HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2004-10-25 Item 4G - Discussion - Amendments to Natural Environment Chapter of Comprehensive Plan / Revise Sensitive Areas Ordinance COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
I Initials ITEM NO.
4 t '14 19i 1 Meetin.g Date 1 Prepared by 1 Mayor's review 1 Counc review 1
i i i 1 09/20/04 1 SL 1 1
1 10/04/04 1 SL 1 1
ri 1 10/25/04 1 SIZ 1 .Mit' 1„1,0- 11 1 k
I 1 1 I
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 04-130 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 9-20-04
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Proposed Amendments to Natural Environment Chapter of Tukwila Comprehensie
Plan and revisions to Sensitive Areas Ordinance
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date
I SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PW
SPONSOR'S Begin deliberations on proposed amendments to policies in the Natural Environment
SUMMARY Chapter of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and major reorganization and revisions to
Sensitive Areas Ordinance to comply with requirements of the Growth Mangement Act.
The revisions have been reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 4- 29 -04; 5- 13 -04; 5- 20 -04; 6- 10 -04; 6- 24 -04; 7- 22 -04; 9 -16 -0
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. N/A
COMMIT IhE Planning Commission
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE l
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
N/A N/A N/A
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE i RECORD OF COUNCIL_ ACTION
9 -20 -04 1 Briefing on Natural Environment Chapter and Sensitive Areas Ordinance revisions
10 -04 -04 1 Public Hearing on 2004 amdts to Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and regulations
I
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
10 -25 -04 1 Memo draft comments from DOE DCD response; draft CTED comments
1 *Please bring notebook labeled "Natural Environment Sensitive Areas Ordinance."
1
I City of Tula ila StevenM. Mu et, 4a or
· ................. ....'"' Deparlment of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
~ INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet, Members of the City Council
Prom: Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Communit~ Development
Date: October 20, 2004
Subject: Council Deliberations on Natural Environment.Chapter of Comprehensive
Plan and Proposed Revisions to Sensitive Areas Ordinance
Project No. L04-0025, 2004 Comprehensive'l~lan Amendments
ISSUE
The Growth Management Act requires local jurisdictions to incorporate the use of Best
Available Science (BAS) in its policies and development regulations. The City has addressed
this requirement through proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and development
regulations, particularly the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO).
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission reviewed staffproposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and a
major revision to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45) during the Spring and throughout
the Summer.
The Council was briefed on the proposed changes on September 20, 2004 and a public hearing
was held on October 4, 2004. Two letters were distributed to the Council at the public hearing
commenting on the drai~ Sensitive Areas Ordinance revisions: 1} John H. Song, a property
owner in Tukwila; and 2) Chad Armour, Wetland Consultant.
Since the public hearing, two State agencies, the Washington State Departments of Ecology
(DOE) and Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED), have provided draft
commems on the proposed changes to the Natural Environment Chapter and SAO. These are
attached to this memo for your review. A copy of the City's response to the DOE comments is
attached as well.
DISCUSSION
The City will provide an explanation of the sources o£Best Available Science used and the
reasons behind any decisions that are not based on BAS, once Council deliberations are
completed as part of its submittal to the Department o£ Community, Trade and Economic
Developmem. This explanation cannot be prepared until the conclusion of the Council's
deliberations.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 · Tukwila, Washington 98188 · Phone: 206-431-3670 · Fax: 206-431-3665
Mayor Steve Mullet
Members of the City Council
October 25.2004 Council Meeting
At this work session, staff hopes to be given direction by the Council on what revisions they
~vould like to make to the Planning Commission recommended Natural Environment Chapter
policies and the proposed regulation changes to TMC 18.06, Definitions, TMC 18.45, Sensitive
Areas Ordinance, and TMC 18.50.110, Archaeological/Paleontological Information
Requirements.
Attachments: Draft Comments from Department ofEcology dated 10-4-04
DCD Response to DOE Comments, dated 10-15-04
Draft Comments from Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development, dated 10-14-04
2
q:\l-04 SAO Update\Council Review\10-25-04 Council Memo.doc
October 4, 2004
Ms. Rebecca Fox
Senior Planner
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcemer Boulevard ~
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Ms. Fox:
RE: Comments on Tukwila's Draft Critical Areas ~date
Thank you for the chance to comment on
Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO), Tukwil de dated July 22, 2004.
I appreciate the work that x to include best
available science ~ Department of
Ecology (Ecology) ~ to "protect the environment ... designate
and classify to protect these areas and their
functions and values...." #8 loss of wetland and
watercourse over present conditions."
; not provide all of the standards necessary to meet
this do not adequately include the best available
science, net degradation of wetland functions and values in
the City. that would ensure that the best
~ wetland functions and values are protected.
18.45.BB Sensitive J ! Studies
A. Required
1. A qualified wetlands specialist should be a certified Professional Wetland Scientist or a
noncertified professional wetland scientist with a at least two years of full-time work
experience as a wetlands professional, including delineating wetlands using the state or
federal manuals, preparing wetland reports, conducting function assessments, and developing
and implementing mitigation plans.
B. Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Area Studies
Ms. Rebecca Fox
October 4, 2004
Page 2
For each wetland identified on-site and within 300 feet of the project site, provide the
wetland rating per the provisions of this Title; required buffers; hydrogeomorphic
classification; wetland acreage based on a professional survey from the field delineation
(acreages for both the onsite portion and for the entire wetland area, including any offsite
portions); Cowardin classification of vegetation communities; vegetation characterization;
habitat elements; soil conditions based on site assessment and soil-survey information, and to
the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlet/outlets (if
they can be legally accessed), estimated water depths within the wetland, estimated
hydroperiod patterns based on visual
cues (e.g., algal mats, drift lines, flood debris). Provide acreage estimates, classifications, and
ratings based on entire wetland complexes, not only the poCdon present on the proposed
project site.
18.45.80 Sensitive Area Permitted Uses A. General Uses
6. Maintenance within sensitive-area buffers of existing landscaping and gardens should not
include the alteration or removal of established native trees and shrubs.
B. Permitted Uses subject to Administrative Review
4. Use of wetlands or wetland buffers as sites for stormwater ponds is inconsistent with
protecting wetland functions and values. Volume I, "Minimum Technical Requirements," of
Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2001) states the
following under "Minimum Requirement #8: Wetlands Protection":
Stormwater treatment and flow control facilities shall not be built
within a natural vegetated buffer, except for:
* necessary conveyance systems as approved by the local
government; or
· as allowed in wetlands approved for hydrologic modification
and/or treatment in accordance with Guidesheet lB.
Guidesheet 1B and others from Appendix 1-D of Ecology's stormwater manual are a good
guide to the level of protection that should be required for different categories of wetlands
with respect to stormwater facilities. As a rule, Category IV wetlands are the only ones that
may be considered, under specific circumstances, for modification for runoff control.
5. "Enhancement or other mitigation including landscaping" should specify "with native
plants."
18.45.CC Wetlands Designations, Ratings and Buffers A. Wetland Designations
Ms. Rebecca Fox
October 4, 2004
Page 3
The Definitions chapter of this title was not included in the materials we received. The
following wetland definition, which may be the one you are using, is required by RCW
36.70A.030(20):
"Wetland" or "wetlands" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water
or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created
,from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches,
grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastew~ter treatment facilities, farm
ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were
unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway.
Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland
areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands.
B. Wetland Ratings
The wetland classification system proposed in the current draft of your SAO is inconsistent
with the best available science. The thresholds for wetland size and number of vegetation
classes are not related to performance of functions and should not be used as a basis for
differentiating wetlands for applying varying protection measures.
We urge the City to adopt Ecology's Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington (2004). Ecology first introduced a rating system for western Washington in
1991, and it has been extensively field tested, revised, and refined since then. A new edition
of the rating system (see http://www.ec¥.wa, gov/biblio/0406014.html), which was finalized
in August, is based on a better understanding of wetland functions, ways to evaluate them,
and what is needed to protect them. This function-based rating system represents best
available science for rating wetlands in Washington.
E. Wetland Buffer Widths
The best available science tells us that the proposed wetland buffers are not wide enough to
protect habitat and water-quality functions. A 50-foot buffer for "Type 2" wetlands (using
either Tukwila's or Ecology's ranking), for example, is not nearly wide enough to protect
either of these functions in an urban setting.
Ecology's guidance on buffer widths and compensation ratios is based on the level of
protection or compensation required for particular functions. Our recommended buffer
widths take into account not only the functions that need to be protected, but also the impact
of adjacent land use. Low-intensity adjacent land uses allow for narrower buffers around
wetlands than those needed to protect from the impacts of high-intensity uses.
Our recommendations are contained in the enclosed Appendix 8-C of Volume 2 of our BAS
document, Freshwater Wetlands in Washington State (see
Ms. Rebecca Fox
October 4, 2004
Page 4
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/bas wetlands/index.html). Buffer Alternative 3 (Tables 4
through 7) described in this appendix offers the most flexibility, basing buffer widths on the
wetland category, adjacent land use, and the specific wetland functions that require
protection. Also enclosed are Appendices 8-E and 8-F, which explain the reasons for the
recommended buffer widths and compensation ratios.
The advantages of using this approach include the following:
1. It provides for specific buffer widths based on the more detailed information
provided by the new wetland rating system that the City is proposing to adopt.
2. It is based on the best available science regardi/lg wetland buffers and provides
for wider buffers around the more valuable and sensitive wetlands and narrower buffers
around the wetlands that are less valuable and sensitive.
3. It will generally result in smaller buffers around wetlands in highly urbanized
areas because many of the wetlands in developed areas are not providing the habitat
functions that reqmre larger buffers.
4. It provides incentives to landowners and developers m incorporate low-impact
site-development measures to reduce runoff, noise, light, etc. Using such measures
allows for reduced buffers.
5. It provides incentives to landowners and developers m provide connectivity
between wetlands on their property and other habitat areas in exchange for reduced
buffers.
This approach will also provide a greater degree of predictability for applicants and reduce
the risk that the City will act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in applying buffer
reductions.
The use of the proposed buffer widths, in conjunction with the proposed classification
system, will ensure the continued degradation of wetland functions and values in Tukwila
and is inconsistent with the purpose and intent statements in the draft SAO.
G. Variation of Standard Wetland Buffer Width
The proposed buffers fall even further short when buffer widths are reduced by up m 50%.
Providing incentives for landowners to enhance degraded wetland buffers is a good idea, but
coupling this with reduction of buffer widths would strip many wetlands of the mimmum
buffers needed to protect their functions. The proposed ordinance offers no guidance on
determining the levels of buffer degradation o~ enhancement required to qualify for this
reduction. Consequently, this provision for reducing buffer widths poses dangers of
misunderstanding and conflict, in addition to inadequate protection of wetland functions.
18.45.DD Wetlands Uses, Alterations and Mitigation
B. Alterations & D. Mitigation Plans
Ms. Rebecca Fox
October 4, 2004
Page 5
Wetland replacement ratios should reflect the best available science. The scientific
information on mitigation is consistent in documenting the frequent failures and poor
performance of compensatory mitigation. Replacement ratios are a critical tool in helping
ensure adequate replacement of lost wetland functions and values. Ratios should take into
account the risk of outright failure; the long time frame required to successfully create,
restore, or enhance wetlands; and the tradeoffs in functions that result from creating or
restoring a wetland of a different type or in a different location.
Recent studies of wetland mitigation conducted by King Cour~ty and the Department of
Ecology found similar results as previous studies conducted in the Pacific Northwest and
elsewhere in the US: mitigation projects continue to fail td adequately compensate for
permitted impacts. Unless, the City has conducted an independent evaluation of mitigation
in Tukwila and found a much higher rate of success, there is no rationale for the ratios
proposed in the draft SAO. As with buffers, this section is inconsistent with the stated
purpose of the draft SAO and with Goal #8.
We urge you to consider using the guidance on pages 12 to 19 of the attached Appendix 8-C.
Table 9 in this appendix shows suggested compensation ratios for different types and
categories of wetlands and for various kinds of mitigation. This guidance is consistent with
what the state and federal agencies require for mitigation. By adopting this guidance the City
will help applicants by providing consistency with state and federal requirements, which will
streamline the approval process for mitigation projects. Depending on the category and type
of wetland affected, ratios should be significantly higher than proposed. This would better
account for the risk of mitigation failure and the at least temporal loss of wetland functions
and values.
Ratios may be increased or decreased in specific cases according to the probability of
success, the difference in functions, the timing of mitigation, and other factors. We suggest
that standard compensation ratios be based on the category of the wetland impacted and the
nature of the mitigation, i.e.:
· reestablishment or creation,;
· rehabilitation;
· enhancement; or
· a combination of reestablishment or creation and enhancement.
18.45.DD
B. Alterations
6. Isolated wetlands
Even isolated wetlands in disturbed environments can perform important wetland functions.
Permission of the Director and compensation for impacts should be required for any
alterations of such wetlands.
C. Mitigation Sequencing
Ms. Rebecca Fox
October 4, 2004
Page 6
The steps to be considered in mitigation sequencing should be those set forth in WAC
197.11.768:
Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
2. 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;
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment;
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action;
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments; and/or
6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
F. Mitigation Standards
Compensatory mitigation projects should be monitored for at least five years, preferably ten.
Ten years or more of monitoring are needed for forested and scrub-shrub communities,
which take at least eight years after planting to reach 80-percent canopy closure. Having a
ten-year monitoring program need not require biologists to collect data and produce a report
every year. That could be done in years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10, for example.
18.45.115 Exceptions
A. Best available science offers no support for excluding wetlands from protection based on
size alone. Even very small wetlands can provide habitat and important ecological processes.
Any exception for wetlands of a certain type or size should be justified by analysis of the
exception's cumulative impact on wetland functions within a specific basin or watershed. In-
lieu fees that could be spent on City wetland projects may be considered in place of direct
mitigation for minor impacts.
B. Reasonable Use Exceptions
Conditions for reasonable-use exceptions should include no net loss of critical-area functions
and values.
We believe that, in the areas noted, the proposed SAO does not adequately include the best
available science and will not protect wetland functions and values. We urge you to consider our
suggestions for improvement and evaluate the enclosed documems. We are available to discuss
our comments with you and provide additional assistance.
Ms. Rebecca Fox
October 4, 2004
Page 7
Where the proposed SAO departs from the guidance of best available science, the City should set
forth the reasons for this departure and its implications and potential risks. The City's reasoning
and analysis should be part of the findings of the adopting ordinance.
I look forward to working with you to support your efforts to update Tukwila's SAO using best
available smence. Please call or e-mail me with any questions or for further discussion. I can be
reached at (425) 649-4447 or riro461i~,ec¥.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
Richard K. Robohm
Wetland Specialist
Enclosures
RKR:rc
cc: Anne Fritzel, Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
Donna Bunten, Ecology CAO Review Coordinator
Erik Stockdale, Wetlands Specialist
"; City of Tukwila St enM. Mu et, Ma or
? Deparlment of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
October 15, 2004
Mr. Richard K. Robohm, Wetland Specialist
Shorelands. & Environmental Assistance Program
Department of Ecology - NW Regional Office
3190 160th Avenue S_E .
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
RE: Draft Comments on Tukwila Draft Sensitive Area Ordinance
Dear Richard: .
Thank you very much for the opportunity to review a draft of your suggestions on the City's
proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance. We have had an opportunity ro discuss your letter; a
number of the suggestions are well taken, and staffconcum However, we have the following
feedback on several key points you make With which we disagree.
We believe that your assessment that the proposed SAO, if adopted as is, would result in "...the
si~maificant degradation of wetland functions and values in the City" is an overly harsh
assessment and too strong a statement to make. The proposed SAO improves on the current
SAO and in particular provides much better criteria that must be met for any alteration to
wetlands (18.45.DD.B) and differentiates between mitigation through restoration or creation and
mitigation by enhancement by providing differing mitigation ratios. Through the updated
wetland inventory and mapping, the City has identified mom than twice the number of wetland
areas for regulatory protectign. The City has also used BAS to adjust the'mitigation ratio for
wetland enhancement proposals.
Since adoption of the current SAO in 1991, we believe them has not been a "continued
degradafi6n of wetland functions and valu~es in Tukwila." On the proposed ordinance, staff had
recommended larger buffer widths for wetlands and watercourses to the Planning Commission.
After reviewing information presented on best available science, the Planning Commission
ultimately recommended that the existing buffer widths be retained based upon concerns that
wider buffer width~ would impact negatively residential property owners. The City Council will
remsit the issue of appropriate buffer widths and your comments and the draft Appendices will
be included with the materials they will review.
On the issue of the wetland ratings, we disagree that our rating systemics inconsistent with best
available science. The Department of Community Trade and .Economic Development offers the
6300 Southcenter Boulevara, Suite #I00 · Tukwila,"Washington 98188 · Pi~one: 206-431-3670 · Fax: 206-431-366~
Mr. Richard K. Robohm
Department of Ecology
October 15, 2004
DOE rating system as one example that can be used, but does not require its use. At the time we
were preparing our inventory and reviewing our current rating system, the Department of
Ecology had not issued its final recommendations on a wetland rating system. Local
jurisdictions subject to the Growth Management Act are required to meet the December 1, 2004
deadline established by the State legislature for adoption of comprehensive plan amendments and
amendments to regulations incorporating best available science. We appreciate the guidance
provided by the research prepared by DOE, but it comes too late in the process we are required
to meet to be incorporated into our code.
In addition, it is appropriate that Ecology rank wetlands at a statewide level using four or more
classes due to the diversity of types of wetlands in the state. Hdwever, within an urban area like
the city of Tukwila, fewer types of wetlands occur that at a statewide level. As a result, it is
appropriate and scientifically valid to rank the wetlands occurring in Tukwila using a modified
rating system using three wetland classes. Wetland size and habitat characteristics are used in
many current wetland functions assessment publications.
The proposed ordinance d(~es provide guidance on the findings that must be made in order to
approve buffer reduction - this is found in TMC 18.45.CC. G.2 a-c.
On the issue of mitigation ratios, wetland mitigation ratios supported by scientific research
~ndicate that greater than 1:1 replacement of wetland is necessary since many wetland mitigation
projects have historically failed to meet all performance criteria. The scientific record alone does
not support mitigation ratios greater than approximately 2 or 3:1 replacement. Mitigation ratios .
above 2:1 replacement are typically recommended to offset temporal losses of wetland functions
(while the mitigation wetland matures) and to act as a disincentive to developers for wetland
impacts. The scientific research indicates that the main reason that mitigation projects often fail
is the lack of follow-through by regulatory agencies to insure that the mitigation projects were
correctly installed and monitored for success (Ecology, 2001).
The mitigation sequencing suggested in your letter is from the SEPA regulations set forth in
WAC 197.11.768. We believe the hierarchy of preference set forth in the City's.proposed
mitigation sequencing speaks more directly to appropriate sequencing as it relates to impacts to
wetlands.
The purpose of the wetland exemption fo?mall wetlands is to provide an appropriate balance
between protection of wetlands and the cost and burdens of code administration. The goal is to
focus staff review time and applicant mitigation effort on development proposals affecting
wetlands important to the City on a landscape-wide analysis level. It is recognized that the
functions and values of wetlands diminish as wetlands become smaller and more disturbed in the
urban environment. As proposed, the exemption is limited to the lowest value wetlands in the
City. It has been our experience, over the course of the 13 years we have been administering the
current SAO, that the wetlands that fit this exemption category are typically low in habitat value
and other wetland functions. Most of these wetlands are isolated in the. landscape due to man-
made infrastructure (roads, buildings, utility easements etc.), are surrounded by highly disturbed
land uses and are often dominated by invasive plants. Havinisaid this, based on your
2
q:\l-04 SAO Update\Council Review\Robohm.doc
Mr. Richard K. Robohm
Department of Ecology
October 15, 2004
suggestions, staff is considering recommending to the Council that the language in the.proposed
code be refined to require that a finding be made that the cumulative impacts of altering the
wetland do not Unduly counteract the purposes of the SAO chapter.
Regarding reasonable use exceptions, the requirement ro ensure no net loss of critical-area
functions and values is found in TMC 18.45.DD.D.2. A mitigation plan would be required as
part of a reasonable use exception approval and this plan wo~ld address the goal of no net loss.
Thank you again for reviewing our draft sensitive areas ordinan, ce. We hope that the above
comments will be helpful as you finalize your comments to us. We would like to forward your
final comment letter to the City Council as soon as possible'hnd look forward to receiving them.
Sincerely,
Carol Lumb
Senior Planner
cc: Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Community Development
lack Pace, Deputy Director, Department of Community Development
Gary Schulz, Wetland/Forest Ecologist
Teresa Vanderburg, Adolfson Associates
Lynn Kol'm, Washirigton State Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development
q:\l-04 SAO Update\Council Rcview\Robohm.do¢
DRAFT
October 14, 2004
Steve Lancaster, Planning Director
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100
Tukwila, Washington, 98188
RE: Proposed amendments to the Natural Environment element of the Comprehensive Plan, and
draft amendments to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development (CTED) the proposed amendments to Tukwila's comprehensive plan and
development regulations that we received on September 1, 2004. We recognize the substantial
mvestment of time, energy, and resources that these documents represent.
We especially like the following:
· The Environmentally Sensitive Areas section of your Municipal Code includes policies
stating that you will include the best science available to protect the functions and values of
critical areas.
· The addition ofFish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas to your definition and coverage
as an Environmentally Sensitive Area.
· In your Natural Environment element, Policy 4.4.1 promotes an educational program dealing
with sensitive areas as well as outlining responsibilities for its implementation. Policy 4.4.1
also proposes to sponsor joint City and citizen cleanup and rehabilitation programs.
Implementation of this policy will support the ~equirements for NPDES Phase II as well as be
proactive in terms of having individuals take responsibility for their actions when dealing with
sensitive areas. We see this as a very positive step.
We have concerns about the following that you should address before you adopt your plan and
development regulation amendments:
City of Tukwila -DRAFT-
October 13, 2004
Page 2
· Although the proposed ordinance includes good policies regarding the inclusion of Best
Available Science, we are concerned that the information we have seen does not tie the
substance of the ordinance to any source of scientific information that would lead to a
conclusion that those standards are adequate to protect the functions and values at stake. In
accordance with WAC 365-195-915, the record developed by the city should show how the
best available science that was included in the development of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance
and related policies. The record should identify the specific policies and regulations and the
relevant sources of best available science that was included in the decision making process.
We have recommended several options for jurisdictions to cite the BAS in their planning
efforts; an appendix to the development regulation, as a stand-alone report that accompanies
the proposed regulations, as a part of the staff report prep ,a, red for the planning commission,
within the development regulation itself, or within the findings of the adopting ordinance.
Footnotes within the development regulation itself is a good choice when relying
predominantly on one source of BAS, such as state agency management recommendations. A
stand-alone report is helpful when documenting how the city chose to reconcile a greater
array of scientific information or when the city is documenting a need to depart from the
science and its decision process in doing so. In any case, the decision makers need to be aware
of what scientific information is available to inform their choice about the substance of the
ordinance and how it protections critical area function and value.
The following is a suggestion to strengthen your Sensitive Areas Ordinance. This is not, however
a requirement:
· The area specified in your Ordinance for the application of the regulations is your Sensitive
Area or Sensitive Area buffer. In the case that development near a buffer could possibly
cause harm to the Sensitive area, you might want to consider adding the requirement that all
development that is within [a specified distance] outside the sensitive area, must be reviewed
for potential impacts. Some suggestions for doing this include:
Establishing a 10, 15 or 20 foot area outside the buffer area where construction activities
(e.g. clearing & grading) that might cause erosion or other impacts to the habitat in the
buffer area, will not be allowed.
Including a statement in your section on Sensitive Area Special Studies that areas outside
of wetland buffers will be looked at for potential impacts on the Sensitive area and
landowners may be contacted by your Department to inform them about the potential
hazards.
Congratulations to you and your staff for the good work these amendments embody. If you have
any questions or concerns about our comments or any other growth management issues, please
call me at (360) 725-3042. We extend our continued support to the City of Tukwila in achieving
the goals of growth management.
City of Tukwila -DRAFT-
October 13, 2004
Page 3
Sincerely,
Lynn Kohn
Growth Management Services
LK:lw
cc: Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner
Carol Lumb, Planner "
Leonard Bauer, AICP, Managing Director, Growth Management Services, CTED
David Andersen, AICP, Planning Review Team Manager, Growth Management Services,
CTED