HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2018-10-25 Item 5 - Attachments - Shoreline Master Program Work SessionCity of Tuk ila
Pet -iodic Update of the
loreline Master Program
at is aShoreline aster rra ( P?
A Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is a set of policies and regulations required by state law that has three basic
principles:
• Encourages reasonable and appropriate development of shorelines with an emphasis on water- dependent
uses, which developed are consistent with the control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural
environment, such as docks, marinas, and recreational facilities, or industries and commercial uses that
require a shoreline location and support economic development; and,
• Protects the natural resources and character of the shorelines, the land, vegetation, wildlife, water, and
aquatic life within shoreline environment; and,
• Promotes public access and provides opportunities to enjoy the aesthetic qualities of the natural shorelines
and recreational activities in shoreline areas.
ere oes t is a lr?
Shorelines are special waterbodies that meet certain size or flow criteria in the Washington State Shoreline
Management Act (SMA). These shorelines include rivers and streams with mean annual flow over 20 cubic feet
per second and lakes 20 acres or larger. The shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet landward of the water's edge
and additionally includes associated wetlands, floodways, and up to 200 feet of floodplain contiguous to the
floodway. The shorelines in the City of Tukwila include the Green/Duwamish River and a small portion of the
Black River.
at is a eri
ate of t e ?
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. This periodic update will focus 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.
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.
August 2018
Page 1 of 3
105
• Change shoreline jurisdiction or environment designations.
at ty a of activities a ses o s reli a regulations a ply t
Shoreline regulations apply to any land use activity that occurs within the shoreline jurisdiction as defined in the
SMP. Included in those structures and uses regulated in the SMP are:
• New or expanded structures, such as houses, sheds, and decks;
• New or expanded in -water and over -water structures, such as docks, buoys, and boat launches;
• Land development and alteration, such as clearing, grading, dredging, or filling; and
• Other activities along the shorelines, including restoration (e.g., riparian planting, bank stabilization), trail
construction, and public access.
at is aShoreline xe t ti.n an at is re
re t o tai
a roval?
Certain land uses and development activities are exempt from the requirement to obtain a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit, but are not exempt from compliance with the Shoreline Master Program. Exemptions
must be narrowly construed and all activities that are exempt from the requirement to obtain a Shoreline
Substantial Development permit are still required to comply with the SMP. Exemptions are issued in writing by
the City after the submission of a complete application which includes a site plan. Even though an activity is
exempt from requiring a Substantial Development Permit, a conditional use or variance permit may be required.
Exemptions under the SMP are different than exemptions under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
0does t e affect existinguses a evelo et?
SMP regulations are not retroactive. SMP regulations apply to new development and uses. Existing uses and
developments legally established may be repaired, maintained and operated. The SMP applies to proposals for
expansion or alteration of existing uses and structures.
Structures and uses that were legally established in the past may become legally nonconforming due to new
shoreline rules that are passed over time. Current, SMP regulations allow these previously built structures and
established uses to continue as they are presently operating.
Recent amendments to the SMA especially recognizes existing residences which were built consistent with
existing shoreline regulations at the time of construction. Residential structures that were legally established
and are used for a conforming use, but that do not meet current SMP standards (e.g. height, buffers, setbacks,
etc.), may be considered a conforming structure. The city's SMP may allow redevelopment, expansion, or
replacement of the residential structure if it is consistent with the current SMP. As part of this periodic review
and update the city will be looking at the existing SMP and opportunities consistent with state law to clarify how
redevelopment, expansion, or replacement of legally established single-family homes within the shoreline
jurisdiction may occur with mitigation and demonstrating there is no net loss of the shoreline ecological
functions.
August 2018 Page 2 of 3
106
at is
lic access to s oreli es? e is it re
re
7
Public access is a preferred use per the SMA. Public access can be physical access (e.g. trail) and/or visual access
(e.g. view corridors). Public access standards apply to new development, not existing development. Generally,
public access should only be required for private uses of certain sizes (e.g. large subdivisions, resorts, etc.) and
shall be required for public uses. Public access requirements do not allow for trespass on private property.
at is et Loss?
The SMP Guidelines establish the standard of no net loss. No net loss means that over time, the aggregate
existing condition of shoreline ecological functions should remain the same as when the SMP is implemented.
Simply stated, the no net loss standard is designed to balance the introduction of new impacts to shoreline
ecological functions resulting from new development through mitigation sequencing and restoration. The City
must achieve this standard through both the SMP planning process and by appropriately regulating individual
developments as they are proposed in the future. Any amendments to the SMP that may occur through the
periodic update process would need to comply with the no net loss standard.
can 1 sec ore
fir atio
Website:
http://www.tukwilawa.gov/departments/community-development/shoreline-management/
Contact:
Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director
Department of Community Development, City of Tukwila
Phone: (206) 433-7141
Email: nora.gierloff@tukwilawa.gov
August 2018 Page 3 of 3
107
108
1
Topic
t
Description
S
Consistency Updates
Update dollar thresholds, update State Code references, update
definitions (development, floodway), reference new exemptions in WAC,
floating home policy, reference updated Comprehensive Plan policies
Critical Areas
Update to reference 2014 wetland rating system, 2011 federal
delineation manual and buffers to meet Dept. of Ecology guidance,
wetland mitigation banking, OR Replace with a reference to the updated
City-wide critical area regulations
Non -conformities
Clarify use regulations per new WAC section, additional flexibility
allowed for residential structures
Levee Profile
Allow flexibility in the City's preferred levee profile to allow for varying
conditions. Improved designs should not require a variance.
Permitted Uses
Remove the use list and replace with the use matrix consistent with the
Zoning Code
Shoreline Buffers
Place written standards into a table for ease of use
Recreational Structures
Currently limited to 15' height and 25 square feet, allow more flexibility
Topic
I1 V
1
Description
Housekeeping
Add an introduction or purpose to the Chapter, streamline for usability
Consistency Updates
Include references to the Shoreline Design Guidelines and updated Tree
Regulations, align inconsistent definitions, clarify that consistency with
the SMA and WAC is required
Mitigation Monitoring
Clarify that 5 years of monitoring for plant survival in mitigation projects
is required
Vegetation Management
Clarify that removal of invasive species or noxious weeds is exempt from
permitting
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
Bridges
Clarify how bridges are regulated
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
109
110
City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program
Gap Analysis Report
Prepared on behalf of:
The City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Blvd #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Prepared by:
T
WAT FRS H:E D
COMP ALNY
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland WA 98033
p 425.822.5242
f 425,827.8136
watershedco.com
October 2018
The Watershed Company Reference Number:
180506
1 1 1
112
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Consistency with Legislative Amendments 3
3. Consistency with Sensitive Areas Ordinance 7
4. Consistency with Other Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan
8
S. Usability Recommendations 10
List of Tab
es
Table 1. Summary of gaps in consistency with legislative amendments, and associated
mandatory and recommended SMP revisions. 3
Table 2. Summary of recommended SMP, TMC, and Comprehensive Plan revisions to improve
consistency. 8
Table 3. Summary of recommended SMP revisions to enhance usability. 10
113
114
Introc,uctuoin
In accordance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), local jurisdictions
with shorelines of the state are required to conduct a periodic review of their Shoreline Master
Programs (SMPs) (WAC 173-26-090). This review is intended to keep SMPs current with
amendments to state laws or rules, changes to local plans and regulations, changes in local
circumstances, and new or improved data and information.
The City of Tukwila (City) adopted its current SMP in 2011 (Ordinance No. 2344). Shorelines of
the State in Tukwila include the Green/Duwamish River and a small portion of the Black River.
The Tukwila SMP includes goals and policies, shoreline environment designations, and
development regulations that guide the development and protection of these shorelines.
As a first step in the periodic review process, The Watershed Company (Watershed) reviewed
the current SMP for consistency with legislative amendments made since its adoption.
Watershed staff also reviewed the current SMP for consistency with the policies in the City's
Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2015, and with the implementing development regulations in
the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). Finally, as the periodic review process represents an
opportunity to revise and improve the SMP, both City and Watershed staff reviewed the
current SMP for overall usability.
The purpose of this gap analysis report is to provide a summary of the review and inform
updates to the SMP. The report is organized into the following sections according to the content
of the review:
• Section 2 identifies gaps in consistency with legislative amendments. This analysis is
based on a list of amendments between 2007 and 2017, as summarized by the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and provided to the City as a
Periodic Review Checklist.
• Section 3 identifies gaps in consistency with the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO)
(Chapter 18.45 TMC). The SAO was most recently updated in 2010, and applies to
critical areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction, while the SMP contains in Chapter 10 its
own separate set of regulations that apply to critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction.
• Section 4 identifies gaps in consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and with
implementing sections of the City's development regulations other than the SAO.
Specifically, the review includes Title 18 (excluding Chapters 18.44 and 18.45) of the
TMC.
• Section 5 identifies issues of usability by both City staff and residents.
For each section, the report presents the topic, relevant section(s) in the SMP, a summary of the
analysis (consistency or usability), and a recommendation for revisions to the SMP.
115
116
2. Consistency with Legislative Amendments
Table 1 summarizes mandatory and recommended revisions to the Tukwila SMP regulations based on the review of consistency
with legislative amendments made since SMP adoption. Topics are organized broadly by SMP subject area. In general,
mandatory changes to the SMP are minor in nature. The majority of them address revised rules with regard to SMP applicability,
including updated exemption thresholds and definitions. Ecology has also developed new guidance on regulating
nonconforming uses, structures, and development that could be of use to the City in clarifying the nonconformance regulations in
its SMP, as well as recent modifications to wetland buffer guidance that could be applied to both shoreline and non -shoreline
wetland regulations.
Table 1. Summary of gaps in consistency with legislative amendments, and associated mandatory and recommended SMP revisions.
No.
Topic (Amendment Year)
Relevant
Section(s) in
2011 SMP
Consistency Review
Recommendation
Applicability
1
Cost threshold for non-exempt substantial
development updated (2017)
Chapter 3,
Definitions
The SMP includes a definition with
reference to an outdated dollar
threshold.
Mandatory: Revise definition of
"substantial development" to refer to
the updated dollar threshold and/or
WAC definition, as adjusted by OFM
every 5 years.
2
Definition of "development" updated to
exclude dismantling or removing structures
(2017)
Chapter 3,
Definitions
The SMP does not clarify that
removing structures does not
constitute development.
Recommended: Revise definition of
"development" to clarify this exclusion.
Example language from Ecology is
available.
3
New rules clarify exceptions to local review
under the SMA (2017)
Chapter 14,
Administration,
section 14.2(B)
and Chapter 3,
Definitions
The SMP addresses exemptions in
WAC 173-27-040. Individual
exemptions under that section are
addressed elsewhere throughout the
SMP. The SMP does not refer to WAC
173-27-044 or -045.
Mandatory: Add reference to statutory
exceptions.
Recommended: Revise Chapter 14 to
more comprehensively address
exemptions and exceptions from all
three relevant sections of the WAC, as
amended.
3
117
The Watershed Company
October 2018
City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
No.
Topic (Amendment Year)
Relevant
Section(s) in
2011 SMP
Consistency Review
Recommendation
4
Retrofitting existing structures for ADA
compliance is now exempt from shoreline
permit requirements (2016)
Chapter 14,
Administration
Section 14.2(B) addresses exemptions
in WAC 173-27-040. Section 14.5(B)
contains provisions for non-
conforming structures.
Recommended: Consider revising
14.5(B) to clarify that restrictions on
modifications to existing non-
conforming structures do not apply to
ADA retrofits.
5
Cost threshold for exempt replacement of
docks on lakes and rivers increased to
$20,000 from $10,000 (2014)
Chapter 3,
Definitions
Chapter 3 includes a definition of
"substantial development" with
reference to the outdated dollar
threshold.
Mandatory: Revise text to refer to
updated dollar threshold, and/or refer
directly to WAC 173-27-040 and
RCW.90.58.030(3)(e) for the list of
exemptions.
Use and
Development Provisions
6
Updated wetlands critical areas guidance
refers to the 2014 wetlands rating system
(2016)
Chapter 10,
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
within the
Shoreline
Jurisdiction
Section 10.6(D) refers to the 2004
rating system.
Ecology provided revised wetland
buffer guidance in July of 2018. The
revised guidance indicates that
wetlands scoring 5 habitat points may
use the same standard buffer width
as wetlands scoring 3-4 habitat
points, and standard buffers for
wetlands scoring 6-7 habitat points
may be set at 110 feet rather than
165 feet.
Recommended approach to
mandatory change: Revise SMP to
reference updated SAO, which will
incorporate 2014 wetlands rating
system.
Recommended: Revise SAO to include
July 2018 habitat score and buffer
recommendations from Ecology.
7
New definition and policy for floating on-
water residences legally established before
July 1, 2014 (2014)
Chapter 9,
Shoreline
Development
Standards
Section 9.12(E) contains provisions for
live-aboards, which are permitted in
the Aquatic environment. No
definition of live -aboard is provided in
Chapter 3, Definitions.
Mandatory: Revise Chapter 3 and
Chapter 9 consistent with the new
statutory definition and regulations for
floating on -water residences.
118
No.
Topic (Amendment Year)
Relevant
Section(s) in
2011 SMP
Consistency Review
Recommendation
8
Wetlands must be delineated in
accordance with the approved federal
wetland delineation manual (2011)
Chapter 10,
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
within the
Shoreline
Jurisdiction
Section 10.6(A) refers to the
Washington State Wetland
Identification and Delineation Manual
(WDOE Publication #96-94).
Recommended approach to
mandatory change: Revise SMP to
reference updated SAO, which will
refer to the approved federal wetland
delineation manual and applicable
regional supplements, per WAC 173-
22-035.
9
Ecology adopted a rule for certifying
wetland mitigation banks (2009)
N/A
The SMP does not address wetland
mitigation banks.
Recommended: The City may wish to
consider Ecology's recommendation
that SMP provisions (or referenced SAO
provisions) authorize the use of
mitigation banks.
10
New options for defining "floodway" as
either the area that has been established in
FEMA maps, or the floodway criteria set in
the SMA (2007)
Chapter 3,
Definitions
The definition of "floodway" in
Chapter 3 is not consistent with either
option provided by the statute.
Mandatory: Revise the definition of
floodway to either refer to FEMA maps
or use SMA criteria consistent with
RCW 90.58.030(2)(b)(ii).
Nonconformance
11
Ecology clarified default provisions for
nonconforming uses and development
(2017)
Chapter 14,
Administration,
section 14.5
The SMP includes provisions for
nonconforming uses and
development in section 14.5.
Recommended: The revised WAC could
provide ideas for clarifications or
improvements to the existing
provisions in SMP.
12
SMPs may classify legally established
residential structures and appurtenant
structures as conforming even if they do
not meet dimensional or bulk standards.
Redevelopment, expansion, and
replacement consistent with the SMP
would be allowed (2011)
Chapter 14,
Administration
Sections 14.5(B)(5) and (6) provide
allowances for nonconforming
residential structures.
Recommended: The City may wish to
review these provisions and consider
revising to more clearly classify existing
structures as conforming.
5
119
The Watershed Company
October 2018
City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
No.
Topic (Amendment Year)
Relevant
Section(s) in
2011 SMP
Consistency Review
Recommendation
Administration
13
New rule describing the process local
governments must following when
conducting periodic reviews (2017)
Chapter 17,
Master Program
Review and
Amendments
Chapter 17 addresses SMP review and
amendments, referring to RCW 90.58
and WAC 173-26.
Recommended: The City may wish to
consider more specific statutory
references (e.g. RCW 90.58.080 and
WAC 173-26-090) for the sake of
usability.
14
New rule created an optional SMP
amendment process that allows for a
shared local/state public comment period
(2017)
Chapter 17,
Master Program
Review and
Amendments
Chapter 17 addresses SMP review and
amendments, referring to RCW 90.58
and WAC 173-26. More specific
amendment procedures may be laid
out in other chapters of the TMC.
Recommended: The City may wish to
consider the use of the new optional
SMP amendment process, and if so
should review local amendment
procedures to ensure there are no
impediments to using it.
15
New Growth Management Act —Shoreline
Management Act clarifications (2009)
Chapter 10,
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
within the
Shoreline
Jurisdiction, and
Chapter 17,
Master Program
Review and
Amendments
Chapter 10 includes provisions for
critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction.
Section 17.2 refers to the effective
date of SMP amendments.
Mandatory: Revise 17.2 to clarify that
SMPs are effective 14 days from
Ecology's written notice of final action.
Recommended: Replace Chapter 10
with an adoption by reference of the
updated SAO, with
exceptions/modifications as necessary.
16
The Legislature added moratoria authority
and procedures to the SMA (2009)
N/A
The SMP does not address this.
Recommended: Consider adding
provisions to address moratoria
authority. Ecology has provided
example language.
6
120
3. Consis_ency with Sensitive Areas Orcinance
Based on a review of consistency with the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO), codified in Chapter 18.45 TMC and adopted in
2010, there are numerous minor inconsistencies exist between the way the SAO and SMP designate and protect critical areas.
Many of these appear to be a result of the time difference between adoptions of the two documents. We recommend that the City
address these inconsistencies through direct adoption by reference in the SMP of the City's SAO, which is scheduled to be
amended and adopted immediately prior to SMP adoption. Specific exceptions to the SAO required by statute may be called out
in Chapter 18.45 TMC.
7
121
The Watershed Company
October 2018
City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
4 Consistency
- t thOf
1er�l�y�|()O���Dt���u|��{)�����(-()F��r������y��|an
Development ' Regulations -� - Comprehensive �� � Plan
Table 2summarizes recommended revisions tothe Tukwila SMPbased onareview cd consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
and the Tukwila Municipal [ode(TMC).TheComprehensivePlan was updated in 2015 and is generally consistent with the SMP;
however, certain policies can be updated to better align with SMP language. Certain code chapters that mpy|v within shoreline
jurisdiction, such aethe Tree Regulations ([hoyterTM[ l8.54),refer tooutdated SMPprovisions and should heupdated. In
general, cross-references within Tide l8-both from the SMP to other code chapters and vice versa- could be strengthened to
clarify applicability nfthe SMP.
Table 2. Summary of recommended SMP, TMC, and Comprehensive Plan revisions to improve consistency.
No.
Topic
Relevant
Section(s) in2Q11
S&AP, TMC,mr
Comprehensive
Plan
Consistency Review
Recommendation
Comprehensive
Plan
1
Shoreline Goals and
Policies
SMPChapter 6
The SMPreferences the [ity's1995
Comprehensive Plan, with proposed
amendments. Many ofthese have since been
adopted inthe 2Ol6Comprehensive Plan.
Update Chapter Gofthe 3W1PLorefer tothe
2OI5Comprehensive Plan. Incorporate small
language changes topolicies throughout.
2
Policies for
development outside
the Tukwila Urban
Center orW1|C
SK4PSection 6.3/
Comprehensive Plan
Goal 5-3
Numbering and language for policies 5.3.8'
5.3.9,and 5.3.10differ slightly between the
SMPand Comprehensive Plan.
Revise the SK4Ptoalign with more recent
Comprehensive Plan language and numbering
for these policies.
3
Levee profile
SK4P7.5(8),Figure 2
/Comprehensive
Plan Goal 5-10,
Figure5'2
The SMPand Comprehensive Plan both
reference the City'xadopted minimum levee
profile with agraphic ofthe preferred profile.
Amend the Comprehensive Plan and SMPto
include apolicy stating/describing the City's
preferred levee profile.
Development
Regulations
4
Shoreline Design
Guidelines
TK4[18.44.l10
(SMP)/Title l8
Projects within shoreline jurisdiction are
subject tothe Shoreline Design Guidelines as
Where design review and shoreline projects are
mentioned throughout Title 18(e.O.Chapter
8
122
No.
Topic
Relevant
Section(s) in 2011
SMP, TMC, or
Comprehensive
Plan
Consistency Review
Recommendation
part of required design review. The SMP
refers to the design review process and non-
shoreline criteria. Other chapters of the TMC
refer to the need for shoreline design review,
but do not mention the Shoreline Design
Guidelines.
18.60, Board of Architectural Review), refer to
both shoreline and non -shoreline design
guidelines.
5
Tree Regulations
Chapter 18.54 TMC
Tree removal within shoreline jurisdiction is
subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.54.
The chapter refers to outdated shoreline
environments (e.g. Low -Impact Environment,
TMC 18.54.130). The SMP itself does not
reference the Tree Regulations.
Update outdated shoreline code references in
Chapter 18.52 and 18.54 TMC, and clarify that
these standards do not apply in shoreline
jurisdiction, where 18.44.080 applies.
6
Definitions
SMP Chapter 3 /
Chapter 18.06 TMC
Several definitions in the SMP are similar, but
not the same as, definitions found in the TMC.
For example, definition inconsistencies
(including missing definitions) were found for
the following terms: accessory use, high -
impact environment, low -impact
environment, river environment, shoreline,
substantial development
Amend the definitions in both documents (SMP
and TMC). Where definitions differ, focus on
statutory requirements.
9
123
The Watershed Company
October 2018
City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
5. Usability Recommendations
Table 3 summarizes recommended revisions to the Tukwila SMP based on a review of general usability of the document by both
Watershed and City staff. Topics are organized broadly by SMP subject area. The majority of these recommendations arise from
City staff experience in implementing the SMP and a desire to make the regulations clearer and more internally consistent.
Note that all revisions will need to be made consistently to both the SMP and its codified regulations in Chapter 18.44 TMC.
Table 3. Summary of recommended SMP revisions to enhance usability.
No.
Topic
Permitted Uses
Internal consistency
Dimensional Standards
2
Shoreline buffers
Relevant
Section(s) in
2011 SMP
Permitted uses by
SED (TMC
18.44.040-.065 /
Sections 8.4-8.7)
vs. Use Matrix
(Figure 18-1 /
Section 3)
18.44.040-.060
Usability Discussion
The City has identified several inconsistencies
between the permitted use provisions listed by
SED and those in the matrix (e.g. utilities and
utility towers allowed as "P" or "C")
Subsection A of each upland SED "uses" section
defines the required width of the shoreline
buffer in that SED. These are described in more
detail in Section 7.5 of the SMP, which does not
have an analogous subsection within the SED
use sections in Chapter 8.
Recommendation
Review both sections for consistency and
determine which section shall control. Default is
for written provisions to control; however, the
City may wish to reinterpret some of these
provisions.
Alternatively, remove the written provisions
and rely exclusively on the use matrix, with
footnotes as necessary to provide additional
conditions, as well as use -specific provisions in
subsections of 18.44.070.
Summarize shoreline buffers by SED in a table,
and remove from the SED uses sections. This
table could also contain other dimensional
criteria currently incorporated into written
provisions (e.g. height restrictions) to enhance
usability.
10
124
No.
Topic
Relevant
Section(s) in
2011 SMP
Usability Discussion
Recommendation
3
Truncated shoreline
buffers
Section 7.4, Table
3
Table 3, Summary of Buffer Widths for Land
Use Zones and Shoreline Ecological Conditions,
was used to define the shoreline buffers
included in TMC 18.44. The final entry in the
table states that where a street or road runs
parallel to the river through a shoreline buffer,
the buffer should be truncated on the river side
of the existing improved street or roadway.
Incorporate this provision into the shoreline
buffer standards in the TMC. Should buffers be
summarized in a table, as recommended above,
a table footnote could include this provision.
4
Recreational
structures
18.44.070 /
Sections 8.4, 8.6,
8.8
The SMP limits recreational structures to a
height of 15 feet and an area of 25 square feet.
In the City's experience, this is too restrictive
for certain structures, e.g. viewing platforms.
Revisit dimensional criteria for recreational
structures.
General
Use and Development
Provisions
5
Environmental
Impact Mitigation -
monitoring
18.44.070.H
Mitigation sequencing requires monitoring.
However, specifications are not provided on
monitoring duration.
Require a minimum of five years' monitoring
where vegetation mitigation is required.
6
Vegetation
protection and
landscaping —
exempt activities
18.44.080.A
The code does not specify what types of
vegetation management may be allowed
without a permit, focusing instead on
provisions applicable to land under
development.
Amend this section to include a list of
vegetation management activities such as, e.g.,
removal of invasive vegetation or noxious
weeds.
7
Vegetation
protection and
landscaping —
maintenance and
monitoring
18.44.080.D
Where vegetation is planted as part of a
required mitigation or restoration, monitoring
should be required. Based on City experience,
the code should provide for situations in which
overplanting is necessary to protect against
invasive vegetation, and thinning is required
following vegetation establishment.
Revise section to clarify this approach.
Clarification could be placed in "exempt
activities" section described in #6 of this table,
above, or in 18.44.080.D.
8
Public access
18.44.100
The existing dimensional standards for trails
(14' wide with two -foot shoulders) is not
Revisit trail standards and consider reducing to
a minimum of 12' wide with two -foot
11
125
The Watershed Company
October 2018
City of Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis
No.
Topic
Relevant
Section(s) in
2011 SMP
Usability Discussion
Recommendation
consistent with the County or City Parks
standards which require a 12' wide trail with
two -foot shoulders. The City has received
submittal of several variance applications due
to this inconsistency.
shoulders, or applying the reduced minimum
where the applicant demonstrates it to be
necessary due to lack of space.
Specific
Use and Development
Standards
9
Minimum levee
profile
18.44.070.D, Flood
Hazard Reduction
In the case that a proposed levee profile
improves upon the adopted minimum levee
profile, a shoreline variance should not be
required.
Revise subsection (10) to provide flexibility
where an applicant demonstrates, and the City
Engineer confirms, that the proposed levee
profile will provide improved shoreline
ecological functions and flood protection
relative to the adopted minimum profile.
10
Permitting of over-
water structures
18.44.070.K,
Marinas, Boat
Yards, Dry Docks,
Boat Launches,
Piers, Docks, and
other Over -Water
Structures
Subsection 1 requires that the applicant
present state and federal approvals prior to
issuance of an SSDP for construction of piers,
docks, wharves, and other over -water
structures. This approach is inconsistent with
other City land use approval procedures and
may be at odds with state or federal permit
requirements.
Revise subsection 1 to require proof of
submittal, rather than approval, of state and
federal permit requirements, as applicable.
11
Classification of
bridges
18.44.070.K,
Marinas, Boat
Yards, Dry Docks,
Boat Launches,
Piers, Docks, and
other Over -Water
Structures
City experience permitting a new pedestrian
bridge raised the question of whether a bridge
would be considered an over -water structure.
Requirements for grated decking may pose a
safety issue for non -motorized users.
Clarify how bridges are regulated, either in this
section or in Chapter 18.06, Definitions.
12
126
No.
Topic
Relevant
Section(s) in
2011 SMP
Usability Discussion
Recommendation
Nonconformance
12
Amortization
18.44.130.E
During original drafting of the nonconformance
regulations, the City set a goal to amortize
nonconforming uses and structures.
No code revisions are recommended; however,
the City should discuss and evaluate progress
toward its amortization goal.
13
Parking lots
18.44.130.E(6)
City shoreline jurisdiction includes several
nonconforming parking lots. Nonconforming
gravel lots within shoreline jurisdiction may not
be paved without losing nonconforming status,
regardless of approach to stormwater control.
To provide flexibility, consider amending this
section to allow for paving together with
pollution controls and restoration of or other
improvement to shoreline ecological functions.
Administration
14
Purpose
18.44.010
Chapter 18.44 does not include an introduction
or definition of purpose.
To improve usability and provide context,
consider adding an introductory subsection that
defines the purpose of the Shoreline Overlay
District chapter.
15
Shoreline
Environment
Designation
amendments
18.44.130
This section does not address the
administrative procedure/requirements for a
request of change in shoreline environment
designation.
Consider amending this section to include a
description of this process.
16
Permit revisions
18.44.130
This section does not address the
administrative procedure/requirements for
revisions to shoreline permits.
Consider amending this section to include a
description of this process, and/or a reference
to WAC 173-27-100.
17
Permit timelines
18.44.130
This section does not address time limits on
shoreline permits, including period of validity,
requirements for project completion,
extensions, etc.
Consider amending this section to include a
description of this process, and/or a reference
to WAC 173-27-090.
18
SSDP approval
criteria
18.44.130.B(3)
This subsection requires that a development be
consistent with the SMP as a condition for
approval.
Revise this subsection to require consistency
with the Shoreline Management Act and
applicable chapters of the WAC in addition to
the SMP.
13
127
128
10/16/2018
Why now?
Periodic updates are required by Washington
State to ensure that local regulations:
• Keep up with changes to State Law
• Reflect Best Available Science (BAS)
• SMP rewritten in 2o09
• Shoreline Regulations were last updated in zoi
• Critical Areas Regulations were last updated in
2010
State Shoreline Goals
Overarching goal is "to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal
development of the state's shorelines."
Shorelines should prioritize "water -oriented" uses, including Chose Chat are Ovate
dependent," "water -related," and for "water -enjoyment."
Preferred uses are designed to:
• Recognize and protect statewide over local interests
• Preserve the natural character of the shoreline
• Result in long-term rather than short-term benefits
• Protect shoreline resources and environment
• Increase public access to publicly -owned shoreline areas
• Expand recreational shoreline opportunitiesforthe public
Tukwila is updating its Environmental
Regulations in 2 areas:
• Shoreline Regulations for the Green River
• Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
• Zoning Code Chapter 18.44 Shoreline Overlay
• Critical Areas Regulations for wetlands,
watercourses and steep slopes
• Zoning Code Chapter 18.45
State Shoreline Goals
Public Trust Doctrine:
• Waters of the state are a public resource for the purposes of nawgation,conductmg
commerce, fishing, recreation, and similar uses.
Protect shoreline natural resources against adverse environmental effects including:
• Land
• Vegetation
• Wildlife
• Aquatic habitats
All allowed uses are required to offset adverse environmental impacts as rnuch as possible and
preserve the natural character and aesthetics of the shoreline
129
10/16/2018
Shoreline Environrne.nts
• Define the purpose of that part of the
shoreline
• Control the buffer width
• Determine the permitted uses
Tukwila Shoreline Regulation
Shoreline Master Program
• Regulates development for zoo feet on
each side of the Green River
• Buffer- the area closest to the water is the
most protective
• Outer area allows more uses and
development
• 12.5 Miles of Shoreline in Tukwila
• Includes transition zone between fresh and r,a., " r"'"°°'n.�a�.a�.a<•i.�a,umrr„�m.,.�n�we>s„a am,rm ,-�.
salt water
• Critical Habitat for endangered salmon
Shoreline Environments
There are different shoreline zones with different
regulations:
• High Intensity Environment
• Areas downstream Rom the turning basin
• Buffer is too feet
• Urban Conservancy Environment
• Non-residential areas upstream from the turning basin
• Buffer is 125 feet where there is a levee, son feet elsewhere
• Shoreline Residential Environment
• Areas zoned for residential use
• Buffer is distance needed for 2.5_s slope plus so feet
• Aquatic Environment
• River area between the ordinary high water marks (OHWM)
Proposed Edits and Updates - Consistency
• Update definition of development to exclude demolition
• Add definition for floating homes
• Remove outdated dollar threshold for substantial development including
docks and replace with reference to WAC definition
• Remove list of exemptions and refer to WAC
• Exempt ADA retrofitting from shoreline permit req ements and non-
conforming regulations per WAC
• Consider legally established homes as conforming even if they do not meet
current location or size standards
130
2
10/16/2018
Proposed Edits and Updates - Housekeeping
• Streamline and reorganize the code for ease of use
• Replace use hst with tables
• Correct permit process inconsistencies, create a process for changes to
shoreline environment designations, include time limits for permits
• Incorporate new provisions for non -conforming uses and development per
WAC
• Update references to state regulations (WAC and RCW)
• Include references to moratoria provisions in RCW
• Remove proposed Comprehensive Plan policies that are now adopted
Proposed Edits and Updates - Recreatio
• Allow recreational structures to be larger than 25 square feet and 25 feet tall
for greater usability for the public
• Trail Width-- reduce the standard from 24' with z' shoulders to sz' with 2'
shoulders to match King County and City Park standards
Proposed Edits and Updates — Levee Profile
• Allow flexibility in the preferred profile to account for varying conditions
and allow improved functions
nun Levee Profile
Proposed Edits and Updates - Vegetation
• Clarify that permits are not required for removal of invasive species
• Restoration plantings must be monitored for survival for 5 years
Update Process
Project documents, meeting announcements,
and other resources MI be pored to the City's
webstte aY-
Planning Commission
Work Sessons & Public
Hearing
Gty Counul Review &
Pu Glic Hearng
Counul Adopton
Ecology Approval
131