sidewalks and other non - motorized infrastructure consistent with adopted standards and subarea plans. Property developments and improvements in commercial areas will provide direct pedestrian access from sidewalks to buildings , as well as to and from, and between parking areas. 12 RESIDENTIAL SIDEWALKS -- Policy 13.6.2 (p. 13 -26) Continue to allocate funds to Residential Street Fund in order to build sidewalks on residential local access streets CM Robertson, 8/28/13 Rewritten to prioritize residential sidewalks, rather than simply continue to fund: Prioritize funds to the Residential Street Fund in order to build sidewalks on residential local access streets. 14 FUNDING - -p. 13- 31 - -New policy desired as follows: Prioritize maintenance projects and funding over new capital projects. CM Robertson, 8/28/13 This is addressed proposed Capital Facilitlies Policy 14.1.2 Page 4 9/12/2013 September 11, 2013 City of Tukwila ATTACHMENT B Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director TO: Mayor Jim Haggerton Members of Tukwila City Council MEMORANDUM FM: Jack Pace, Director, Dept. of Community Development BY: Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist RE: Issues regarding Off -site Wetland Mitigation and Fee -in -Lieu Policies Background At the work session on September 9, 2013, Council asked staff to present additional information for a future discussion of policies referenced in items 17 through 21 of the Natural Environment Element comment matrix. These issues encompass proposed Policies 4.6.5 through 4.6.7 and the fifth and sixth Implementation Strategy. These issues relate to whether to allow or promote off -site wetland mitigation, or allow it outside of Tukwila. This memo presents background information on what the City's current regulations allow /require, summarizes what has been happening in practice and discusses Federal and State guidance on Best Available Science for wetland mitigation. What Current Codes /Policies Allow Sensitive Areas Ordinance The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (revised in 2010) currently requires on -site wetland mitigation except under certain circumstances as summarized below (TMC 18.45.090.F - Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Location): • When on -site mitigation is not scientifically feasible (problems with hydrology, soils, other factors); • when on -site mitigation is not practical due to potential adverse impacts from surrounding land uses; • when an off -site location provides significantly greater functions than the on -site location; or • when regional goals for flood management, habitat or other wetland functions strongly justify mitigation at another location. If the City determines that proposed off -site mitigation meets one of the conditions listed above, then the code requires that the mitigation be done within the watershed (i.e. the Green /Duwamish watershed) with a preference for sites within Tukwila. The Director may approve sites outside of Tukwila when they meet certain standards but the code establishes priorities for the location as follows: 1. sites in the same drainage sub -basin (i.e., south tributary of Gilliam Creek); 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206- 431 -3670 • Fax 206- 431 -3665 CL /SW. W:IILongRange Projects12014 Comp PlanUpdateACITYCOUNCILINE Element - Council memo.docx September 11, 2013 Natural Environment Element Memo Regarding Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Policies 2. sites within the next higher drainage basin (i.e, Gilliam Creek basin, Southgate Creek basin, Duwamish River basin, Riverton Creek basin, etc. — see Figure 1 for a graphic showing the drainage basins in Tukwila); and 3. elsewhere in the watershed (Green /Duwamish). The Sensitive Areas Ordinance also allows mitigation in a wetland mitigation bank (TMC 18.45.090.E.4.) if certain criteria are met, including the requirement that the impacted wetland be in the service area defined for the wetland bank. Current regulations do not allow wetland mitigation via an in -lieu -fee program. It should be noted that where impacts from development affect wetland buffers (not the actual wetlands themselves) or where only a portion of a wetland is impacted and buffers are impacted, on -site buffer mitigation is required. The SAO does not explicitly allow off -site watercourse mitigation nor does it prohibit it, but off -site mitigation of watercourse impacts would not likely be allowed if proposed, nor would off -site buffer mitigation (except for unavoidable buffer impacts for public road or infrastructure projects that cannot avoid impacting the buffer— in this case buffer mitigation would be required Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Program In 2006, the Council approved an Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Program (Resolution 1608) that established an approach for off -site wetland mitigation at sites within Tukwila (at City -owned and privately owned properties). The plan identified several City -owned sites where off -site wetland mitigation could be performed by project proponents under the oversight of City staff. As part of this plan preparation staff analyzed and summarized alternative tools for wetland mitigation, including wetland mitigation banks and an in -lieu fee program. Staff concluded that establishment of a wetland bank was not practical, given the lack of a significant amount of suitable land and the complex and costly requirements to be met, including establishing a mitigation banking instrument and management board, preparing a mitigation plan and constructing the mitigation using City funds, prior to any wetland impacts. Staff also briefly evaluated the pros and cons of establishing an in lieu fee program for wetland mitigation and concluded that it was not a good approach at the time due to the possibility that there would not be sufficient funds collected from developers to allow the City to implement the mitigation. Staff has not revisited this possibility since 2006, but Federal and State requirements have become more stringent since then (see discussion below) How Off -Site Wetland Mitigation has been Working in Tukwila Off -Site Wetland Mitigation in Tukwila There have been several off -site wetland mitigation projects in Tukwila. Most notable is a wetland mitigation site established by Sound Transit to compensate for permanently filling wetlands along the light rail alignment, where on -site wetland mitigation was not possible. While the mitigation location is technically "off- site" it is in the vicinity of the wetlands impacted and in the same drainage basin. SW 2 09/12/2013 3:45 PM W: \\Long Range Projects\2014 Comp PlanUpdate \CITYCOUNCIL\NE Element - Off -site wetland mitigation analysis memo.doc September 11, 2013 Natural Environment Element Memo Regarding Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Policies To date, none of the sites identified in the Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Program have been used for mitigation projects. One project was proposed for off -site mitigation to compensate for wetland impacts at a short plat, but the project was never executed due to the economy. Wetland Mitigation Outside of Tukwila There have been two instances of off -site wetland mitigation that were carried out outside of Tukwila for wetland impacts that occurred within the City. WSDOT filled wetlands as part of its recent SR 518 improvements. The mitigation for the wetland filling was done by withdrawing wetland mitigation bank credits from the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank, located in Renton (in the Green /Duwamish watershed, but in the Springbrook Creek drainage basin). Mitigation at the wetland mitigation bank was done after WSDOT demonstrated that it was unable to perform on -site wetland mitigation and unable to locate suitable sites with sufficient acreage for mitigation in the Tukwila City limits. In the Tukwila South Project, governed by a Sensitive Areas Master Plan (SAMP), off -site wetland mitigation was carried out at two sites north and south of S. 204th. On -site wetland mitigation was not feasible, because entire areas of the Tukwila South site were being filled for development. One of the mitigation sites is located to the south of S. 204th, partially in Kent and partially in King County. Although the site (known as Wetland 11) is outside the City limits, through inter -local agreements, Tukwila controlled the permitting, oversaw the wetland mitigation construction, and is monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation. On -Site vs. Off -Site Wetland Mitigation — the Evolution of the Science and Federal and State Policies When Tukwila first adopted its Sensitive Areas regulations, State and Federal regulations and best available science at the time favored on -site wetland mitigation, regardless of the appropriateness of the site. What resulted was generally a lot of unsuccessful small and fragmented wetland mitigation projects that were installed without the right conditions (soils, hydrology, compatible adjacent land uses). The Corps of Engineers and the EPA adopted new compensatory mitigation rules in 2006 that specified the types of compensatory mitigation and the "sources: of this mitigation: mitigation banks, in -lieu fee programs, and "permitee- responsible" mitigation (on and off -site mitigation carried out by the permitee). Mitigation banks and in -lieu fee programs are the preferred options. These preferred options are believed to improve the success of mitigation because they consolidate technical and financial resources and involve more scientific expertise, in addition to providing for improved wetland and watercourse functions in a larger area rather than carrying out mitigation at smaller, isolated sites. The mitigation rule does not eliminate the option of on -site or off site mitigation carried out by the permitee. As mentioned above, establishing a City- operated wetland mitigation bank in Tukwila was briefly considered when developing the "Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Program and was discarded as an option. An in -lieu fee program was also briefly considered at the time. Since then, the Corps, EPA and Ecology have developed rules for these kind of programs to help ensure their success. Even though the rules are complicated and stringent, since in -lieu fee mitigation it is one of the preferred options, it may behoove the City to consider the potential of developing a program, or collaborating with another entity on a program. SW 3 09/12/2013 3:45 PM W: \\Long Range Projects\2014 Comp PlanUpdate \CITYCOUNCIL\NE Element - Off -site wetland mitigation analysis memo.doc September 11, 2013 Natural Environment Element Memo Regarding Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Policies Discussion and Recommendations Proposed Policy 4.6.5. Off -site wetland mitigation. Staff recommends that the possibility for off -site wetland mitigation be preserved, and that hydrologic functions of the on -site wetland being impacted be an important factor in the decision - making process (as per proposed Policy 4.8.2 requiring identification of hydrologic conditions and prevention of adverse impacts). Flexibility should be maintained to allow for off -site mitigation, when the criteria already in the SAO are met. Also, allowing mitigation outside the sub -basin or basin is important, because not all of Tukwila's sub - basins or basins have suitable locations for mitigation. For the proposed change to proposed Policy 4.6.5, staff agrees with the language adding "drainage sub - basin" as proposed by Councilmember Robertson. Wetland mitigation outside of Tukwila. Staff recommends maintaining some flexibility for allowing wetland mitigation immediately outside of Tukwila, when it is in the best interests of the watershed. This could allow some contribution to WRIA 9 projects that involve wetlands adjacent to the Green /Duwamish River. Staff recommends that mitigation outside of Tukwila only be allowed when there are no other suitable options, as current regulations allow. Therefore staff suggests eliminating the last sentence of the policy altogether. Proposed Policy 4.6.5 would then read: "Allow off -site wetland mitigation only when there is greater functional benefit, no significant adverse impact to the drainage sub -basin adjacent property, and no signficant adverse impact to existing wetlands or watercourses. Preference shall be given first to mitigation sites within Tukwila's portion of the Green Duwamish watershed, followed by sites located elsewhere in the watershed." Proposed Policy 4.6.6 and Implementation Strategy 6. Staff agrees that this policy can be deleted, but recommends that the implementation strategy related to evaluating the possibility of establishing an in -lieu fee program be maintained (Item 21, sixth Implementation Strategy) but changed to read " Evaluate establishing an in -lieu fee wetland mitigation program in the City and present recommendations to decision - makers. SW 4 09/12/2013 3:45 PM W: \\Long Range Projects\2014 Comp PlanUpdate \CITYCOUNCIL\NE Element - Off -site wetland mitigation analysis memo.doc September 11, 2013 Natural Environment Element Memo Regarding Off -Site Wetland Mitigation Policies SECTION SI SURFACE WATER MAPS 5,0,1 Drainage Sas.Ins and Flow Control Standards 1 �ff2*#iG " l-16n ® Win& Cournty Riverton Creek" �astrr Southgate f Crook S__," Rcnton son Phan Ac St.aTat TuJ SO T zir)L Lower MW Creek Basin t.0n '.ats ^S44 ,7.141. qa" T.. "Mt Neighboring J uriedicxians Level 2 - Conservation _ tp Existing Level e , Conserdallon to Forested Be c -Peek Rate L____J to Existing Per Tukwila South Development Agresrnent ® Water Boclyfildekland Basin Boundary Tukwila • Pump Slat Ion 37'rumeOusizs and CIA nytrci SNmlards 010- ..nCeArarC CrU rtr Earnt. SW 5 09/12/2013 3:45 PM W: \\Long Range Projects\2014 Comp PlanUpdate \CITYCOUNCIL\NE Element - Off -site wetland mitigation analysis memo.doc