Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning 2019-04-25 Item 4 - Attachments - Shoreline Master Program Deliberation
,AORNCRoss&HLMPf PLMANNN .AH ORNCYS AT LAW 524 2nd Ave., Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 www.cairncross.com March 28, 2019 VIA HAND DELIVERY office 206.587.0700 fax206.587.2308 City of Tukwila Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Comments on Proposed Shoreline Master Program Update L18-0075 Dear Planning Commissioners: This firm represents Segale Properties LLC ("Segale"). As you are likely aware, Segale controls the large Tukwila South property, abutting the Green River. In 2009, Segale and the City entered into a long term Development Agreement governing the future building on the Tukwila South property. After years of construction to install all necessary infrastructure and re -grade the property for development, the Tukwila South lands are finally ready to be marketed and are being actively reviewed for ground lease and/or sale for commercial and residential development. The Development Agreement vested the build out of the Tukwila South project, to the 2009 Tukwila Municipal Code, except for the City's Shoreline Master Program. All development in Tukwila South is required to comply with the Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") in effect on the date of each complete permit application. Accordingly, the amendments currently under consideration are of great interest to Segale. We also are keenly interested in the interplay of these SMP updates with the pending updates to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance ("SAO"), and will provide comments on the SAO update in a subsequent letter. We ask that you carefully review the following provisions of the SMP update, respond to our questions, and we recommend that you include our requested revisions. Because the Tukwila South lands are located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Environment, these comments focus on that area of the proposed update. 1. Proposed 18.44.020, Principally ,Permitted Uses and Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix. The matrix at section 18.44.020 includes "Flood Hazard Reduction" and "Shoreline Stabilization" as uses that are Permitted in the Urban Conservancy Environment, and note 14 indicates that "Any new or redeveloped levee shall meet the applicable levee requirements of this chapter." Segale agrees this is a wise regulation. nro ers cairncross.com direct: (206) 254-4417 t03700624.DOCX;2 } 9 City of Tukwila Planning Commission March 28, 2019 Page 2 Also listed in this matrix is "Fill, General", which is listed as a Conditional Use in the Urban Conservancy Environment, and subject to various additional restrictions. We believe this matrix is properly read, applied and interpreted such that any fill necessary for the activity of Flood Hazard Reduction, in the form of developing or a redeveloping a levee is an expressly Permitted use, and not a Conditional Use, even though it is "fill". If the City or Ecology intends this matrix to be read and applied otherwise, then the matrix must be amended to clearly state that any fill required for Flood Hazard Reduction work is a Permitted use. 2. Proposed 18.44.040, Shoreline Buffers. Note 5 explains that upon reconstruction of a levee to the levee standards in the SMP regulations, the buffer can be reduced to the actual width required for the levee. Segale agrees this is a logical regulation. We question why Note 5 goes on to state "...If the property owner provides a 15-foot levee maintenance easement landward from the landward toe of the levee..." We believe that requirement can be 10-feet, especially where the King County Flood Control District has already recognized it as a 10-foot wide maintenance easement. The March 28, 2019 Staff Report to the Planning Commission states that the "current Flood Control District access road standard is 15', not the 10' built into [the City's] current buffer calculation." We assume that is why Note 5 of the Shoreline Buffers section references 15 feet. However, there may be situations in which the actual required easement already exists and was set at 10 feet by prior agreement with the Flood Control District. Therefore, we recommend that the language quoted above be revised to read: "...If the property owner provides a -1--5—feet levee maintenance easement (which easement is typically 10 or 15 feet in width, with the width is set by the King County Flood Control Districtllandward from the landward toe of the levee..." 3. Proposed 18.44.050.C, Development Standards for the Urban Conservancy Environment - Height Restrictions. We appreciate the height incentive offered in proposed TMC 18.44.050.C.3.d. Going to 30% allows an additional 13.5 feet. Commercial structures can require 15 feet per story. We suggest the City increase the incentive to 35%, which would provide 15.75 feet. Two full stories of a commercial, or even residential construction are not typically feasible with less than 16 feet, but an additional full commercial story is more likely to be attained at 15.75 feet than with 13.5 feet. 4. Proposed 18.44.050.H Develo ment Standards or the Urban Conservancy Environment_ Environmental Impact Miti ation. The proposed added language at section 18.44.050.H.1 referencing improvements targeted at specific wildlife should be deleted. A similar statement about specific wildlife is better included in a recital to the Ordinance not in the regulatory language, and we propose a recital under item 5, below. In addition, the reference to "improvements" creates an ambiguity in the ordinance, contrary to the stated purpose of this periodic update, and potentially would create an unattainable standard. {03700624.DOCX;2 } 10 City of Tukwila Planning Commission March 28, 2019 Page 3 Importantly, the March 28, 2019 Staff Report to the Planning Commission states that this periodic update is "not" intended to "extensively assess the no net loss criteria other than to ensure that proposed amendments do not result in degradation of the baseline condition." Likewise, the focus of the City's SMP is, appropriately, on "no net loss" of baseline conditions. However, the language that is proposed to be added here expressly calls for "improvement" rather than no net loss, and with no definition as to the level of "improvement." That is sea change in policy approach and inconsistent with a periodic update. We recommend that section 18.44.050.H.1 read: H.1. All shoreline development and uses shall occur in a manner that results in no net loss of shoreline ecological function through the careful location and design of all allowed development and uses. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from allowed development and uses are unavoidable, those impact shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this section; in that event, the "no net loss" standard is met. 5. Proposed 18.44090 Shoreline Desi n Guidelines. Here, too, language is added to the regulation that seeks to recognize the use of the Green River to support salmon and trout. That is just one feature of the Green River. The placement of this language also infers that Endangered Species Act requirements would apply to upland projects in the event any portion of the project fell within the City's Shoreline jurisdiction. We certainly understand the City's desire to acknowledge the importance of the river to aquatic species and to do so, we recommend that the Ordinance recitals — not the regulatory text — include a statement such as: "The City of Tukwila recognizes and celebrates that the Green River and its tributaries support salmon and resident trout, and that the river flows to Puget Sound which is home to salmonids and southern resident orca whales, and the City has designed this SMP update to assure no net loss in ecological function of the river system." We also recommend that the introductory language of 18.44.090 not include the sentence about salmon and trout. We appreciate your attention to this matter and would be happy to answer any questions. Very truly yours, Nancy Bainbridge Rogers NBR:alw cc: Ann Marie Soto Nora Gierloff Mark Segale Mike Pruett {03700624.DOCX;2 } 11 12 Nora Gierloff From: Nancy Rogers <NRogers@Cairncross.com> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 12:43 PM To: Minnie Dhaliwal; Nora Gierloff Subject: Vesting and the CAO/SMP updates Hi Minnie and Nora — I ask that you add this comment to the CAO/SMP updates. You have my letter dated April 10, 2019 regarding potential revisions to vesting language for the CAO issues. During last night's hearing on the CAO, Minnie explained that the vesting language in the CAO was not linked to any shoreline permits. If that is true, and in light of State law that gives a Shoreline permit a 5 year term, subject to possible extension, I recommend that the City add a vesting provision to the Shoreline regulations. The provision to add to the Shoreline regulations would assure that in the situation where a project is staged or phased into first land development, followed by a building permit (or permits), those later building permits are vested to the version of the shoreline regulations that were in effect when the land development permits were applied for. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks, Nancy CH& Nancy l3aimtitridge l ogers itlorncy t'air[neross & 524 Second Avenue . Suite 50(i Seat d: 206-254-4.4 7 206-587-230 232:3 Big? Ranked by Best Lawyers since 2016 and Chambers USA 2018 in the area of Washington State eal Estate: Zoning/Land Use. C'tt& is a �on.emhe r M. cI tutcm:natlonniI, a Global Network of litany dent 1 iw Firms. s. This email message may contalnn confidential at privileged info n. If you are n and delete the original message itticnit reading, disclosure, or copyirtr if e btrfn.tmrs. ded ontrrc.t the sender by reepfy °mail CAUTION This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 13 14 February 14, 2019 Michelle Clark Executive Director King County Flood Control District 516 Third Ave, Rm 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Copy: City of Tukwila RE: Support for the King County Flood Control District to implement the Lower Green River Corridor Flood Hazard Management Plan Dear Ms. Clark The Seattle Southside Chamber of Commerce expresses its support for the Flood Control District to move forward and provide an integrated and reasonable long-term approach to reduce flood risk within the Lower Green River Corridor while balancing multiple objectives within the area. The Chamber of Commerce is very familiar with potential devastating impact a natural disaster could have on the Kent Industrial Valley. Here in South King County we are the center for Manufacturing, and Transportation. A catastrophic flood would have long lasting economic and environmental impacts that our community would find difficulty in recovering from. Therefore, we support preventative action and investment to protect our business and residential community from such a natural disaster. In reviewing the proposed alternatives and actions proposed on the project website, we would like to encourage the District to not adopt a "one -size fits all" project plan but to use a balanced and pragmatic approach to ensure that flood protection is achieved while balancing environmental, economic and safety interests. Specifically, this would include a combination of all three alternatives, utilizing the best alternative for achieving the primary goal of flood protection, but also taking the opportunity to improve fish habitat within the corridor where those opportunities are cost feasible. We know that in partnership and through community collaboration we will be able to find the best protection for life and safety, as well as improve our environment for fish and wild life and eliminate any potential negative impacts to economic development and business growth. Please include us in future discussions and keep us apprised of activity regarding this and any County wide projects, proposals and initiatives so that we can ensure maximum engagement with our community partners and stakeholders. We look forward to working with you to develop and implement the project. Sincerely, Andrea H. Reay President/CEO Seattle Southside Chamber of Commerce A Voice for Business, A Leader in the Community 14220 Interurban Avenue South 4134, Tukwila, WA 98168 ^ 206 575 1633 ^ www.SeattleSouthsideChamber.com 15 16 E April 5, 2019 SMP Periodic Update Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite100 Tukwila,WA 98188 Re: Shoreline Master Program Update Comments Dear Staff: T 253 8.52 2245 F 253 852 '2030 F I 859 8037 t FIrn, FPS 555 Wont SFr, Strnot Pont (Fi.rinn Box 1 rn) KO 1' WA 9803F 0140 curranfirrns.mrn Curran Law Firm represents Strander Family, LLC II, owner of the real property at 12840 48th Ave. South (the "Strander Parcel"), which is subject to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") and related ordinances and regulations. See attached Exhibit A. The Strander parcel is a paved parking area for a fleet of rental trucks that operates out of a building on an adjacent parcel also owned by Strander Family, LLC II, but which lies outside the jurisdiction of the SMP. See attached Exhibit B. A 30-foot strip between the Strander parcel and the river is owned by the City and is used as part of the Green River Trail System. Strander Family, LLC II appreciates the work by Staff of the Tukwila Department of Community Development ("Staff") and the Planning Commission to propose updates to the SMP and related ordinances and regulations, especially the provisions for more flexibility in application of the SMP. Strander Family, LLC II offers these comments for further revisions. The Strander Parcel is subject to a 100-foot buffer since it is in a non -levee area of the Urban Conservancy Environment. Because the Strander parcel is approximately 260 feet long along 48th Ave. S. and 200 feet long along its other boundaries, and because there is a 30-foot strip owned by the City, used for the Green River Trail System, between the Strander Parcel and the river, the 100-foot buffer would affect about 1/3 of the Strander parcel. TMC 18.44.010 Purpose and Applicability (A) The purpose should include fiscal prudence and respect of private property rights. Has analysis of economic impact been made with respect to the SMP and these proposed changes? There are approximately 26 miles of shoreline on either side of the 13 miles of river that are proposed to be affected. Much of that shoreline is heavily developed with valuable commercial enterprises, The Planning Commission and Staff A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION Serving our community since 1948. 1 7 Page 2 were both advised by legal counsel for many of the property owners that regulation under the SMP could result in reductions in value for those properties that are made nonconforming; and could cause the city to have to compensate those property owners for the taking of their property for a public purpose. This indifference to economic impact is not only extremely risky, but contrary to portions of the economic development element of the City's Comprehensive Plan wherein the following are provided (See attached Exhibit C): Encourage the retention and growth of existing local firms. 2-3. Emphasize business development for existing businesses to expand. 2-3. Enhance regional recognition of Tukwila as an economic hub, promoting the success and diversity of its businesses and focusing on its positive business climate. 2-7. Maintain a favorable and diverse tax base. 2-7. Fund infrastructure and services by maintaining a solvent and diversified revenue stream. 2-7. Improve the economic development climate. 2-8. Encourage in -fill, land assembly, redevelopment, and land conversion for family -wage jobs. 2-8. Encourage redevelopment and conversion of outdated and underutilized land and buildings to high -valued and/or appropriate land uses. 2-8. Consider non -financial ways (such as brokering and interlocal agreements) to assist industrial land owners to comply with State and federal government environmental remediation requirements. 2-8. Promote an economic climate that supports business formation, expansion and retention. 2-9. Zoning regulations that facilitate commercial in -fill development and redevelopment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan vision. 2-10. Encourage redevelopment. 2-10. Encourage businesses to incorporate environmental and social responsibilities into their practices. 2-10. 1 8 Page 3 Economic analysis of the impact of the SMP on one of the City's most significant economic regions should be something the City should want. The City will have to pay substantial compensation for takings of private property as a result of many of these regulations, and will lose substantial tax revenue as a result. These are among the many economic issues that should be considered in addition to the benefits to the environment and public amenities provided by the SMP. TMC 18.44.030 Principally Permitted Uses an Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix Use Matrix, Overwater Structures. A 35th note should be added to the matrix to prohibit new vehicle bridges over the Transition Zone, and that note number should be added to the entry for vehicle bridges (public) for all areas as an additional standard. "The Green/Duwamish River throughout Tukwila is a critical resource, particularly in the Transition Zone portion of the river that extends from river mile 10 upstream from the Interstate 5 bridge through the north City limits (see Map 2), where juvenile salmon adjust from fresh to salt water habitat." SMP 7.2 TMC 18.44.040 Shoreline Buffers A. Buffer widths for Urban Conservancy areas without levees. See also SMP 7.7(C). The maximum slope for a buffer reduction should remain at 2.5:1 instead of being increased to 3:1. The flatter slope requirement will reduce the buffer reduction on the Strander Parcel by about 12.5 feet based on the estimated 25 foot distance between the Ordinary High Water Mark ("OHWM") and the top of the river bank at the Strander Parcel. When the 20-foot setback from the top of the slope is added, the 3:1 slope alternative would reduce the 100-foot buffer by only five feet. That is no incentive to incur the cost to re -slope. Other than conclusory statements that the 3:1 slope would improve habitat value, reduce erosion and provide greater flood capacity, no studies have been offered that use of a 2.5:1 slope, as provided in the current version of the SMP, will result in a loss of ecological functions of the shoreline compared to use of the 3:1 slope. If an overall levee profile of 2.5:1 is acceptable as stated in the Staff Report, such a profile should be sufficient to result in no loss of ecological functions of the shoreline. The no loss of ecological function of the shoreline standard ("no net loss") should be used to minimize the economic impact on tax paying properties whose productivity will be restricted for the benefit of the public. The standard should not be changed to "no 19 Page 4 long-term adverse impacts to the river." Nor should a buffer enhancement plan also be required as a condition for a buffer reduction if the property owner can show that the buffer reduction would result in no loss of ecological function of the shoreline. A better alternative that might actually cause property owners to re -slope their property in non -levee areas is to eliminate the buffer landward of the top of the new slope and allow a flood wall to be used to hold the top of the new slope in place on the landward side. See TMC 18.44.050(E)(9) below. TMC 18.44.050 Development Standards, C(3)(d) Height Restrictions, If property owners may be allowed to increase building height in the buffer in exchange for restoration or enhancement of the buffer, owners of property in the buffer used for parking should be allowed to develop their parking area under the same criteria. E(9) Flood Hazard Reduction. The use of floodwalls as an alternative to levee back slopes is a good one, It should also be allowed to preserve private property in any situation where there is no loss of ecological function of the shoreline. F(6). Shoreline Stabilization, The proposed new initial comment about hard revetments is contrary to the rest of the paragraph, and other parts of the SMP, that allow them when appropriate, K(4)(h). Marinas, Boat Yards, Dry Docks, Boat Launches, Piers, Docks and Other Over -water Structures. The standard for shading should not be modified for bridges, TMC 18.44.080060 Vegetation Protection and Landscaping C (10) Tree Protection. Parking of vehicles within a CRZ (critical root zone) should be allowed if the parking preceded the planting. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and recommendations. Sincerely, G eg/Haffnor ha our nfirm.corn Encls. cc: Mayor Allan Ekberg (6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188) Louise H. Strander (via email) Department of Community Development (shoreline@tukwilawa.gov) 20 1TAq Washington Drivers With No Tickets In 3 Years Should Do This In 2018 Yrup•n1 Teti 1di11 Parcel !Name Site Address co Area ISpec Area `Property Name Legal Description LEWIS C C-D C # 37 8 POR NW 114 OF 14-23-4 8. SW 1/4 OF 11-23-4 BEG AT CONCRETE MON AT NXN OF CA. % OF C OF 5 TRAN S LN WITH C/L OF 48TH AVE S TH N 41-45-35 E ALG C/L 1704.32 FT TH 5 48-14.25E 25 FT 'TO SELY MGN OF SD RD & TPOB TH CONTG S 45-14-25 E 199.95 F7 TO 4077Y MGN OF PSH 51 TH N 41 21- 36 E ALG NWLY MGN 8.80 FT TH N 32-53-17 E 93.'75 FT TH N 32-59-31 E 97.19 FT TH ON CRV TO LET RAD 1262.40 FT ARC GIST 7.99 FT TH N 25-©1-36 W 64.67 FT TH ON CRV TO LET RAD 405.52 FT ARC DIST 114.41 FT TO SELY 51GN OF SO RD TH S 41-45-35 4V 260.70 FT TO TPOB PLat Block: Plal Lot: Map This limper( FVE CNOTL. ADVERTISEMENT Area Assam i000480-0019 ISTRANDER FAMILY L II 48TH AVE 5 98 PARCEL DATA .CUried.. 2401 C Highest & Best Use As If Vacant ', Highest & Best Use As :improved 'Present Use Land SlFt VACANT LAND MANUFACTURING !PRESENT USE Vacant(industrial) i 43 550 lAcres 1.00 ?Rainier Territorial Olympics Cascades Seattle Skyline Puget Sound /Lake Washington lLake Sammamish = Lake/RiverTCreek LOtherView Designations (Historic Site Current Use ?(none) Nbr Bldg SI Adjacent to Golf Fairway If Adjacent to Greenbelt €ther Designation Deed Restrictions Development Rights NO Purchased ents !NO e Growth Protection NO Easement ONRLeasc----?NO Property Typc Plat Block / Building Numb Plat Lot 1 Unit Number quarter -Section -Township - Range LAND DATA Percentage Unusable Unbulldable Restrictive Slae Shape IYES Zoning Cell Water WATERDISTRICT ISewer/Septic !PUBLIC ;'PUBLIC i Road A Parking ?Hii00EJriT'E Street Surface latertrotrt Foy. of Depth Esc laterfront Ba idetShare nt Restricted Access nt Access Rights-_...w- Poo Proxi Topography Trattic Noise Airport: Notae Power Lines NO lOther Nuisances Prob ( Water Problems 1 NO Transportation Concurrency NO 1 Other Problems NO Environmental !Environmental BUILDING NO 21 TAX ROLL HISTORY Taxable Table Taxable1Tax , t 1 Appraisedt Appraised L Appraised' New 1 t • Valued I Tax 10ml! 1 Levy; r Land 1 Imps 1 Total t t Account Year !Year!YeariCodel Land t Imps 1 Total 1 Dollars ' Value I Value 1 Value Value t I Value (5) 1 Value (S) 1 Value ($) I (S) (S) I (S) Reason i Q0C.4800(' )-M5 , 2018 2019 12401 I 1,045,400 10 1 1,.045400 10 1045 400 0 11 045,4001 , i 1 i4001 000480001903 20171201812401111.045,400 0 t 1.045,400 10 11045 400I 0 11,645 i0004900019082016 , 2017 t 2400 1871200 10 t 871200 10 1871200 (0 • 1871 -?co 00049000190312015 12016 12400 1871,200 10 1871,200 0 8711200 • 1871200 10 t • - t !1600480001908 2014 12015 tt2400 871200 0 1871200 10 1871,200 10 00040006192013 2014 2400 671200 08,I i 1.10 11371,200 L0 871c) 200 it871,200 1 1871.200 1 • 1 1I t 000480,001908 2012.12013, 12400 1871200 10 1871..200 011871,2(30 10 871200 is71.2oo IQ t 100048(5001908 2011 2012112400 1671,200 10 871 /00 1 1 . .1571,290 I 0 1871,200 10 100048000190812010 201111 12400 , 8,1.200 10 1871,200 10 (871200 '0 1871 200 1110 000480001908 2009 12010 1 12400 871,200 10 1871,200 -1 t 1,1 1871,200 I 971200 000480001908. 2008:200911 12400 1871,200 10 1871200 0 1871,200 ItOt I 000480001908 2007 2008 I j240.0 653,400 110 1653,400 t 0 16.53.400 i 0 . , . 6531400 10 ,...t t 053400 : 000430001908 2006.20071I i 2400 i 853,400 0.1653400 10 1563,400 0004 8.0001908 2005 2005 1 12400 653.409 0 1 653,.400 10 1653,400 10 1553,4.00 00048000190812004 2005 I 2400 304,900 .0 1304.900 10 1304,900 10 1304,900 , 1304,980 !O 00048.000190812003 1.2004 1 .tt 2400 ,304•900 11.0 1304,900 , • 00848000190812002 200311 2400 304.9.00 10 1304.900 10 1304,900 0 1304900 0 304 800 , 00048.000190812001 200211 12400 1304,900 I 0 1304,500 10 1304.900 0 , • , ,' , 1304,9.00 I i 1 00048000190812000 2001 1 12400 1304,900 ID I .304900 10 1304,900 0 304.900 1-217,808 000480001908 I 19,99 20001: 2400 1 217,800 0 '217,800 10 121780.0 0 1217,808 • .........._„..... 00849000190811998 11999 I 2400 217800 10 • t : 2400 0 1217,800 I 0 1217,80.0 (0 t 217 800 10 • 0604800190B 1 1997 11998 1 10 I 0 10 , , 1217.800 ' 00049000190811996 11997 1 2400 0 10 !o cl. 217.800 a o I217,800 ' 0004800.019080594 199511 2400 0 I° 10 217800 l0 • 1,t 1217,800 000490001901311992 1993 1 2400 0 !O 0 10 1217.800 217.800 10 00048090190811990 119.91 1 2400 10 I 0 0 10 117420.0 10 1174.200 . I 00041„18000190811988 1'1939 : 12400 10 (0 10 10 108700 0 1108,700 . 1 . tt, , i • 1.000480001908119.86 1987 , 2400 10 10 , 0 0 .108 700 10 1108700 , • I58,000 • 00048000190.811594 11980 5 I 12400 0. .10 10 !199,000 10 173,400 t clac,4s000l4azi 1992 1'1983 1 .2400 10 10 I 0 10 , t 173,400 10 SALES HISTORY 1 I 1 1 I Excise 1 Recording Document 1 Sale 1 Sale Seller Name Buyer Name 1 Instrument 1 Number) Number Date 1 Prlce Reason I I STRANDER JOHN ; , , 1 B+.LOUISE M STRANDER cot cum 1 • • : 247341/4 20101240001341 12/2972010 190.00 1 TRUIST+STRANDER 'FAMILYL L C t,„,__„,, 1 : : Omer 1LOUISE Fl-,,JOHN II t C+GEORGE M STRANDER 1 , ! . STRANDER LOUISE LOUISE ZUZZ.Q2 2.,(10.03D3002150 12/17/2003 150 80 l'A PERS ,LM0..tuSTRiseANDER 1 Qu'l claim Eslate , • • REP.STRANDER Seltlernent • t • JOHN B ESTATE I TRUST I 1Deed I , , ' • 1 I 1 t t 1667087 1 9:9902121411 115/1999 i$0•00 1BANK OF AMERICA STRANDER isPeclai t NT&SA 1LOUISE ET AL I -arran'Y SEelttalTment t 1 I ' 1 i Deed 1 , t : - REVIEW REVIEW HISTORY t : , Tax ; Rev'ew ! I ri Review T e . . Appealed 1 Heang I Settleme.nt i t : Year I Number t Yr' 1 Value 1 Date 1 Value i Dentslan , 12007 IR 165779 i R'eviaw - iiiii1900 ISO 1 ,Charactonst, cs iso NM Searth Tal1141 PERMIT HISTORY HOME IMPROVEMENT EXEMPTION Map "Thh4 Fropral, Ckysi4tr1 ilTerm% Arra Report Prini Proven) lioaU Status Corrolelee 22 23 11714:11 Ma HIS WHAT YOU WILL FIND UNTHIS CHAPTER; ° Adescription ofTukwi|a'seconomic setting, , Adiscussion ofissues that affect economic development inthe City, and ° Goals and policies for enhancing the community's economic weU'beiny. The overriding goal pfthis element isenhancing the community's economic vveU'being.Through policy recommendations, the Economic Development element identifies ameans OfStimulating economic improvement for business and the community as avvho|e. It lays out direction and strategies for dealing with economic variables and adjusting to economic forces that cannot be predicted Orcontrolled. It is a key component integrating all elements of the Comprehensive Plan, suggesting ways in which the City and its partners can use effective economic strategies in order to achieve the goals ofthe Plan. There are three primary ways in which local economic activity can be affected: V Land use and utility planning that determine, within the local infrastructure capacity, the space available for residential and nonresidential development; Directly or indirectly influencing private -sector decisions as to location, operation and development nfbusiness real estate; and Helping coordinate public and private sector efforts toenhance the employability and job progression ofthe residential population. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2015 PAGE 2-2 25 ON no EVI WPM The Economic Development element presents afocused approach toenhancing our City'seconomic vveU'being.This approach can Uesummarized 8Sfollows: Sustain moderate growth Target high salary industries improve and support the opportunities for education, skills training and job acquisition for Tukwila residents Provide capacity tomeet Tukvvila'semployment targets as set bvthe [ouniyvvidePlanning Policies Encourage growth into certain areas through the use ofzoning and developmental regulations Encourage the retention and growth ofexisting local firms Encourage entrepreneurs, local startups and businesses toestablish in Tukwila Provide efficient and timely administration ofCity services The City of Tukwila emphasizes the following activities in order to accomplish it's economic development goals: Responding to specific requests for assistance from local firms 1�1 Supporting the development of new businesses and expansion of current businesses that are minority-, veteran- and women -owned. Expanding efforts toengage with and understand the economic development needs and priorities oftraditionally under -represented groups inTukwila neighborhoods Emphasizing business development to encourage existing businesses to expand 4� Maintaining public works and utilities sothe [hx's infrastructure can meet both existing and future needs of the economic sector 4:� Supporting job enhancement programs to increase residents'employability through coordination of private and public sector activities TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2015 PAGE 2-3 26 The following are potential tools available to the City to enhance econornic development in the City: 4i,, Industrial revenue bonds for certain areas Multi -family property tax exemption f� Targeted government and private resources Targeted local, State and federal funds Use of infrastructure investment to attract new firms and development to designated areas %*4 Funded, staffed and administered economic development work group Timely, predictable customer -oriented permitting and City services Lodging tax for tourism promotion Knthis way, local government can play animportant role inthe economic vitality ofthe community. The policies developed in this element are aimed at implementing that role. 11A������ The following statistics help set the background for economic development policies. The Economic Development Background Memo contains additional supporting information, including employment and housing growth targets per the Countywide Planning Policies. POPULATION, INCOAIE AND REVENUE In 2003,the population ofTukwila was 17,270; estimated 2011 Population was 19,210. The City's daytime population is estimated between 150,000tn 170,800. Taxes collected in 2003 were estimated tQbe$282million, which increased to$424in2O1]. During the same period the assessed valuation ofthe City grew from $3.34billion to $4.47biUioD. In 2002,there were 7,628housing units; bv28l3,this number had increased tn8,039units. |n2OlO,the median age n[Tukwila residents was ]3/5years; nearly 8%ofall citizens were older than O5;and Z4Y6ofthe residents were under 18. |n2O7O,residents ofcolor were 50]9hofthe Population. Foreign -born residents account for ]6.246ufthe population, and over 7Ulanguages are spoken inthe Tukwila School District. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2015 PAGE 2-4 27 The median household income in the City in 2010 was $44,271, below King County's median income of$b6,l74. Adjusting for inflation, Tukvvilo'smedian income fell between 20OUand 3OlO.Tukvvi|a's 2000 adjusted median income (in 2010 dollars) was $53,127. Thus, real median income in the City fell l6.O796from 2OUOto2OlO. |n200OTukwila had nearly three times asmany jobs asithad residents, but that number fell to2.27 in2U10.There were over Z,575licensed businesses nfall types inTukwila im2O]lThe total number ofjobs inTukwila has declined since J000. |n300U,the City had approximately 48,0DOjobs. By2013, the total number ofjobs inthe City had fallen l7%tnjust over 4O,0U0. Employment within Tukwila is distributed among a number of different sectors,Serv|[econmp0ses the largest percentage of jobs with 32% of all jobs. Manufacturing isnext with 25%ofjobs inthe City. |nl99l,56%ofall jobs inthe City were related to manufacturing. |n2UO2'the number ofjobs inmanufacturing dropped to28%. Manufacturing continues todecrease inthe City. This trend likely reflects the diminished presence Vfjobs with Boeing and other manufacturing firms inthe [ity's industrial areas. In 2010, retail accounted for 14% of jobs in Tukwila. Warehousing, transportation, and utilities made up 12%. Tukwila Covered Employment bySector, ZoVU-2Oz0 '01 W ,� , �1-le � � � ` 9 Ed="m" n Government am""es °p=° 0 ma""faw"ng � -� w��� R-t EAt,� �ca"u=m*"m Peso"rces Employment within Tukwila isdistributed among anumber w[different sectors. Services composed the largest percentage ofjobs in 2U18,with 9Z96ofall jobs. N1anufacturing(25Y6); Retail (l496);and Warehousing, Transportation and Utilities (ll%)also make upsizable shares mf Tukwi|a'semp|oyment. The share of each sector relative to each other did not change significantly between ZOO8 andZ0lO. All sectors, with the exception nf Construction, showed slight decreases. The finance, Insurance and Real Estate (RRBsector decreased the most with a3J%decrease, Retail and Manufacturing also saw decreases ofl]96 and Z.4%,respectively. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2015 PAGE 2-5 sm SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CE0TER(SBDC) The 5BD[atHigh|inespecializes inproviding business and training services toentrepreneurs and existing businesses, inorder tnbcsuccessful in today'seconomy, The center provides: ~ Knowledgeable, trusted and confidential one-on'oneadvice on all aspects cfyour business. ~ Alink to23other S8DCcenters in the Statewide network for additional advice. ^ Guidance onthe purchase ofan existing business orafranchise, ^ Assistance infinding the best sources ofcapital tngrow your business. ~ Aproven pathway tobreakout growth for established businesses ready \otake their business to the next level. Benchmadkingyour company's performance with others inyour industry houncover improvement opportunities. ~ Matching you with resources that can best accelerate the success trajectory ofyour business, , Developing prospect lists through targeted database searches. ^ Information about little-known training and funding !ogrow your business. ^ A"can'dn"attitude about anything you need 0usuccessfully grow your business RE -FAIL SALE While Tukwila remains xstrong attractnrnfconsumer spending, the City has experienced asignificant reduction in taxable retail sales, once adjustments are made for inflation. When adjusted for inflation, taxable retail sales in2Ol3were lower than they were in2QO3.The [ity's sales tax decline began tooccur roughly around the late l990s. Competition for retail sales among regional retail centers has grown stronger over the last ten years. m ~ � Cuoemtand existing economic trends suggest avariety of issues and needs for economic development imthe City of Provide access tothe regional highway, transit and air transportation system in a way that does not handicap local property development and redevelopment efforts. f� Explore possible City actions tnincrease the median income ofTukvvi|a'sresidents, including support for entrepreneurship, small business startups, and vocational training, particularly among low income 0r low English proficiency communities. Establish coordinated transit hubs throughout the City including, but not limited to, the Southcenter a;ea,Tukvvi|a5nuth,TukvvilaInternational Boulevard, Interurban Avenue South, and the Manufacturing Industrial Center that efficiently mix modes pftravel and Stimulate development ofreal estate associated with transportation facilities. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2015 PAGE 2-6 Study and understand the factors causing the inflation -adjusted reduction in the City's overall taxable retail sales. Support further enhancement of commercial and residential areas in the City's neighborhoods. Foster environmental nennediatiVn (brnvvnfie|d cleanup), land conversion and redevelopment in the Manufacturing Industrial Center (M|C)and Interurban Avenue areas. increase the development, intensity and diversity of uses in the Southcenter area, including the development ofhousing and entertainment. Develop policies, programs, projects and plans that include input from diverse groups within the residential and business community, using innovative engagement models such Qsthe Community Connector Program. Seek opportunities to join other organizational entities to accomplish effective public -private partnerships to promote economic development in the City Enhance regional recognition of Tukwila as an economic hub, promoting the success and diversity 8fits businesses and focusing Vnits positive business climate. +' + Explore strategies to maintain a favorable and diverse tax base, to support the needs of our daytime and nighttime populations. Meet the needs of our residential neighborhoods while maintaining the economic health of our business community. Ensure that adequate public services, are inplace tosupport existing and proposed commercial, rnixed'useand industrial developments, Fund infrastructure and services by maintaining a solvent and diversified revenue stream. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2015 PAGE 2-7 30 " = Tukwila has ostrong role oJ0regional business and employmentcenter which allows it to enhance and promote the community's well-being. POLICIES Develop the tools needed to improve the economic development climate. Strengthen Tukwila's engagement and partnership with other jurisdictions, educational institutions, agencies, economic development organizations, and local business associations to encourage business creation, retention and growth, and to implement interlocal and regional strategies. �.�.� Expand access to quality, healthy, affordable and culturally -appropriate food and groceries forTukvvi|aresidents. 2.1 A Monitor City actions and impacts onthe local economy and review economic development incentives for all sizes of businesses. 2.�.5 Continue to fund economic development staff tOserve as single contact point and information source for the business community. 2.1/6 Leverage capital improvement funds to encourage in -fill, land assembly, redevelopment, and land conversion for family -wage jobs, but only if concurrent with substantial private actions. Partner with the private sector tofund infrastructure aspart ofa sub -area plan, inorder to encourage redevelopment and as an inducement to convert outdated and underUtilized land and buildings t8high-valued and/or appropriate land uses. Consider non -financial ways (such as brokering and interlocal agreements) to assist industrial land owners to comply with State and federal government environmental remediation requirements. 1,1.9 Consider apublic-private partnership toexamine creating asmall business incubator space inthe City. TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2015 PAGE 2-8 31 3.1.1 Improve Tukwila's image, participation and influence in regional forums, especially those that influence Tukwila's future and interests. Promote understanding of the interdependencies and mutual interests among Tukwila businesses, residents and the City ofTukwila. Promote an economic climate that supports business formation, expansion and retention, emphasizing the importance ofthe [ity'sentrepreneurs and small businesses increating 2."!1.q3 Seek funds from non -City sources for use by the City to directly encourage economic development. �Z,.x.v" Design and support human service programs, such as partnerships for interns and job training inhigher wage industries, toenhance the economic well-being of the City's residents, Promote Tukwila asaregional confluence of commerce, housing and entertainment. Prot -note and preserve economic use of industrial lands outside the Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) through appropriate buffering requirements and use restrictions. include standards inthe development regulations for industrial uses that adequately mitigate potential adverse impacts onsurrounding properties and public facilities and services. �.�.�B Actively promote development inthe Southcenterarea hvsupporting existing uses, proactively developing programs and incentives to attract new businesses, investing in infrastructure and public amenities, and encouraging business owners and developers tO invest in the quality Vfboth the built and natural environment, TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2015 PAGE 2-9 32 �Mi:��� ~ _-_. -��_~� Implementation Strategies Develop an Economic Development Plan, �a Consider preparing overa I I area environmental impact statements for the I nterurban/WestVa I ley Highway corridor and Tukwila International Boulevard area. Develop afreight mobility plan that addresses the efficient and safe movement offreight inthe City, while also ensuring that impacts toadjacent land uses are reduced and, where possible, eliminated. Zoning regulations that facilitate commercial in -fill development and redevelopment consistent with the [Vnnpn2hgnsix2 Plan vision. � Take joint own er-City-reg u latory agency environmental remediation actions to facilitate bnovvnfie|dredevelopment and in'fiU. Focus public infrastructure investment to provide capacity in areas targeted for growth. Create Local Improvement Districts to finance specific transportation and utility in -fill improvements, Identify and eliminate confusing oroutdated regulations. Encourage redevelopment through aninformed business and real estate community. Support collaborative marketing initiatives with businesses. Partner with a broad range ofnon-profits, businesses and public sector agencies to develop a facility for food -related workforce development and entrepreneurship training. Support environmentally sustainable practices by offering energy and resource conservation and solid waste and energy reduction assistance programs for businesses, property owners and managers. Encourage businesses to incorporate environmental and social responsibilities into their practices. Increase communication between the City ofTukvvi|a and Tukwila businesses using innovative 33 Ina, liids@g Support business skills training for entrepreneurs and small businesses through partnerships with universities, colleges, community colleges, community -based organizations and other third parties. Support the food econorny, including production, processing, wholesaling and distribution, eua means to provide job training, employment opportunities and increased access to healthy food for the diverse community, Support public/private partnerships to enhance existing and future business activity in the Urban Center. Work with local chambers of commerce on business retention, business development,Outreach and joint efforts to promote the City. Collaborate with local school districts to improve the educational opportunities for Tukwila school children. Consider providing information about City hiring pro�cessesand job openings ctCity-sponsored events and inCity communications. 34 P EL AT E D a Ni O R Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Ding County Countywide Planning Policies ( i12 Economic Development Element Backroalnd en o TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2015 PAGE 2-12 35 36 JAMI L. BALINT DID: (206) 676-7076 EMAIL: jamib@summitlaw.com Via USPS and electronic mail to: shoreline@tukwilawa.gov April 11, 2019 SMP Periodic Update Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Periodic Review of Shoreline Master Program To whom it may concern: hone The following comments are provided on behalf of Karen Danieli and Joseph R. Desimone, co - trustees under the Last Will and Testament of Giuseppe Desimone, deceased, and as co -trustees under the Last Will and Testament of Assunta Desimone, deceased, Richard L. Desimone Jr., Joseph R. Desimone, and the Katherine Desimone Generation Skipping Trust (referred to herein collectively as the "Desimones"). The Desimones own several shoreline properties within the City and are particularly concerned with the non -conforming use provisions of the shoreline management development regulations. In general, the Desimones are pleased with the proposed amendments to the Shoreline Master Program and the shoreline development regulations. The proposed updates make it easier to understand the relationship between the Master Program and the development regulations, and make it easier to understand the permitted uses. Though the Desimones are in support of all of the proposed amendments, they ask that the City consider some revisions to further clarify the rights of non -conforming uses and structures, and to address matters of safety and security. In particular, the Desimones ask that the following revisions be incorporated into the amendment to TMC 18.44: Limits on Maintenance and Repairs of Non-Confouning Structures. TMC 18.44.130(e)(2)(a)(2) limits the value of repairs that may be made to non -conforming structures to those that do not cost more than 50% of the value of the structure in a 3-year period. The result of this limitation is non -conforming structures being left vacant because they cannot be improved sufficiently to make them marketable. The intent of the limit may be to phase out non -conforming structures to allow the shoreline to be restored to a natural state as part of redevelopment of the property, but, particularly for properties that have no developable area outside the shoreline buffer, such restoration is not occurring because there is no redevelopment potential. The development 37 City of Tukwila April 11, 2019 Page 2 regulations should be changed to allow repair and maintenance of non -conforming structures, without cost limits, so long as the work does not increase the degree of non -conformity (an approach used by the City of Auburn), or revise the applicable provision as follows: If the structure is located on a property that has no reasonable development potential outside the shoreline buffer, there shall be no limit on the cost of alterations. If the structure is located on a property that has reasonable development potential outside the shoreline buffer, the cost of the alterations may not exceed an aggregate cost of 50% of the value of the building or structure in any 3-year period based upon its most recent assessment, unless the amount over 50% is used to make the building or structure more conforming, or is used to restore to a safe condition any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. Bridges It isn't clear if a bridge is considered a structure that is entitled to the non -conforming rights of TMC 18.44.130(e)(2)(a)(2). The non -conforming structure section should be revised to expressly include private bridges, and maintenance, repair or replacement of existing private bridges should be allowed without a limit on the cost of the repairs, and without necessitating a conditional use permit. Given the time and expense associated with a conditional use permit, the code as written could have the unanticipated consequence of private bridge -owners delaying repairs. To promote public health and safety, the code should allow an expedited process for repair or replacement of existing private bridges. King County allows bridge maintenance and repair without a conditional use permit and the City of Auburn allows bridges as permitted outright. Please consider the following addition to the existing TMC 18.44.130(e)(2)(a)(2): Maintenance, repair or replacement of an existing private bridge is allowed, without a conditional use permit, when the maintenance, repair or replacement does not involve the use of hazardous substances, sealants or other liquid oily substances, and provided the location of a replaced bridge may not encroach further into the shoreline buffer than the existing bridge. TMC 18.44.030 — Fences Fencing is an important element of keeping certain commercial and industrial properties secure, both for the safety of the public and for the security of goods and materials that may be stored on the property. The City is taking a positive step in conditionally allowing fencing in the shoreline buffer, but the 4-feet height limit is little more than aesthetically pleasing. For non -conforming uses existing in the shoreline buffer, where paved storage and parking areas already encroach into the buffer, a maximum height of 6-feet should be allowed. The City may understandably want to prevent fencing as high as 6-feet in areas adjacent to public pedestrian paths, so perhaps the code can be revised to require a minimum 20-foot setback in areas adjacent to a public pedestrian path. Any concerns about aesthetic impacts associated with fencing can be addressed through the conditional use pei licit process, and with the shoreline design guidelines, but the code should at least provide a process for the City to consider, on a case -by -case basis, fencing up to 6-feet high. Allowing fencing of the perimeter of existing non -conforming uses will make such 38 City of Tukwila April 11, 2019 Page 3 properties more marketable and result in revenue generation for the City and property owners without additional encroachment into the shoreline buffer. Please consider the adding the following provision to your proposed revision to 18.44.030: The maximum height of the fence along the shoreline shall not exceed four feet, except a maximum height of six feet may be allowed to ensure public safety and security of property, and so long as the fence is located directly adjacent to existing paved areas, and the fence shall not extend waterward beyond the top of the bank. Chain -link fences must be vinyl coated. Non -Conforming Parking Lots The proposed amendment to the non -conforming parking lot section of the development regulations are fully supported by the Desimones, however, the code should be further revised to address changes in parking lot areas associated with demolition of an existing structure. As currently proposed, there is the potential for a donut hole of gravel to be created around an otherwise paved (or paveable) non -conforming parking lot. Consider, for example, the scenario where a property has a primary and an accessory structure as well as paved parking in the shoreline buffer. If the accessory structure is demolished it isn't clear if the area beneath the demolished structure can be paved. If the area beneath the structure cannot be paved, the gravel donut hole is created. The code should expressly allow the area beneath an accessory structure to be paved if the accessory structure is demolished. This change will not result in any increase in impervious surface, or any additional intrusion into the buffer, but will prevent the unintended consequence of stoliiiwater pooling in the gravel donut hole. Please consider the following revision to your proposed TMC 18.44.130(g)(6)(d): The area beneath a non -conforming structure may be converted to parking lot area if the non -conforming structure is demolished. If no change in parking lot area is proposed, or if the area of a demolished structure is converted to parking lot area, a non -conforming parking lot may be upgraded to improve water quality or meet local, state, and federal regulations. Your consideration of the foregoing revisions is appreciated. Very truly yours, SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC Jami L. Balint 39 40 UC S •OTI ;IAN T Fisheries I ivision 39015 - 172nd Avenue SE s Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-0752 Ms, Nora Gierloff Deputy DCD Director Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 E: City of Tukwila Shore April 12, 2019 Master Program Update Dear Ms. Gierloff and Mr. Burcar: Mr, Joe Burcar SEA Section Manager WA Dept. of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 4, NDEAN IDE 11 Our Habitat Program staff have reviewed the City of Tukwila's proposed update to its Shoreline Master Program (SMP). This update is a mandatory periodic review of the SMP and is being conducted jointly between the City and the WA Department of Ecology. We commented on the previous version of the SMP via an email dated August 28, 2008 and a letter dated October 15, 2010. Many of our previous comments are outstanding. A The Green/Duwamish River watershed supports fisheries resources that have cultural and economic importance to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Chinook, coho, chum, and pink salmon, as well as, steelhead and other trout utilize portions of the basin for spawning, rearing, holding, and migration. The Green River basin is part of the Tribe's Usual and Accustomed Fishing Area (U & A), as defined in U.S. v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312,367 (W.D. Wash. 1974). Within the U & A, the Tribe retains commercial, subsistence, and ceremonial treaty fishing rights, as well as, the authority and responsibility to co -manage shared natural resources with Washington State. The attached comments are in the interest of protecting and restoring these treaty protected fisheries resources. 41 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Update Comments April 12, 2019 Page 2 of 5 We appreciate the opportunity to review this SMP update. In light of our comments, we request a meeting with the City and Tukwila to discuss further. Please contact me to set up such a meeting at 253-876-3116 or via email k ren. walter@m dekl eshoot.nsn, us. Sincerely, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader 42 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Update Comments April 12, 2019 Page 3 of 5 We are providing questions and comments to Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update and have referenced them by page numbers using the redline version dated March 2019. Pg. 22 What is the date of the referenced DFIRM maps on this page? Pg. 23- There are statements about the inadequacy of the Tukwila South levee and relocation of the associated cross -valley levee. There is also a note about ongoing permitting to address these issues. Can the City elaborate on this work and the permit status? Pg. 23- This section should be modified to note that lack of trees affecting water temperatures which exceed state standards and create lethal and sublethal conditions for adult salmon. See https://fortresswa,ggv/ecy/gublicationsidocumentsi 1 I 10046.pdf Pg. 23-24- Steelhead trout are also listed under the Endangered Species Act and are found in the Green/Duwamish River. This section is missing any mention of steelhead. Pg. 24- The section on biological resources should include a short summary of habitat conditions for juvenile salmon. See Wps://www.gpvlinicor_giwatersheds/9/pdf2014-Juvenile-Salmonid-Use-of-Aquatic-flabitats-in- Lower-Green-River,pdf https:/Lyouricingeounty*g_ovictwilibr/2006/kcr19534pdf httpsw.gpvlink,oliglwatersheds/9/reports/LowerGreenBaseline.avx This information was not considered in the previous SMP documents Pg. 24- The SMP should note that the piping of streams/tidegates and pump stations reduce adult and juvenile salmon access to streams that drain to the mainstem Green and Duwamish Rivers. Pg. 25- The historical conditions of the Green and Duwamish Rivers and associated wetlands is documented from Collins and Sheikh 2005 paper. See https:/unkingcounty.govidnr_pilibrarv/2005ikci-2038pdf Pg. 25- The major rerouting of the Cedar and White Rivers did more than just affect flow. The fowler alluvial fan and source of sediment from the White River is now gone from contributing to the Green River. The rerouting of the Cedar River and the lowering of Lake Washington essentially dried up and eliminated the Black River. All of these changes would also affect the potential in- river wood and fish habitat from wood that would have transported from the White River into the Green River and eventually the Duwamish. Pg. 27 — It is our understanding that the former Green River Flood Control District is now part of the King County Flood Control District. The references to GR FCD should be changed to KC FCD. Also, there is no mention of the Lower Green River Flood Hazard Management and Corridor Plan that is 43 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Update Comments April 12, 2019 Page 4 of 5 being developed and undergoing environmental review. httn/www,kingconntyfloocicontroLorgidefaultasp201D-72 Pg. 27- Are all of the levees in Tukwila certified on both sides of the GreenlDuwamish River? Pg. 32- This page should have a table with the proposed WRIA 9 projects in Tukwila. Pg. 33- The proposed restoration projects on this page needs updating. Cecil B Moses/North Wind Weir/Duwamish Gardens are done. KC's working on a mitigation bank site at Chinook Winds (as part of their ILF program). Pg. 34- The SMP should note that there are fish barriers on WSDOT roadways that are required to be replaced by 2030 per the Federal Court injunction under U.S v. Washington. Ideally the City will coordinate with WSDOT and replace its barrier culverts in conjunction with the WSDOT work so that fish access is restored fully and as quick as possible. Pg. 34- The City should describe its efforts to restore trees along the GreenlDuwamish River. Pg. 49- The information regarding Muckleshoot fishing needs to be changed. The entire portion of the GreenlDuwamish River in Tukwila is part of the MIT U&A (along with tributaries to it). The Tribe fishes in the river above RM 10; the current language implies otherwise. Tribal fishing is a federally protected right. Shoreline land uses and activities within and adjacent to the GreenlDuwamish can adversely affect these rights by precluding access to fishing sites and changing river conditions to eliminate or reduce the hydraulic conditions that create fishing sites. Levee actions, including filling associated with repair are one example where these outcomes can occur. The Tribe is seeking to protect existing fishing sites and restore historic ones. Habitat conditions suitable for adult and juvenile salmon are also needed to ensure there are fish to be fished by tribal members. Table 3- The existing Green/Duwamish River Sun Maps should be considered and opportunities to increase buffer widths if in critical and shade conditions. See nttps://wvvwkingcounty.g_ov/depts/dmplwirlsections-_prpgmmsiriver-floottlain-sectionicapital-projects/green-river- system-wide-improvement-framework/green-river-swif-documents.aspx Pg. 59- The statement regarding buffer widths for different riparian functions is incorrect and not supported by various scientific studies and literature. The City needs to explain why 100 foot buffer is sufficient to provide the suite of functions fully discussed in WDFW and NOAA rationale for buffer widths. Please explain how the proposed shoreline buffer widths considered the recommendations from the Green River TMDL River improvement plan (WDOE, 2011). 44 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program Tukwila Shoreline Master Program Update Comments April 12, 2019 Page 5 of 5 The levee designs referenced here did not consider the extent of trees needed for water temperature compliance nor the extent of rearing habitat created under flow conditions when juvenile sahnon would be using these areas. Pg. 68- Floodwalls, if allowed, should be reviewed with Corps to ensure they meet Corps requirements and avoid the Kent Briscoe Site 1 outcomes. 45 46 City of Tukwila Shoreline Management and Critical Areas Ordinance 2019 updates — comments from King County Noxious Weed Program 4/11/19 What follows arc the King County Noxious Weed Control Program's comments on the City of Tukwila's 2019 Shoreline Management (Tukwila Municipal Code 18.44) and Critical Areas Ordinance (Tukwila Municipal Code 18.45) updates. Our notes are in "Comments" to the right of the pertinent text. Questions about these comments should be sent to: Ben Peterson Aquatic Noxious Weed Specialist King County Noxious Weed Control Program (206) 477-4724 ben.peterson@kingcounty.gov www.kinecountv.eov/weeds 18.44.080060 Vegetation Protection and Landscaping A. Purpose, Objectives and Applicability. (Page 27) 5. Minor Activities Allowed without a Permit or Exemption. a. The following activities are allowed without a permit or exemption: (1) Maintenance of existing, lawfully established areas of crop vegetation, landscaping (including paths and trails) or gardens within a regulated critical area or its buffer. Examples include, mowing lawns, weeding, harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning, and planting of non-invasive ornamental vegetation or indigenous native species to maintain the general condition and extent of such areas. Cutting down trees and shrubs within a buffer is not covered under this provision. Excavation, filling, and construction of new landscaping features, such as concrete work, benns and walls, are not covered in this provision and are subject to review; (2) Noxious weed control within vegetative buffers, if work is selective only for noxious species; is done by hand removallspraying of individual plants; spraying is conducted by a licensed applicator; and no area -wide vegetation removal or grubbing is conducted. Control methods not meeting these criteria may still apply for a restoration exemption, or other authorization as applicable.) D. Vegetation Management in the Shoreline Jurisdiction. The requirements of this section apply to all existing and new development within the shoreline jurisdiction. (Page 33) 3. Use of pesticides. a. Pesticides (including herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) shall not be used in the shoreline jurisdiction except where: Commented IPB1]: This is nicely worded. You may want to add that the "licensed herbicide applicator" needs to have the required aquatic herbicide permits from WA Ecology if the application occurs in a an aquatic site. (1) Alternatives such as manual removal, biological control, and cultural control are not feasible given the size of the infestation, site characteristics, or the characteristics of the invasive plant species; (2) The use of pesticides has been approved through a comprehensive vegetation or pest management and monitoring plan; (3) The pesticide is applied in accordance with state regulations; (4) The proposed herbicide is approved for aquatic use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and (5) The use of pesticides in the shoreline jurisdiction approved in writing by the City and the applicant presents a copy of the Aquatic Pesticide Permit issued by the Department of Ecology or Washington Department of Agriculture. 18.45.70 Sensitive Area Critical Area Permitted Uses Activities A. General Uses Activities. The uses set forth in this entire section, including subsections A. through D, and the following general uses, may be located within a sensitive area or buffer, activities are outright permitted generally exempt from TMC Chapter 18.45. These activities are still subject to the provisions of TMC Chapter 21.04 and of the mitigation requirements of TMC Chapter 18.45this chapter, if applicable: 6. Voluntary native revegetation and/or removal of invasive species that does not include use of heavy equipment or herbicide. (Page 18 141) 18.45.158 Vegetation Protection and Management in Critical Areas and their buffers B. Vegetation Retention and Replacement. 3. Invasive vegetation (blackberry, ivy, laurel, etc.) may be removed without a permit if removal does not utilize heavy equipment or herbicide. Invasive vegetation removal on steep slopes requires prior City Approval (Page 18-161) D. Plant Materials Standards- For any new development, redevelopment or restoration in a Critical Area, invasive vegetation must be removed, and native vegetation planted and maintained in the Critical Area and its buffer. 3. Removal of invasive species shall be done by hand or with hand-held power tools. Where not feasible and mechanized equipment is needed, the applicant must obtain permission and permit prior to work being conducted. Removal of invasive vegetation must be conducted so that the slope stability, if applicable, will be maintained. A plan must be submitted indicating how the work will be done and what erosion control and trec protection features will be utilized. Federal and State permits may be required for vegetation removal with mechanized equipment. E. Vegetation Management in Critical Areas. The requirements of this section apply to all existing and new development within critical areas. 1.Trees and shrubs may only be pruned for safety, to maintain access corridors and trails by pruning up or on the sides of trees, to maintain clearance for utility lines, and/or for improving shoreline ecological function. No more than 25% may be pruned from a tree within a 36 month period without prior City review. This type of pruning is exempt from any permit requirements. 2. Plant debris from removal of invasive plants or pruning shall be removed from the site and disposed of properly unless on site storage is approved by the Director. 3. Use of pesticides. a. Pesticides (including herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) shall not be used in the critical area or its buffer except where: Commented IPB21: ".,.or a King County Noxious Weed Control Program Best Management Practices document" Commented IPB3]: Since herbicide use in shoreline and aquatic areas is already carefully regulated by the WA Dept. of Ecology and the WA Dept. of Agriculture, we feel that it is redundant and unnecessary to require additional approval from the City of Tukwila for use of this weed control method. Commented [PB4]: Often the use of herbicide by a licensed contractor (with permits as needed from the WA Dept. of Ecology and the WA Dept. of Agriculture) is the least disruptive method that can be used in critical areas (such as steep slopes, shoreline areas and wildlife habitats. Herbicide application is quiet, does not disturb the soil (which could cause erosion and expose more weed seeds to growth), and can be targeted at specific plants. Commented [PBS]: Often the use of herbicide by a licensed contractor (with permits as needed from the WA Dept. of Ecology and the WA Dept. of Agriculture) is the least disruptive method that can be used in critical areas (such as steep slopes, shoreline areas and wildlife habitats. Herbicide application is quiet, does not disturb the soil (which could cause erosion and expose more weed seeds to growth), and can be targeted at specific plants. Commented [PB6]: Often the use of herbicide by a licensed contractor (with permits as needed from the WA Dept. of Ecology and the WA Dept. of Agriculture) is the least disruptive method that can be used in critical areas (such as steep slopes, shoreline areas and wildlife habitats. Herbicide application is quiet, does not disturb the soil (which could cause erosion and expose more weed seeds to growth), and can be targeted at specific plants. Commented (PB7]: Per King County Noxious Weed Control Program guidelines, Regulated Noxious Weeds need to be disposed of in the landfill/trash and non -regulated noxious weeds can be disposed of in green waste or composted on site. 48 (1) Alternatives such as manual removal, biological control, and cultural control are not feasible given the size of the infestation, site characteristics, or the characteristics of the invasive plant species; (2) The use of pesticides has been approved through a comprehensive vegetation or pest management and monitoring plant; (3) The pesticide is applied in accordance with state regulations; (4) The proposed herbicide is approved for aquatic use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and (5) The use of pesticides in the shoreline jurisdiction is approved in writing by the Cityl and the applicant presents a copy of the Aquatic Pesticide Permit issued by the Department of Ecology or Washington Department of Agriculture. (Page 18-164) rCommented IPBB]: ",.or a King County Noxious Weed Control Program Best Management Practices document" Commented IPB9]: Since herbicide use in shoreline and aquatic areas is already carefully regulated by the WA Dept. of Ecology and the WA Dept. of Agriculture, we feel that it is redundant and unnecessary to require additional approval from the City of Tukwila for use of this weed control method. 50 WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA 9 (WRIA 9) WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM FORUM. G MEN / WJWAMISM AND WATERSHED Algona Auburn Black Diamond Burien Covington Des Moines Enumclaw Federal Way Kent King County Maple Valley Normandy Park. Renton SeaTac Seattle Tacoma Tukwila King Conservation District King County Flood Control District Vashon/Maury Island Community Council Covington Water District Port of Seattle Washington Department of Ecology Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Natural Resources US. Army Corps of Engineers Green-Duwamish Urban Waters Partnership Washington Environmental Council Green/Duwamish Watershed Alliance Trout Unlimited/ Mid -Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group Save Habitat and Diversity of Wetlands (SHADOW) American Rivers The Boeing Company Master Builders Association King County Agricultural Commission April 11, 2019 SMP Periodic Update Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Bl. Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: City of Tukwila Shoreline Management and Critical Areas Ordinance 2019 updates — Comments from WRIA 9 Dear City of Tukwila, Below are WRIA 9 staff comments on the City of Tukwila's 2019 Shoreline Management (Tukwila Municipal Code 18.44) and Critical Areas Ordinance (Tukwila Municipal Code 18.45) updates. GENERAL COMMENTS: • We are encouraged to see various incentives being used to increase the likelihood that shoreline restoration activities will occur. • The Green/Duwamish River is a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Jurisdictions along the river are obligated to manage this shoreline with consideration to the interests of their residents and all citizens of the state. We encourage the City to approach any suggested changes to this update with this responsibility in mind. • We commend the City for specifically referencing the 2005 WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan that Tukwila ratified. The 2014 Duwamish Blueprint and the 2005 Salmon Habitat Plan are policy and programmatic guides for shoreline management in the city and should be used to guide shoreline restoration, protection, land use, and regulations. WRIA 9 is currently updating the Plan to reflect new science, programmatic and policy changes, and capture completed and new high priority capital projects within the watershed. The updated plan is expected to be adopted in 2020 by the Watershed Ecosystem Forum, followed by ratification by all the cities which are party to the WRIA 9 Interlocal Agreement. We recommend including language that accommodates addendums and updates to the plan (e.g., Duwamish Blueprint), and any projects therein. WRIA 9 staff would be happy to assist in crafting appropriate language to include in this update. SECTION SPECIFIC COMMENTS: • Section 18.44.060 there is language about thinning restoration plantings under "4. Restoration Project Plantings". We recommend adding language about the purpose of thinning for these densely planted restoration sites. The purpose should be to improve plant survival and health if dense planting is causing negative implications from competition. Financial support provided by signers of Walee l f'Ian tl€rrg lrrtt:riocal RIA 9 including: Algona, Aubum,, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, E:nurrclaw, Federal Way, Kent, King County, Maple Valley, Normandy Park, Renton, Sea'iac, Seattle, Tacoma, 'Mk la r°i:'r 9,1 • We strongly support the new language in 18.44.110 section H for time limits for revisions to shoreline permits. Shoreline permits should not be treated as existing in perpetuity, and reasonable time limits like those being proposed should be instituted. • Section 18.44.040 for shoreline buffers allows the director to reduce buffer widths by 50% in some cases. Given Tukwila's urban landscape, the existing required buffers are already below what is generally called for by existing Best Available Science for fully functioning riparian buffers. Reducing the buffer by 50% is not founded in Best Available Science. It appears this allowance is no longer allowed under the CAO, which covers smaller waterbodies, but has been retained in the SMP language. Given that this language would mostly apply to a Shoreline of Statewide Significance, we encourage the City to apply the same standards as it uses for its CAO language instead. • Section 18.44.080 C describes a regional trail standard that is relatively wide. The regional trail noted is entirely appropriate for that setting, but given the number of trails that occur along streams and rivers and in natural areas, we encourage the City to consider adding two to three smaller width trail standards to address different circumstances. At the lower end of trail widths, we encourage the City to consider a minimal width trail for natural areas. We note that King County Parks uses a backcountry trail standard in natural areas that accommodates single file foot traffic. This type of standard has a minimal footprint and is one of the most appropriate approaches for minimizing impacts to critical areas and shoreline environments while still encouraging access. Depending on the City's park classification, it may be appropriate to consider another standard that falls between the regional standard and the backcountry standard. • Section 18.44.030, permitted uses matrix has new language around overwater structures. Given the known ecological impacts associated with various forms of overwater structures, we strongly encourage the City to consider using a higher bar for that type of infrastructure and suggest changing "Piers, Docks, and other overwater structures" and "Vehicle bridges (private)" from a permitted use to the more rigorous conditional use category. The City should also include provisions that address removal of overwater structures that may be necessary for habitat restoration. The same section changed recreation facilities, including boat launches, from a conditional use to a permitted use. Given the impacts to a Shoreline of State Wide Significance, we strongly encourage the city keep the current conditional use designation and not change it to a permitted use. • WRIA 9 has been involved in several salmon habitat restoration projects in the lower Green and Duwamish Rivers of the City. As our partners acquire land for salmon habitat restoration or for mitigation, citizens frequently express the desire to incorporate boat launch facilities into habitat projects. Grant funding for restoration projects does not allow for this type of use. If these recreation facilities are fundable, accommodating them in habitat restoration project design reduces the potential area and value of restoration. We strongly encourage the City to consider undertaking a comprehensive inventory of public access points within its shoreline jurisdiction and establish standards for appropriate levels of access, especially for more ecologically impactful types of access like boat ramps. We encourage the city to consider adding a policy statement in Section 10 of the SMP supporting this analysis be done between now and the next periodic update. This type of information would temper partners' expectations and help create transparency with the public. 2 52 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please direct any questions about these comments to me. My contact information is below. Suzanna Smith SmzammmBrmitb Habitat Projects Coordinator Greeu/Duwanuisb&Central Puget Sound Watershed (VV8[/\9) 201 South Jackson Street Suite 600 Seattle, VV&98lO4'38SS susnoithPkin8couuiy.Qov Office: (206)477'464l,Cell: (306)305'l753 8 53 54 Matrix of Proposed SMP Edits Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation Chapter 4 Comment letter D6 requested several updates and edits to this Chapter. However this is a summary of the existing Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and updating this underlying document is not within the scope of this periodic update. Staff recommends the following clarifying comments but these should not imply that the report itself has been updated. Public - D6 p.3- 4 Chapter 4 While the report has been finalized, the City continues to utilize the most recent information available, such as the recently updated 9/15/2017 FEMA Commenter asked what is the date of the referenced DFIRM maps on this page? Public - D6 p.3 Staff - Add new language Revised Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM), which were issued after the completion of the Inventory and Characterization report. Chapter 4.1 fromThe Tukwila 205 levee the left bank the in the Commenter asks about the statements on the inadequacy of the Tukwila South levee and relocation of the cross -valley levee and permitting to address these issues. Staff proposes the clarification shown. Public - D6 p.3 Staff - Change as shown certified on of river Urban Center is not certified and areas protected ll this levee have been designated as "secluded" and regulated as outside of the 100-year Special Flood Hazard on the proposed 9/15/2017 FEMA Revised Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM). Other levees in the City also do not meet COE standards and are mapped as floodplain. These include portions of the ^n^exed Tukwila South area and levees along the right bank of the river. Current deve n-t afs ie 4a includc the relocation tho reconstruction tho of cross valley and of levees to meet COE standards. m+tta g for this work is on going. Chapter 4.2 The entire length of the Green/Duwamish River within the City of Tukwila has been declared "critical habitat" for Chinook salmon, Steelhead trout and bull trout. BothThese species are listed as threatened under the Federal Commenter notes that Steelhead trout are also listed under the Endangered Species Act and are found in the Green/Duwamish River. Public - D6 p.3 Staff - Change as shown Endangered Species Act. SMP Edits Page 1 of 4 55 Section Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Recommendation Chapter 42 Changes to hydrology are the moult of modified flow regime duo to dam conshuohon, dkmrSion, and urban development. River management, piping of streams including the use ofUde'qaton. pumped storm disohar0es. and Commenter states that this SooUnn should be modified to note that lack of trees affects water temperatures which exceed state standards and create lethal and sublethal conditions for adult salmon. Public 'D0p.3 Staff ' Change on shown levees have reduced the connection between the hvonS and 8loirOoodp|ainn' changing the spatial extent of habituto, and increasing the potential for negative water quality impacts. Disturbances to the channel banks have mnu|hod in amuo that are dominated by non-native invasive npooioo and generally devoid of sufficient riparian vegetation. VVood, in the form of riparian tmoo and in -channel wood, is gonom||y lacking throughout the synhem, which negatively impacts riparian and aquatic habitats as well as river temperatures that periodically exceed state standards and create lethal and sublethal conditions for adult salmon. Chapter |ngeneral, these changes have reduced the amount ofwater flowing through the Gmon/Duwamioh River to about one thin] of historic conditions and Commenter notes that the rerouting ofthe Cedar and VVhi0u�ivorS*|imin�ed8loB|aokRivor.|mwomd�ho flow, and mduoodthe ouunmofwood and ood|menL Staff suggests the proposed edit. Public 'D0p.3 Staff ' Change ao shown eliminated siqnificnntfish habitat� Chapter 4.4 Discussion ofshoreline planning for the Green River inTukwila must acknowledge the fact that, in light of the existing system of levees (including the federally certified authorized ^205^levees) and revetments, the City Commenter asked ifall ofthe levees inTukwila are certified and stated that the references tothe Green River Flood Control District should bochanged haKing County. Public 'D0p.3 Staff ' Change on shown cannot act alone. There are avariety ofregulatory jurisdictions outside nfthe City with different responsibilities for muinhonunno�n*.managomontand regulating ofthe levee system, including the U.8.Army Corps ofEngineers (the Corpo)'the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)'the King County River and F|oodp(min[N�nalt-n-nntUnit/aodngaspart ofthe Green River Flood Control Zone District) Flood Control District (KCFCD).and private property owners. The City ofTukwila Public Works Department has overall responsibility for maintenance ofall levees, including the federally authorizodeo#'-tTukwila 2O5Levee, which extends from about tho|405 crossing &nthe south city limits appmmximate|yS�195 Street. The actual maintenance work onthis-public levees isperformed bythe KCFCDcontrededbythe City hoKing CounhL. Page 2 of 4 Section Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Recommendation Chapter 4.5 Issues today focused Commenter states that there isnomention ofthe Lower Green River Flood Hazard Management and Corridor Plan that isbeing developed. ASthat plan isstill inthe development process Staff suggests the language inred. Public 'DOp.4 Staff ' Change on shown of concern are on reconstructing existing levees and revetments to protect existing development from flood hazards, aneffort that will take place over anumber ofyears incoordination with the King County Flood Control Zone District, Kin0Cnun1yand state and federal aqnncies. There are many opportunities for conservation and restoration actions inthe City 0urestore orreplace habitat while managing natural hazard areas. Chapter Comment letter D0requested several updates and edits Uothis Chapter. However this iSosummary ofthe existing Shoreline Restoration Plan and updating this underlying document isnot within the scope ofthis periodic update. Staff recommends the following clarifying comments but these should not imply that the Plan itself has been updated. Public 'D0p.4 Chapter 5.3 Tukwila has worked within the larger Gneon/DuwmmiShRiver Ecosystem restoration project huaoquireordonuhapmporti*o6zrnesVonaUonthetene Commenter states that the proposed restoration projects onthis page need updating. Public 'D0p.4 e;thercurrently functioning (Cecil B. Moses Park, CodigeFa for nastoradnn(North Winds Weir, DuwmminhGardeno). potential Chapter5.4 . Removing fish barriers where tributary streams discharge tothe river. This action would remove flap gates and install fish -friendly flap gates atthe mouths ofTukwi|a'sthree major streams /GiUimm'Southgate and Riverton) and possibly restore habitat area atthese locations inthe shoreline jurisdiction. Many fish barriers onVVODDTroadways are required 1obereplaced by2O3Oper the Federal Court injunction under While the YVSDOTdecision was subsequent hothe Plan itdoes reflect the current regulatory environment. Public 'DOp.4 Staff ' Add new language U.G.v.VVoshinqton. Chapter72 The entire Green/Duwamish river includinq its tributaries is a critical Commenter states that the information regarding Muoho|shootfishing needs tobochanged. Public 'D8p.4 Staff ' Add new language resource for federally protected MuoNoShootIndian Tribe fishing. Chapter7.4 The Director may reduce the standard buffer oneoaoo'by'oeSobasis byup Uo5O96upon construction ofthe following cross section: mo|opobank from toe habonnsteeper than M5:1 using bioengineering techniques; Minimum 2O'buffer landward from top ofbank; Bank and remaining buffer hobo planted with native species with high habitat value. This isavoluntary incentive for property owners halay their non -levee riverbank back hnustable angle and plant with native species. The change tnaslightly flatter slope would improve planting success and improve slope stability. Staff PC'Make change D4 p.3'Nochange Chapter 7.5 Commenter: The City needs to explain why 100' buffer is sufficient to provide the suite of functions fully discussed in WDFW and NOAA rationale for buffer widths. Please explain how the proposed shoreline buffer widths considered the mdnmmondaUonsfrom the Green River TMDLRiver improvement plan (NDOE'2011). Commenter says that the statement regarding buffer widths for different riparian functions inincorrect and not supported byvarious scientific studies and literature. Staff responds that changing shoreline jurisdiction, buffer widths orenvironment designations innot within the scope ofthis periodic update. Public 'D0p4 Staff 'Nochange SIVIP Edits Page 3 of 4 57 Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation Chapter 7.5, 7." Do not require that new or repaired levees meet the 'Briscoe" profile. Use it as an example but allow flexibility to address site conditions as long as overall 2.5:1 slope is achieved. The most recent COE levee repairs did not use the Briscoe profile but meet flood prevention and habitat goals. Staff PC - Make change Chapter 7.5 Commenter: The levee designs referenced here did not consider the extent of trees needed for water temperature compliance nor the extent of rearing habitat created under flow conditions when juvenile salmon would be using these areas. Staff is proposing greater flexibility in levee design to allow for site specific solutions. Public - D6 p.5 Staff - No additional changes Chapter 7.7 Allow greater flexibility in the use of flood walls to lessen impacts on adjacent property owners, avoid encroachment on a railroad easement or provide area for habitat restoration. This flexibility may increase the feasibility of reconstructing levees to protect against 500 year floods while limiting the additional width and property acquisition required. Staff PC - Make change Chapter 7.7 Commenter: Floodwalls, if allowed, should be reviewed with Corps to ensure they meet Corps requirements and avoid the Kent Briscoe Site 1 outcomes. Staff is proposing greater flexibility in levee design to allow for site specific solutions that would be reviewed by all agencies with jurisdiction. Public - D6 p.5 Staff - No additional changes Chapter 10 A second area where improvement is needed in public access relates to boat launches for small hand launched boats. Several potential sites have been identified in the Tukwila Parks Department Capital Improvement Program to address this need at City -owned sites. A comprehensive regional inventory of Commenter encourages the city to undertake a comprehensive inventory of public access points within shoreline jurisdiction and establish standards for appropriate levels of access, especially for more impactful types of access like boat ramps. Staff suggests the language in red. Public - D8 p.2 Staff - Add new language public access points to the River should be completed to identify gaps and opportunities. SMP Edits 58 Page 4 of 4 Matrix of Proposed 18.44 Edits Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation 18.44.010 Purpose and Applicability Commenter: The purpose should include fiscal prudence and respect of private property rights. Has an analysis of economic impact been made with respect to the SMP and these proposed changes? The indifference to economic impact is not only extremely risky but contrary to portions of the economic development element of the Comp Plan. The proposed changes do not expand the existing buffers or significantly change the permitted shoreline uses.They are unlikely to create new non -conformities. From the Department of Ecology: It's reasonably clear that most common forms of regulations limiting property use does not require compensation, even where a property's value has been significantly diminished. This holds as long as the regulation is reasonably related to protecting legitimate public interests. The SMA addresses the takings issue by identifying the public purposes of the law and requiring appropriate flexibility in its implementation. Public - D4 p.1 Staff - No change 18.44.030 Shoreline Use Matrix: Fill for remediation, flood hazard reduction, or ecological restoration Request to clarify that fill that occurs as part of a flood hazard reduction action is a permitted rather than conditional use. Public - D1 item 1 Staff - Make Change 18.44.030 Shoreline Use Matrix: Recreational facilties, including boat launching (public) - Permitted subject to notes 3 and 23. Commenter stated that these uses should be kept as conditional due to the impacts to a Shoreline of State Wide Significance. Staff responds that due the emphasis on public access and enjoyment in the SMA it is appropriate to allow these uses without the additional barrier of a CUP. Public D8 p.2 Staff - No change 18.44.030 Shoreline Use Matrix: Piers, Docks and other overwater structures - fitted Conditional in the buffer subject to notes 19, 20, 21 Commenter states given the known ecological impacts associated with overwater structures we strongly encourage the higher standard of conditional use. There is some protection built into the requirements in the notes but Staff supports the change. Public D8 p.2 Staff - Make Change 18.44.030 Shoreline Use Matrix: Edit to note 11. The maximum height of the fence along the shoreline shall not exceed four feet in residential areas or e t ma* " kd f six feet in commercial areas owed where there is a demonstrated need to Commenter states that fencing is important to the safety of the public and the security of goods and materials stored on property and proposes adding the language shown in red. Staff suggests the revisions to that language in blue. Public - D5 p.3 Staff - Make the combined public and staff changes ensure public safety and security of property., , the fenco is a+�d tThe fence shall not extend waterward beyond the top of the bank. Chain -link fences must be vinyl coated. TMC 18.44 Edits Page 1 of 7 59 Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation 18.44.030 Shoreline Use Matrix: Note 29. Patios and decks are permitted within the shoreline buffer so long as they do not exceed 18 inches in height, are limited to a maximum of 200 square feet and 50% of the width of the river frontage. Decks or patios must be located landward of the top of the bank and be constructed to be pervious and of environmentally -friendly materials. This current code language has been moved into a footnote of the use table. Commissioner Mann expressed concern that this was too limiting. The dimensions of the permitted deck would vary due to lot width. This limitation has not been a subject of public complaints. PC Staff - No change 18.44.030 Shoreline Use Matrix: Vehicle Bridges (public) Add a new note 35. Not permitted in the transition zone. Per note 31 vehicle bridges are already limited to locations where they connect public rights -of -way. Essential streets are defined as limited to locations "where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency." 18.06.285 Public - D4 p. 3 Staff - Do not add language 18.44.040 A 4. The Director may reduce the standard buffer on a case -by -case basis by up to 50% upon construction of the following cross section: a. Reslope bank from OHWM (not toe) to be no steeper than 3:1, using bioengineering techniques b. Minimum 20' buffer landward from top of bank c. Bank and remaining buffer to be planted with native species with high habitat value Commenter states that given Tukwila's urban landscape, the existing required buffers are already below BAS for fully functioning riparian buffers. Reducing the buffer by 50% is not founded in BAS. We encourage the City to apply the standard in the CAO. Staff responds that this is an example of the incentives praised by commenter. In most cases the width needed to provide the cross section would not allow for a full 50% reduction. This is a provision found in our current code and not a new proposal. Public D8 p.2 Staff - No change 18.44.040 A 5. Upon reconstruction of a levee to the levee standards of this chapter, the Director may reduce the buffer to actual width required for the levee. If fill is placed along the back slope of a new levee, the buffer may be reduced to the point where the ground plane intersects the back slope of the levee. If the property owner provides a 15 foot levee maintenance easement landward from the landward toe of the levee or levee wall which: 1) meets the width required by the agency providing maintenance; 2) prohibits the construction of any structures and l allows the City to access the area to inspect the levee and make any necessary repairs; then that area may be outside of the shoreline buffer and allow incidental uses such as parking. The King County Flood Control District which currently provides maintenance and inspection of levees within Tukwila has increased its access road standard from 10 to 15 feet. This may be modified again in the future so instead of providing a specific number Staffs suggestion is to reference whatever standard is in place at the time of levee reconstruction. Staff/Public - D1 Item 2 Staff - Make Change TMC 's:R'4 Edits Page 2 of 7 Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation 18.44.050 C 3. b. 45 feet between the outside landward edge of the River Buffer and 200 feet of the OHWM This current code language limits building height in the shoreline for those zones with allowed heights greater than 45 feet - TUC -CC, TUC-WP, HI, MIC-H, TVS. This can cause developers to place parking within shoreline jurisdiction rather than the proposed building. If the height limit was removed the incentive below would no longer apply. All projects over 35 feet would still be subject to the State standard of not blocking the views of a substantial number of residences. PC Staff - No change 18.44.050 C 3. d. The Director may approve a 304 5% increase in height for structures within Increasing the height incentive from 15% (6.75 feet) to 30% (13.5 feet) may increase its use. Rogers commented that 35% (15.75 feet) would better align with the height needed for a commercial building story. Haffner commented that a non -building incentive should be available for sites devoted to parking. WRIA 9 commented that they are encouraged to see various incentives being used to increase the likelihood that shoreline restoration will occur. Staff/Public - D1 item 3, D4 p. 4, D8 p.1 Staff - Make change to 16' and drop percentage language. the jurisdiction if the addition shoreline project proponent provides restoration and/or enhancement of the entire shoreline buffer, -yond what may of , ise be required including, but not limited to paved areas no longer in use on the property in accordance with the standards of TMC Section 18.44.080060, "Vegetation Protection and Landscaping." If the required buffer has already been restored, the project proponent may provide a 20% wider buffer, planted accordance with TMC Section 18.44.060, "Vegetation Protection and Landscaping"a kr enhanced in order to obtain the 4-530% increase in height. is accordance TMC tisn 80060; °Vega '- Landscaping." e. Incentives may not be used to increase building height above that permitted in the underlying zoning district. 18.44.050 E 9. New, flood hazard deviate Commenter asks that floodwalls be allowed to preserve private property in any situation where there is no loss of ecological function in the shoreline. No specific language proposed. Public - D4 p. 4 Staff - No further change redeveloped or replaced reduction structures may from the minimum levee profile only as follows must have an overall waterward slope no steeper than 2.5:1 unless it is not physically possible to achieve such a slope. A floodwall may be substituted for all or a portion of a levee back slope only where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to a structure legally constructed prior to the date of adoption of this subsection; and which structure has not lost its nonconforming status or to allow area for waterward habitat restoration development. The floodwall shall be designed to be the to 1540 feet between the minimum necessary provide of clearance levee the building, the to and or minimum necessary preserve access needed for building functionality while meeting all engineering safety standards. A floodwall may also be used where necessary to prevent the levee from encroaching upon a railroad easement recorded prior to the date of adoption of this subsection. TMC 18.44 Edits Page 3 of 7 61 Section Change Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Source Recommendation 18.44.050 H 1, Halting the continuing decline of Puget ok salmon and Commenter states that staffs proposed new language calling for an improvement in shoreline conditions is contrary to the no net loss standard and should therefore not be added. Staffs intent with the language was informational and consistent with the Shoreline Restoration Plan discussed in Chapter 5 of the SMP. Comp Plan Goal 5.9 calls for "restored, enhanced and protected natural environment" and Goal 5.10 calls for °improved water quality and quantity control programs... that improve the river's water quality." Public - D1 item 4 Staff - Delete the first sentence but keep "at a minimum." Resident Orca fog improvement to current shoreline have been ' over ' All shoreline development and uses shall at a minimum occur in a manner that results in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions through the careful location and design of all allowed development and uses. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from allowed development and uses are unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this section; in that event, the "no net loss" standard is met. 18.44.050 F 6 Shoreline armoring such as rip rap rock revetments and other hard shoreline Commenter: The proposed initial new comment about hard revetments is contrary to the rest of the paragraph, and other parts of the SMP, that allow them when appropriate. Staff: The added language explains why there are limitations on the use of shoreline armoring. Public - D4 p.4 Staff - Keep language as proposed. stabilization techniques are detrimental to river processes and habitat creation. Where allowed, shoreline armoring shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, including fish habitat, and shall conform to the requirements of the 2004 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (or as amended) criteria and guidelines for integrated stream bank protection (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington), U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and other regulatory requirements. The hard shoreline stabilization must be designed and approved by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington and qualified to design shoreline stabilization structures. 18.44.050 K 4. 4. Over -water Structures. Where allowed, over -water structures such as piers, wharves, bridges, and docks shall meet the following standards: Commenter: The standard for shading should not be modified for bridges. Strike new language. Staff: Bridges provide essential connectivity in our urban environment. Grating can create safety issues for bicycle traffic and therefore some flexibility should be allowed in order to maximize multi -modal use. Public - D4 p. 4 Staff - Keep proposed language from staff draft shown in red h. Shading impacts to fish shall be minimized by using grating on at least 30% of the surface area of the over -water structure on residential areas and at least 50% of the over -water structure on all other properties. This standard may be modified for bridges if necessary to accommodate the proposed use. The use of skirting is not permitted. 18.44.060 A 5. a. (2) (2) Noxious weed control within vegetative buffers, if work is selective only for noxious species; is done by hand removal/spraying of individual plants; spraying is conducted by a licensed applicator (with the Commenter: This is nicely worded. You may want to add that the "licensed herbicide applicator" needs to have the required aquatic herbicide permits from WA Ecology if the application occurs in an aquatic site. Public - D7 p.1 Staff - Add new language required aquatic endorsements from WADOE if work is in an aquatic site); and no area -wide vegetation removal or grubbing is conducted. Control methods not meeting these criteria may still apply for a restoration exemption, or other authorization as applicable. TMC 4 Edits Page 4 of 7 Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Recommendation 18�44�O6OC Tree Protection 10, No obmqe of equipment or refuse, Parki»q of «ehic|*«, dumPi»q ofp|onUng. Commenter: Parking ofvehicles within aCRZ(critical root zone) should beallowed if the parking preceded the Staff: This section only applies when asite io developed orredeveloped, atwhich time the site should babrought upVucurrent code. Public 'D4p.4 Staff ' Keep proposed language from staff deft materials orchemina|s or ` shall occur wi�inthe CRZ , 18.44.060D 3.a. (6)The use follows Best Management Practices gsdescribed by the KCNVVCPcurrent practice documents. King County Noxious Weed Control Program also has jurisdiction inthis area. Public 'D7p.2 Staff ' Add new language 18.44.060D 4. Restoration Project Plantings: Restoration projects mayovaqp|ant the site as way to discourage the re-establishment ofinvasive species. Thinning of vegetation to improve plant survival and health without useparate shoreline Commenter recommends adding language about the purpose nfthinning for these densely planted restoration sites. Staff proposes the additional language inred. Public 'D8p.1 Staff ' Add new language vegetation removal permit may bepermitted five to ten years after planting if this approach is approved on part ofthe restoration pnojooyo maintenance and monitoring plan and with approval bythe City prior to thinning work. 18.44.080C 1. Development on Properties Abutting Existing Qmnn River Trail. An applicant seeking to develop property abutting the existing trail shall meet public access requirements by upgrading the Lmi| along the property frontage to meet the standards ofa1412400t-widetrail with 2400tshoulders oneach side. 0a12foot wide trail exists onthe propertyitshall mean public access The proposed change clarifies when otrail fulfills the public access requirements for aproperty. Staff PC -Add the proposed language from staff draft requirements have been met ifaccess tothe trail exists within 1080feet of the property. 18.44.080C %. Development on Properties Where New Rnqiona|Trails are Planned. An applicant seeking to develop property abutting the river in areas identified for new shoreline trail segments shall meet public access requirements by dedicating ant8184bot-widatrail easement tothe City for public access along the river. 3. On -Site Trail Standards. Trails providing access within a propertv, park or Commenter encourages the City toadd smaller trail width standards to address different circumstances including aminimal width for natural areas tominimize impacts tocritical areas and shoreline environments while still encouraging access. Staff proposes an additional standard for paths through natural areas not used for regional access. Public 'D8p.2 Staff ' Add new language restoration site shall bedeveloped at awidth appropriate !o the expected usoqeand environmental sensitivity ofthe site. 18.44.080 The Gvaen/Duwamioh River is on amenity that should be valued and celebrated when designing projects that will be located along its length. The Commenter states that the placement of this language infers that ESA requirements would apply Voupland parts of projects adjacent to the shoreline and that this language would be better placed in the Ordinance Whereas clauses not regulations. Staffs intent was to further explain the intent behind the regulations. Staff/Public 'D1 item Staff ' Delete the proposed new language. river and its tributaries support salmon runs and resident trout, ino|udinq ESA listed Chinook salmon, Bull Trout and Steelhead, If any portion of a project falls within the shoreline jurisdiction, then the entire project will be reviewed under these guidelines as well as the relevant sections of the Design Review Chapter o[the Zoning Cmde(TIVIC Chapter 18.60). The standards of TIMC Chapter 18.60 shall guide the type of review, whether administrative or by the Board ofArchitectural Review, TIVICl8,44Edits Page 5 of 7 63 Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Recommendation 18/4.090 4. Design ofFlood walls To prevent |unq stretches of blank woUu the exposed portion of new floodwalls should bbe designed to incorporate brick or stone facing, textured concrete block, design elements formed into the concrete orweuetadnntobe With greater flexibility in the use of floodwalls more may constructed inthe coming years. Requiring design standards will help Nmitigate their appearance. PC Staff ' Add new language 18.44100 B.Changes inShoreline Jurisdiction Due hoRestoration. 1. Relief may bogranted from Shoreline Master Program standards and use regulations in cases where shoreline restoration projects result in a change in the location o[the 0HVVMand associated Shoreline Jurisdiction and/or This section allows relief for adjacent parcels when a restoration project causes the movement ofthe OHVVM and extends shoreline jurisdiction onto areas that were not previously subject toshoreline regulations. Wetlands may also bocreated aopart o[restoration projects. |fao these wetland buffer impacts are also eligible tobo modified. Staff PC -Add the proposed language from staff draft critical area buffers onthe subject property and/or adjacent properties, and where application o[this ohapter'uregulations would preclude orinterfere with the uses permitted bythe underlying zoning, thus presenting ahardship to the project proponent. 3.Consistent with the provisions nfsubparagraphs B1.a.1band 1.oabove, the Shoreline Residential Environment Dj#ep. High Intensity, Urban The legislative intent iotorelieve adjacent properties o[ regulation due solely to the restoration work onioba effective weneed tobeable 0ogrant relief from both shoreline and wetland buffers. Staff PC -Add the proposed language from staff draft of Conservancy Environment, orcritical area Buffer width may boreduced tono |oao than 25 feet measured from the now location of the 0HVVM for the portion of the property that moves from outside the Shoreline Jurisdiction to inside Shoreline Jurisdiction as result ofthe shoreline restoration project, subject Nthe following standards: 18.44.110 G2a.(2)|[the structure ixlocated onaproperty that has noreasonable Commenter states that the limitation onimprovements to non -conforming structures results intheir being left vacant because they cannot boimproved sufficiently to make them marketable. Either repair and maintenance should boallowed without limits oradd the proposed language. Staffs response iothat "reasonable development pntanLio|^ioosubjective standard that would be difficult toapply consistently. The intent ofnon- conforming regulations iotolimit reinvestment in properties and buildings that are not consistent with area goals. Shoreline variances may boused for cases oftrue hardship. Public 'D5p.1 Staff 'Nochange development potential outside the shoreline buffer, there shall be no limit on the cost vfalterations, Uthe structure iolocated onpproperty that has reasonable development potential outside the shoreline buffer,the cost of the alterations may not exceed anaggregate cost nf5O%ofthe value nfthe building nrairucturoinanyS'yoarporiodbanoduponitumnotrooant assessment, unless the amount over 5O%ioused 0omake the building or structure more conforming, orioused torestore toasafe condition any portion ofabuilding orstructure declared unsafe byaproper authority, 18.44110 82a.(3)Maintenance, repair *pne��o/enexiohnqprivate bridge in Commenter requests that repair, maintenance and replacement ofprivate bridges beexpressly allowed without cost limits nraconditional use permit and has proposed new language. Staff agrees for repair and maintenance but replacing abridge should bosubject to review. Staff recommends striking the language inblue from the suggested additions. Public 'D5p2 Staff ' add the proposed language in rod allowed, without aconditional use permit, when i( replacement does not involve the use nfhazardous substances, sealants nr other liquid oily uubstanue Page 6 of 7 Comment Summary/Staff Discussion Recommendation 18.44110 88e.The area beneath annn'cnnfonninpstructure moybeconverted to Commenter requests clarification that ifanon- conforming otruotuvoindemo|ished the footprint can bo incorporated into anexisting parking lot. Staff agrees that this would bothe least intrusive use ofthe new area. Public 'D5p.3 Staff ' add the proposed new language parkinqlot area ifthe non -conforming structure iodemolished, 18.44110 H 1 . Revisions to previously issued shoreline permits shall be reviewed under \heSIMPineffectat\hetimeofsubmiKo|oftheevision.ondncAthe3mP|anguageforUme|imits.Shom|inapennitsohou|dnotba under which the original shoreline permit was approved and processed in accordance with WAC173-27'10O, Commenter states we strongly support the new treated as existing in perpetuity and reasonable time limits should hoinstituted. Public 'D8p2 Staff 'Nochange from the staff draft 18.44110 Commenter suggests that avesting provision baadded to the Shoreline regulations 0oassure that when aproject iophased into first land development (grading.utilities) followed bybuilding permits those later permits are vested to the version o/the shoreline regulations ineffect when the ohoreUinework was done. Staff responds that unlike critical areas regulations the shoreline buffer width changes much less frequently (in Tukwila once in45years) and shoreline jurisdiction io fixed bystate law. Public D2p1 Staff 'Nochange 65