HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING 2019-04-25 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETAllan Ekberg, Mayor
Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director
CHAIR, DENNIS MARTINEZ; VICE -CHAIR, HEIDI WATTERS; COMMISSIONERS, SHARON
MANN, MIKE HANSEN, LOUISE STRANDER, KAREN SIMMONS AND DIXIE STARK
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING
APRIL 25, 2019 - 6:30 PM
TUKWILA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ATTENDANCE
III. ADOPT MINUTES
IV. INTRODUCTION: Thanh Nguyen, Puget Sound Sage CLI Fellow
DELIBERATION:
V. CASE NUMBER: L18-0075 Shoreline Master Program Update
APPLICANT: The City of Tukwila and Department of Ecology
PURPOSE:
Periodic review of the Shoreline Master Program. The City has
prepared draft SMP amendments to keep the SMP current with
changes in state law, changes in other Tukwila plans and
regulations, and other changed local circumstances.
Please bring your binder from the March 28th meeting -Thank you!
VI. DIRECTOR' S REPORT
VII. ADJOURN
Tukwila City Hall • 6200 authcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: Tukuvi1QWAgov
City of Tukwila
Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) MINUTES
Date: April 11, 2019
Time: 6:30 PM
Location: Council Chambers
Present: Vice Chair Heidi Wafters; Commissioners Mike Hansen, Louise Strander, Sharon
Mann, Karen Simmons and Dixie Stark
Absent: Chair Dennis Martinez
Staff: Department of Community Development (DCD) Planning Supervisor Minnie Dhaliwal,
Urban Environmentalist Andrea Cummins; and Shana Markstrom for Planning
Commission Secretary Wynetta Bivens
Adopt Commissioner Hansen requested amendments to the March 2
Minutes: 2019 minutes, regarding his statement about public access He clarified that his
comments related to public access were for access on public property and not private
property.
Commissioner Mann made a motion to adopt the March 28, 2019 minutes as
amended. Commissioner Simmons seconded the motion. The motion passed with five
in favor, Commissioner Stark opposed.
Vice Chair Watters opened the public hearing and swore in those
CASE NUMBER: L18-0056 Critical Areas Code Update
APPLICANT: The City of Tukwila
shing to provide testimony.
Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor, DCD, gave the presentation for staff. She provided an
overview of the proposed changes to the Critical Areas Code (CAC). She stated since the purpose of
the meeting was to hear from the public, she would be brief and quickly go over the process and the
proposed changes. She noted that there are two code amendments going on presently. The hearing on
the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) regarding the Green and Duwamish River was held on March
281'; and tonight, is the CAC update. The CAC update includes regulations pertaining to wetlands,
streams, steep slopes, abandoned coal mines, and fish and wildlife habitat areas. This specifically
involves Tukwila Municipal ode (TMC) 18.45 and 18.70. She stated the reason the code is being
updated now is because the City is required to keep up with the State law and the last update was in
2010. She said the update will bring the City's wetland rating system in line with the State's system per
the Department of Ecology's (DOE) guidance.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
• Wetland rating and widths are based on habitat score; buffer averaging replaces buffer
reduction; interrupted buffer provisions added; fee in lieu provisions added. Also, included is a
vegetation retention and tree replacement section.
• Ms. Dhaliwal provided examples to help explain the changes regarding categories, habitat
scores and how these impact buffer size. She compared the old methodology to the new
methodology and explained that site condition, updated wetland category combined with
habitat scores will impact the new buffers. She explained that while some current buffers will
decrease others will increase.
Page 2
Public Hearing Minutes
April 11, 2019
• Classification of streams will be consistent with the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW). Buffer averaging will substitute for buffer reduction and interrupted buffer
provisions will be added.
• Steep slopes regulations will include when peer review of the geotechnical report is required;
tree and vegetation retention on slopes will be required; and reference to mapping sources such
as liquefaction and landslide hazards will be added.
• Reference added to Special Hazard Flood Areas TMC Chapter 16.52; and floodplain habitat
assessment requirements included.
• Fish and wildlife conservation areas made consistent with Growth Management Act's (GMA)
definition. A requirement for habitat assessment has also been added.
• Housekeeping items included amending or adding the following sections: vesting; expiration of
decisions related to critical areas; permitted "uses" changed to "activities"; vegetation
protection section added; reorganization of mitigation sequencing section; penalties section
added; non -conforming provisions amended and an inventory of critical areas update and
maintenance section added.
Ms. Dhaliwal briefed the Commissioners on the progress of the project, which was started in October
2018 and there have been two work sessions since then. After the public hearing tonight staff will
come back to the PC with a summary of public comments including staff responses. After the PC
deliberation and recommendation, this item will go before the City Council. The City Council will then
have a public hearing and make the final decision. She entered into the record four comment letters
from the public
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Don Scanlon, resident, said he thinks there is an error in regard to the change in Section 18.45.110
where a section pertaining to upgrade to culverts was taken out, he said it should be put back in. Storm
water is different from ditch water and culverts that connect small water bodies to streams. While
people are talking about Orca and Salmon conservation these little ditches and streams are where water
flow starts. Addressing the culvert issue is importantfor risk mitigation as there is currently a lawsuit
regarding culverts between the State and the Tribes. Eventually this will be handled at the City level
and this could hurt us in the future if we aren't prepared.
Nancy Rogers, representing Segale Properties, stated she submitted a comment letter. She stated that
the Tukwila South project is vested not only due to the development agreement but because we did a
sensitive areas master plan (SAIP), now a critical areas master plan (CAMP). She said there are two
areas that could be improved. 1) Add language clarifying that when a developer creates a master plan
to enhance wetlands or mitigation areas they are not penalized later by having a larger buffer imposed
on their developable land. 2) Vesting provision in 18.45.190 should be amended to be more flexible.
Commissioner Mann asked a clarifying question about the vesting date. Ms. Rogers stated that she is
suggesting that for five years following final plat approval you have the right to build on the plat
according to the rules that were in affect at the time of plat approval
Kevin Broderick, architect representing Vietnamese Martyr's Church, said applicants should be
vested to the codes under which the application was started.
Todd Smith, resident, said the process is hypocritical. He said the City owns a lot of property they
don't take care of, but private people have to take care of their property. He further wanted to know
what the "science" was upon which the stated changes were based. How are the buffer distances any
different from 10 years ago? Is this update just a staff thing? He said, the City should have to take care
of the property they manage just like the residents are required to.
Joseph Ayala, property owner, said the City is forcing fraudulent charges on his property located at
13610 Macadam Rd. He said the City is charging them for drainage onto their property from city
projects. He requested the City consider the surrounding projects when levying charges. He said he
2
Page 3
Public Hearing Minutes
April 11, 2019
also has to pay charges for an arborist and these mounting charges are overwhelming. He felt he was
being singled out by code enforcement as a minority owner.
Ion Manea, resident, made several points and requested the following changes:
- Provide a definition of "sensitive" vs "critical" in the TMC.
- The difference between the new TMC 18.45.30 GI (new code) and G4 (old code) results in
some cases, in an unfair, unjust and illegal confiscation without compensation of property due
to the small size of the parcel. It also seems to conflict with other areas of the code and SMP.
He recommended reviewing the buffer percentages and how they are calculated.
- Maintain current 50% buffer reduction rather than new proposal of 75%.
- 18.45.110B2 regarding operations, remove "confine or floodplain" text.
- 18.45.110CD makes a double standard for public drainage vs other kinds of projects.
- 18.45.184.F all unavoidable impact is confusing. Exclude this provision.
- 18.45.194. D4 Instead of $1,000 per tree, should be market valued for the tree(s) as defined by
an arborist.
There were no additional comments.
The public hearing was closed.
DELIBERATION:
Staff answered questions from the commissioners regarding the difference between terms "critical" and
"sensitive", and how people can know in which area their property is located. There was extensive
discussion about culvert impact and vesting impact as well as how the permit application timing would
impact vesting.
QUESTIONS:
Commissioner Mann asked,
to state the reasoning for the change to "critical" from "sensitive".
Minnie Dhaliwal stated that the Growth Management Act (GMA) defines critical areas so we are just
being consistent with the State law and other cities and it is only a naming convention. The meaning is
the same. �.
Commissioner Mann asked several questions regarding the meaning and determination of special
hazard flood areas. Ms. Dhaliwal explained that TMC has Title 16 Special Hazard Flood Areas and
Public Works Department requested the verbiage for consistency with Title 16. Further, the proposed
amendments add habitat assessment requirement if you are in those areas. Commissioner Mann
requested a reference to Title 16 be included and Ms. Dhaliwal agreed.
Commissioner Strander asked staff to address discussion about alteration and mitigation, specifically
referring to the letter regarding the culverts. Ms. Dhaliwal read the item, which was crossed out. Ms.
Cummins said it wasn't the first time it had been brought up and that it should be put back in as written
in 2010 since it is still viable.
Commissioner Strander asked if the testimony heard tonight will be brought before the PC. Staff said
they would summarize the comments and staffs' responsive suggestions in a matrix; and return to the
PC on May 23rd.
Commissioner Strander asked staff to address the vesting issue and approval time period. Ms.
Dhaliwal said it is complicated and there are two parts to the comments from Nancy Rogers:
1) The first had to do with the utilization of an approved SAMP. For example, in the Tukwila
South property mentioned tonight, staff looked at the whole site comprehensively, some small
wetlands were allowed to be filled in exchange for mitigation in other areas such as an off -
channel habitat area. She gave examples and summarized that since there was overall net
3
Page 4
Public Hearing Minutes
April 11, 2019
environmental gain, the proposal was approved under the SAMP provisions. The City attorney
will review, but we understand the idea that if you do the mitigation on these larger projects
you shouldn't get penalized by larger buffers. It seems that the DOE has not adequately dealt
with some of these mitigation sites and their buffers. There is more guidance in the shoreline
areas that we will try to research.
2) The second part is the vesting. Vice Chair Watters asked about how long the provisions would
last. Ms. Dhaliwal said Washington State has doctrine on this, but they were still trying to
work out the details. She pointed out that the City was trying to add flexibility and that Ms.
Rogers was suggesting instead of one year you get five years after final plat approval. She
mentioned that shoreline will be somewhat different than critical areas and this will also be
looked at by the City attorney.
Vice Chair Watters asked for clarity on how often the code needs to be updated. Ms. Dhaliwal
advised that the DOE requires updates at least once every eight years, but that changes may be made
more frequently than that. Commissioner Mann discussed how the building and utility permits can
impact the timeline for platting process, saying that five years can go quickly. Ms. Dhaliwal clarified
the platting process. Commissioner Mann wondered how that timeframe would, work if the buffer
ended up encompassing 50% of their property. Ms. Dhaliwal said this is exactly what staff is trying to
fix. There was discussion about tying it to the size or value of the project. There was discussion about
when the buffer expands into the building and how the non -conforming code would apply in these
cases. Staff summarized that their goal was to loosen the non-confoi Cuing regulations.
Commissioner Strander asked for clarification on the science behind the size of the buffers. Ms.
Cummins discussed that it is calculated per the best available science utilizing state compilation of
current projects. It is an on -going process, so it goes back every eight years and is a very extensive
process by the DOE.
Vice Chair Watters asked for clarification about comments received from a citizen regarding drainage
onto his property making it a wetland. Ms. Dhaliwal pointed out that she had displayed the parcel on
the map earlier and recalled it was stated that the wetland was created because of drainage coming onto
his property. She explained that the map shows a stream so there is water flow. She further explained
that in order to be classified as a regulated wetland it must have three things: hydric soil, vegetation
and hydrology.
Vice Chair Wafters asked if there was anything staff would like to address regarding the letter from
Karen Walters of the Muckleshoot. Tribe. Ms. Dhaliwal summarized comments received from Karen
Walters, which included keeping the inventory of streams current to reflect any changes in culverts;
addressing total maximum daily load (TMDL) studies on shade and temperature; and allowing offsite
mitigation for stream impacts. Staff explained that the results of TMDL studies ultimately urged DOE
to determine, that the Green River is too hot for the fish, so its banks need to be planted with trees to
provide shade. Commissioner Watters asked if the proposed buffers will help this. Staff clarified that at
present, off -site stream banking program is not available.
Vice Chair Waiters wondered if we could predict regulations. Staff said that prediction is hard, which
is why we do updates in eight -year increments. This makes better data available, better mapping, etc.
Commissioner Mann asked about fees for studies. Ms. Dhaliwal stated that Ms. Cummins currently
reviews the studies and the service is included in the application fee. If the City hires an outside
consultant to do peer review, then there is a charge associated with that. The applicant receives a quote
prior to commencement of work. The applicant is charged for any peer review associated with
geotechnical reports.
Commissioner Mann then asked whether a paragraph that had been under procedures section had
been moved someplace else? Ms. Dhaliwal said there were no procedures under that section, instead it
was just a jumbled -up paragraph that was removed.
4
Page 5
Public Hearing Minutes
April 11, 2019
Commissioner Mann asked if toxic runoff can run into the wetlands. Ms. Dhaliwal clarified no toxic
runoff is allowed, clean storm water may be allowed, and it is handled by storm water regulations. The
table in this area is straight from the DOE, but the verbiage will be polished to more accurately reflect
this.
Commissioner Mann asked about acreage requirements. Ms. Cummins responded that it is a ratio.
The property would be assessed for impact (acreage or square footage) then apply the ratio due to the
mitigation you are doing. For instance, enhancement has a different ratio than restoration.
Commissioner Mann was suggested the word "acreage" be replaced with "square footage".
Vice Chair Watters asked that fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides be addressed regarding wetlands.
Staff agreed to work on verbiage.
Vice Chair Watters asked about verbiage regarding public use and access. She is concerned about
being restrictive with regards to education and balancing it with ecology as the buffers are huge. Staff
asked some clarifying questions and discussed working on the verbiage.
Commissioner Hansen requested discussion on the best way to go through any additional comments
from the Commissioners. The Commissioners discussed and agreed to submit comments to DCD by
Friday, April 19. Staff will incorporate the Commissioners recommendations in the matrix that will be
provided for the May 23rd meeting.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
• City Council is holding a public hearing on April 22nd on a development agreement for the
Homestead project, which is for 18 affordable homes on a vacant lot behind Riverton United
Methodist Church. The design review, sub -division and platting process will come to the Planning
Commission and will be a quasi-judicial matter.
• The regular PC meeting is on April 25th, and the agenda includes Shoreline Code update.
• The May 23rd meeting is on the Critical Areas Code update
• In June the PC will hear the design review of Fire Station 52
Adjourned: 8:55 PM
Submitted by Shana Markstrom, substitute for Wynetta Bivens
Planning Commission Secretary
5
6
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Department of Comm unity Development - Jack Pace, Director
STAFF MEMO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE APRIL 25, 2019 WORK SESSION
FILE NUMBERS: L18-0075 SMP Update
REQUEST: Review and revise Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program and Zoning Code
Shoreline Overlay, hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the
City Council.
LOCATION: 200 feet landward of the OHWM of the Green River through Tukwila
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice was published in the Seattle Times and a postcard was mailed to the
owners and tenants of all Tukwila parcels within Shoreline jurisdiction on
3/14/19. Information about the update was included in the citywide
Stormwater mailer and the September eHazelnut newsletter. An open house
was held on 10/9/18. Periodic emails have been sent to the interested parties
list.
STAFF: Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director
ATTACHMENTS: Attachments in 3/28/19 Binder
A. Edits to TMC 18.44 Shoreline Overlay District
B. Updated Shoreline Master Program
C. Gap Analysis Report
New Attachments for 4/25/19 Work Session
D. Public Comments
1. Segale Properties/CH& Comments
2. Segale Properties/CH& Email re Vesting
3. Seattle Southside 2/14/19 Letter to KC Flood Control District
4. Strander/Curran Comments
5. Desimone/Summit Comments
6. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Comments
7. KC Noxious Weeds Comments
8. WRIA 9 comments
E. Matrix of Comments and Recommendations
1. SMP Edits
2. TMC 18.44 Edits
Tukwila City Hall • 6200 authcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: Tukwi1QWA.gav
7
L18-0075 SMP Update
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The City of Tukwila completed a comprehensive update to its Shoreline Master Program in 2009, with
additional revisions made in 2011. Washington state law requires jurisdictions to periodically review
and update their SMPs every eight years for compliance with changes to the SMA and Department of
Ecology guidelines and legislative rules. The current update is due on June 30, 2019.
This update process is being undertaken jointly with the Department of Ecology using the joint review
process. By coordinating closely with DOE from the start we will streamline the review timeline and
ensure that we are addressing all required topics. In addition to the public hearing on March 28th the
City has held a 30 day public comment period that ended on April 12, 2019. The comments that were
received during that time are provided as Attachments D1- D8. A matrix that includes a summary of
the comments along with a staff or PC recommendation for edited language is provided as Attachment
E.
DISCUSSION
The language in the public review drafts represents the mandatory consistency updates, housekeeping
changes to streamline the document, and staff's recommended policy changes. The policy changes
were discussed at the March hearing and are included in the comment matrix. The additional items in
the comment matrix represent the public comment suggested changes and staff's recommended
wording and actions. Upon direction from the PC these will be incorporated into the Planning
Commission Recommended Draft that will be forwarded to the City Council for final review.
RECOMMENDATION
Review each proposed change and policy alternative in the comment matrix and determine if it should
become part of the Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council. Staff will incorporate
these changes and forward the document to the City Council for further review.
8
Attachment D1
a .0 p:Z I01 R. ) °' w V l ;: Ell II' II 0.... E3tA �k' E.l
_ Y .., LAW
524 2nd Ave., Suite 500
Seattle, WA 9'8104
www.c:airncross.c::orn
March 28, 2019
VIA IIAND DELIVERY
office 206.587.0700
fax 206.587.230E
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. Proposed1.8.44.020, Principals Permitted Uses and Shoreline Use and Mod cation„,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.
nrogers@cairncross.com
direct: (206) 254-4417
{03700624.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 Beers.
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 al-5---feet levee maintenance easement twhich easement is
typically 10 or 15 feet in width, with the width is set by the King County Flood Control District)landward
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, Development Standards, fo,rthe _Urban Conservancy Environment
Environmental Impact Mitigation.
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 18,44.090, Shoreline Design 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
Attachment D2
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
1111.I :mrmcy IIII':aiim�m rim m�hLm'�^, IIII u�yw^l
`mmmmrommr m wu s 1111w,mrt�mlmm�,lmr�u�mmmmrm
4 ``^;vd.cd,ifd.i,.ven.@po: WA 9 1dP
°ouuu Iorvoiloi.,w:.wuuuuu�°u,..�.�
Ranke by Best .Lawyers since 2016 and Chambers USA 20.18 in the area of Washington State Read Estate:
Zoning/Lan. Use.
is a. mm .emmmlmer 111)17.11 mr.hrell 1..n :er n m ion mld a. ul lm ha.1. ].'llllw t w uwrtc. Aleut
refs d,rtrr3ftre "
enc./ tee
fed in If AdN.wn(le d1 rdN1
yPii�d ,„,vit), ut .n.:. d+ Fri y, d:' F mu rev^mfl�d:y ,ror ^,';fib^'3r�o rd m "e':7r�Cd�r�dt"w.
der by
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
Attachment D3
�__..A
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 #134, Tukwila, WA 98168 * 206 575 1633 * www.SeattleSouths'ideChamber.com
15
16
Attachment D4
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 253 852 2345
F 253 852 2533
IF 253 859 8027
511 If I
114 1,1)
41)
ct.irl'anti)rn
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
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.
17
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.
18
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 Toss of ecological function of the shoreline standard ("no net Toss") 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.
Encls.
cc: Mayor Allan Ekberg (6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188)
Louise H. Strander (via email)
Department of Community Development (shoreline@tukwilawa.gov)
20
No% Search
/)Washington Drivers With No Tickets In 3 Years Shou d
/ Do This In 2018
MAI, 'This Properd[77,1,,,IA.fern.
PARCEL DATA
EVAC,VO,
alp jf,BICUMENT
Pn no Po 1114110. Detail 71
Parcel I 000460-0019 I Jurisdiction ' T IilAW LA
Name STIRANDER FAMILY L l. C
I
, pLrocypy:rtoydTcype c2401
II
;Site AddreSS 112640 48TH AVE 5 9515,5
' Plat Block 1 Building Number I ,
.
Geo Area 35-90 Plat Lot) Unit Number
Spec Area ,
Quarter.Section -Township-
I ' tillt1.414t4
Property Name I VACANT LAND Range
Legal Description
!LEWIS C C-D C a 37 & FOR NIVV 1i4 OF 14-23.4 P. SW 1/4 OF 11i23-1 BEG AT CONCRETE MON AT NXN OF Cd. t
I
OF C. OF S. TRAN S l.Nr WT0CiL OF 48TH AVE $ TH N 41.45-35 E ALG C/L 1704.32 FT TH 5 48-14-25 E 25 FT ,
TO SELY MON OF 5D FiD & TPOB TH CONTG S 48-14-25 E 199.95 FT TO 08077 MtiiIN OF PShhl Si TO N 4I-21-
36 E ALG NINIL'Y SIGN 8.80 FT TH N 32-53-17 E 93 76 FT TH N 32-59-31 E 97.19 FT TH Ori CRV TO LF r RAD
1262.40 FT ARC DIST 7 99 FT TH N 25-01.36 W 67 FT TH ON CRV TO LFT PAD 40662 FT AFC DIST 1 01 4 I ' ,
F T TO SELY SIGN OF SD IRDTH $ 41-45-35 W 283 70 FT TO TPOB
' PLat Block:
Plat Lot:
LAND DATA
Highest & Bost Use As If Percentage Unusable
MANUFACTURING
Vacant'
Highest & Rest Use As NO , Unbuildable
' PRESENT USE Restrictive Size Shape YES
Improved
I !Zoning CAI
Present Use 1 Vacaratindusttall
Water h WATER DISTRICT
Land StiFt '43 560
Acres I 1.00 I h IFUEITIC
SeweriSeptic
Road Access PUBLIC
Parking ADEOLIATE
Street Surface
Waterfront
Rainier I Waterfront Location 1
Views
Territorial ; Waterfront Footage ()
Olympics I Lot Depth Factor 0
Cascades Waterfront Bank 1
Seattle Skyline TicielShore 1
I
Puget Sound I 'Waterfront Restricted Access
t,.1
Lake Washington WaterfrontIAccess Rights 1
I
Laisn Saromamish , Poor Quality 4
Lake/RivedCreek Proxlinity Influence 1,,1tc
Other View
Designations Nuisances
Illistorts Site I 1 Topography
Current Use h (nonei Traffic Noise
Nbr Bldg Sites Airport Noise
Adjacent to Golf Fairway ;NO Power Lines 1)0
Adjacent to Greenbelt
NO Other Nuisances 0
0
Other Designation NO Problems
Deed Restrictions !NO I Water Problems NO
Development Rights
h NO Transportation Concurrency NO
Purchased ' !Other Problems NO
Easements NO
Easement
Native Grovrth Protection '
NO
I , Envirortr,ec.)ntal
! , Environmental
IDNR Lease !NO
BUILDING
AkIiiTARTIS!
21
217.800
000460001905,1996 11997 2400 0 0
0 JO 1217,600 0 1217,800
0004600019081994 1995 2400 0 0 10 0 1217,80,0 0 1217,600 ,
000450001908110.92 1993 124110 0 0 10 10 1217,800 10 1217.800 1
00046000 1 906 I 1990 i 1991 12400 0
10
I 0 0 i 174,200 1:0 f 174,200 !
.00046000190611998 0 1959 400 0 10 I° 10 1105,700 0 7 108 00
,
12
, , t
000480001905 i 1986 11937 :2400 0 0 0 1° ! 105 700 i 0
,
,108, 700
000480001908 1 1964,t 1985 t 12400 0 0
000480001908 ; 1982 , 1983 ; 2400 0 0 10 .0
73 400 I 0 '73.400
TAX ROLL HISTORY
,
' Taxable t Taxable I Taxable
Valued Tax I Omit Levy Land Imps ( Total
Appraised, Appraised, Appraised, New 1 1 Tax
Land , Imps Total , Dollars ' AccountI Value
Year Land
Year Code , Value Value I Value Value (5) Value I$) Value .‘,S (S) (s)
IS) (5) Reason
i
I 000490001 908 2018 2019 12401 1,045,400 ' 0 ' 1 045.400 10 :1 045 400:0
i ;1,045,400
000480001906 2017 :2016 12401 1,045 400 10 , 1 045 400 10 , 1,045 400; 0 1.045 490
i i t
1571,200,
00048000,1606 20116 , 20 17 2400 871 200 , 0 571 200 10 i 871,200 10
1, 000450001 905 207 5 :2016
2400 871 200 : 0 1 871,200 10 1671,200 10 871.200,
,
0007490001905 2914 ;2015 2400 1871 200 0 671,200 10 1671200 0 871,200
0004800019052013 2014 2400 871,200 i 0 1 871,200 0 11371,200 0 I571 200 :
00048000100612012 12013 2400 871 200 10 1 871,200 10 1671,200 0 1871,200
000480001905 2011 12012 2400 8/1 200 10 : 8/1 209 10 571,200 0 '871 200,
000480001906 2010 12011 2400 571.200 10 1 6/1 200 10 1671200 0 1671,200
2010621200 0 ,
000480001908 2009 1
2400 871,200 10 8/1 20(1 , 0 ; 57 1,2047
000480000908 ;2008 12009 :2400 871,200 10 1 871 200 '0 671 200 0 ;571,200
0004E0001008 2007 12008 2400 653,400 10
1653 400 , 0 1653.400 0
11353'4°°
0004E0001906 2006 12007 2400 6530 .400 0 653 400 10 1653,400 1
1 , 1553,400
, 1 000460001005 2005 2006 2400 653 400 0 653 400 0 1653,400 0 553,400
0004800019052004 2005 2400 304,900 0 304,900 ;0 , t
304 900 0 I 304•911/0
00049000190812003 2004 2400 304.900 10 1 304,900 10 1304,900 0
1304,900
00(745000 0905 2002 12003 2400 304900 10 304 900 , 0
1304,900 0 13044,900
0004600019062001 12002 : 2400 304 900 j 0 304 900 '0 , 304,900 0
1304,900
00049000 1 906 I 2609 ! 2001 2410 304 900 '0 304 900 0
304,900 0 304,900
!CI 211178°° 0
1 't
000480001908 1599 12000 2400 217,800, 10 1 217 8001 2 17,800
00045000 1 906 1995 1999
2400 217 800 10 217 500 JO 217,800 10 1217 900
00048000190311997 1995 2400 0 10
10 217 600 0
,0 0 99,000 0 98 000
SALES HISTORY
Rs
Excise Recording Document, Sale
::lie on
Number Number Date I Price Seller Name Buyer Name ' Instrument
1 1 STRANDER JOHN
10t-LOUISE M S FRANDER ow awe,
ZEMIN j2.410D00013§1 12/29/2010 , 30 00 ' TRUST4STRANDER Other FAMILY L L C ,__,,,
1,,v,,,,
LOUISE I-I,JOHN II
C,GEORGE M
STRANDER LOUISE
M PERS
MIN 20040361002150 1211 70003
S° °I° REPtSTRANDER
I JOHN B ESTATE
,16E9,67: .j902121411
1$0,00 BANK OF AMERICA
iNT&SA
ST PANDER
LOUSE
Claim
M*STRANDER Deed
LOUISE
TRUST
iSpoctal
STRANDER
Warranly
LOUSE ET AL Deed
REVIEW HISTORY
Estate
Seittemont
Estate
Eattlernent
1 , 1
Tax Review ' I Appealed Headng : Settlement i
, Review Type 1
i 1 I Decision Status
Year i Number 1 Value Date Value
! 1 1
I RevIew -
i
2007 I R165779 ,
1Clharartanattart j $0 j litrtgO0 ISO p jCortlteleri
[111;;;;t: arch
rna pc 11.7, Tax I/O
PERMIT HISTORY
HOME IMPROVEMENT EXEMPTION
%lapI6i i'rop1r9).
Arca Renorl Prinl FrauptrO DMA
22
Nuuu
IIIIIlliuuuuuiliuu���ml 4 uuuuum IIIIII uuuyw „ ul r ���
III
�wlVNmuuu� III �I uuumm���
WiP Pi�I�'IIII I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiW .01IIIIIIIIIIIIII11,00ll;l
Iiuul 111p��iuiouuVlVm�,,,,,,�16��������
11111111
moon
dot
IIII''
mew
iii II i����u Vi p
uuuN111111111
uuwldki"�"
VV 'muuuuullllmlu
OIL
���IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIo,
dooloopool000llynnoli
l„II
uuumpmu �^�mu ImiI�YV
PmilNliiiiii UYI Illlllll
41MY
I� r,ii, ""IIIII �����muuumuu�.i vy
lllllluilflumul Nm oolllwuilllllll11111.11,1111111111111111,
umN
lillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
L
VQ IIII IV1NV uummuu
'! 1III III I IIIII
��and
...� INi N mrv�,�m ii�IlluliillllM�lr'� I� II ql II ��� li oiliiii6u
�IIIH'M�
��I�ImYuN"IIVIV ��o
��'.. 111�����I
m liiiiiiii"'ii 1m
iiiiwuullllllllllllllllll1I'„
Upw lupluu11 liiiiiiiillpu I110
�I uu uuuuum uouu u,1„;
'G'l llil I IN lllluuuuuuuuuiiii1111 111iiidl
��°�Illllllllllllllllllllll�lllll��i m y
muI
IV41 m;ll;l'illulll�1uuuulo1�
23
(09 f
;;;//
IF* 1111
111111'11 111
00000v00000000000,0varq
11'1'1111111111nm'
111111 '11.111H'Ill,00111,111110111,1111,
IIIIIIIIMI11111I IIIIuiIIIB IIIII IIhlIIllliIIIIIIIII
lul
111111111111111111111
un
SIIIIM
111111111111 nun..
OA
61 rrrrrir 74t��
TfrR
radi fir*
fiEM
WHAT YOU WILL FIND IN THIS CHAPTER:
• A description ofTukwilla's economic setting,
▪ A discussion of issues that affect economic development in the City, and
• Goals and policies for enhancing the community's economic well-being.
rr n , � r �rirrr �,��y�, r rvr.� ,r, r n i r i r �ni .oin era.. �rrrrmtrrnmrrrr�n�r���u�tunrir�rr��rr�sn>aa>lr�nmecrrrryry�rrrr���������rm�ra�y�r������r�a✓ur�ni���i�„���azirnr�rrrr�r��n���rl�rm�rT�i�ne�rm��rux�rrrmrrua��rrrr�ca�nnrw�����n.i„r��rr�r�rerr�arum�urr�r�xra�nrr�✓xr.�ra��rrr�rr���.r��✓n�m�rr�,rim�arrr�n�uum8±�uyrr�r�r�rrr�r�aa�ra�rrurmnr�m��krrri�rrtmrn���rr�e m�arwri r�i�rr�rn a r�
r, f
The overriding goal of this element is enhancing the community's economic well-being. Through
policy recommendations, the Economic Development element identifies a means of stimulating
economic improvement for business and the community as a whole. It lays out a direction and
strategies for dealing with economic variables and adjusting to economic forces that cannot be
predicted or controlled. 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 of the Plan.
There are three primary ways in which local economic activity can be affected:
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 of business real estate; and
Helping coordinate public and private sector efforts to enhance the employability and job
progression of the residential population.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2015 PAGE 2-2
25
ilomiIii111111111111111111111111000111
0.1.11111111111101110010101111111111,1111,11111,ko,[ 1,1,11.111,0,1,1,11,111,!,1111111111,11,01,111111.1111.11II:111,1.
000000000000000mmmmmmlr0000000000000000000,000000000000000000000000000000000000000mio000Iril 'LL'unnunimoo
00100001 00000010100000100000001000000000001000iiiiiiiiiiii111111
II000000000000011111111111111111111111 00000000010 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii11111'11111111111111'1'1111111,11111,11?nlmhoon
l'''I'''1'°!°!°1"11111111111111'11:11111111111;111111,111,11111111110,-111oloolio11111111 1111111111111111 1111111111111,11,1,11,11,11,1,11,010.0111011011000 1111110000001,11'1,1i'll,11'11,11'11,11'11,11'11,11'11,11'11,11'11,11'11,11'11,11'11,11'11,11'11,11111„ligOVIIMEN1111,111„„11,1'VOIII 000000110 001,111,11„„„„,00,
(1.40,1 milli 1111011111111111110:111111110111111111111111.1,11,1,1,11,1,110111\11 !!!!
ovioluovolhoo,„
1111111111111111
.,.!!,!..!„.!!,li'ii),P),I1PdIIIP!;g11111#1!'".lfli(!rr11111111111111'1,1111111111111;1'1111;;;;;111;1(;Ifg;:'' "'
01). 1111'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1111111111!
The Economic Development element presents a focused approach to enhancing our City's economic
well-being. This approach can be summarized as follows:
Sustain moderate growth
Target high salary industries
Improve and support the opportunities for education, skills training and job acquisition for
Tukwila residents
Provide capacity to meet Tukwila's employment targets as et by the Countywide Planning
Policies
Encourage growth into certain areas through the use of zoning and developmental regulations
Encourage the retention nd growth of existing local firms
Encourage entrepreneurs, local startups and businesses to establish in Tukwila
Provide efficient and timely administration of City 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
Supporting the development of new businesses and expansion of current businesses that are
minority-, veteran- and women -owned.
Expanding efforts to engage with and understand the economic development needs and
priorities of traditionally under -represented groups in Tukwila neighborhoods
Iv Emphasizing business development to encourage existing businesses to expand
Maintaining public works and utilities so the City's infrastructure can meet both existing and
future needs of the economic sector
Supporting job enhancement programs to increase residents' employability through
coordination of private and public sector activities
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2015 PAGE 2-3
26
0100ioili11100111', 11111,11
piIrr,r,'"11'IVI10001"1
0000000100000000000000[000 000001111111111 11111111111111111111
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,iloo1111100111101100011011111110011thol000looloolooll1111t
11111111111111111 1111,1 0000000000000000000000001011101101010100111°1111111111111111111111111111001 0 0
0 000000 o0000
1111111111
111111111111111111111111"''
I II A
'00 .0.00,0 00
11111111111111111111111110 u u oul,11111111111111111111
111110111100110 010011111111111010001;1111111110111111111111011111110111111111111111111111,1111111111111111111111°001,111,
11111111111111111
vonivohliiiI1111111voloolootolooloolooluo000091111111111111IIIIIIII
"1111111111111111.11111011111111„ ponnnoinv,'11111)11(1
.....111111000000000000000001111111101010101011110010000000101110.0..0000
01i i0111 I I 1 I 1 111111111 110111111111 I I I 11 •11"" '" "•••••••'• • • "' '• ' • • • •
1,u,!!!!! 1"1111111„141/,!;p1IIIIIII!!1III
0 1111111111111111
InviolooloiiiiIIItiiiiiiiiiippliqipintili.pio111111111111111111111111.111opippoilliivivoom 111111111111 111111111111111111;lion
'Al.111111(1,1,1:1,1,1,1,1,11;1Aii,„:„11,1,1,:1:11:1,1,1!kAr:
00,1,(0A00101.?,A00,1,,....
. 0100000001101001111101A!' 0001
0001001010000000001000000000000000100000000000000
-00,00000110010000A 1001010001000000000011,1,10
The following are potential tools available to the City to enhance economic development in the City:
A:0
Industrial revenue bonds for certain areas
Multi -family property tax exemption
PE Targeted government and private resources
4000.
.0000%
Targeted local, State and federal funds
Use of infrastructure investment to attract new firms and development to designated areas
Funded, staffed and administered economic development work group
Timely, predictable customer -oriented permitting and City services
Lodging tax for tourismpromotion
On this way, local government can play an important role in the economic vitality of the community.
The policies developed in this element are aimed at implementing that role.
070n (000(,00.
46.0, 00A
1p0J 0 )go ,440
A 04 tyi 00A; .402 AAA0A
J,r rgyAs0 1 0% 0AA
IV '41
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.
PO P 1,11 !EAT II 0 Eli N CO 11011E r4D R EV E„ E:
In 2003, the population of Tukwila was 17,270; estimated 2011 population was 19,210. The City's
daytime population is estimated between 150,000 to 170,000. Taxes collected in 2003 were
estimated to be $28.2 million, which increased to $42.4 in 2013.
During the same period the assessed valuation of the City grew from $3.34 billion to $4.47 billion. In
2002, there were 7,628 housing units; by 2013, this number had increased to 8,039 units.
In 2010, the median age of Tukwila residents was 33.6 years; nearly 8 % of all citizens were older than
65; and 24% of the residents were under 18. In 2010, residents of color were 50.1% of the population.
Foreign -born residents account for 36.2% of the population, and over 70 languages are spoken in the
Tukwila School District.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN —. 2015 PAGE 2-4
001010111111011110.11110000
27
0
�,Hlhv
16, " � 0
The rnedian household income in the City in 2010 was $44,271, below King County's i-nedian income
of$60,l74. Adjusting for inflation, Tukwila's median income fel I between 2000 and 2010. Tukvvila's
2000 adjusted median incorne (in 2010 dol'lars) was $53,127. Thus, rea I rnedian income in the City fell
lO.6796from Z0O01o2OlO.
|n20O0Tukvv|ahad nearly three times asmany jobs nsithad residents, but that nunmberfeIto 2.I7
in2010. There were over Z,575licensed businesses ofall types |nTukwila in, ]Ol3. The total number
ofjobs inTukwila has declined since 20O0. |n2000,the City had approximately 4BQOOjobs. By2013,
the total number ofjobs inthe City had fallen 17Y6to just over 4U,O0Q.
Employment within Tukwila lsdistributed among anumber ofdUferent sectors, Service composes
the largest percentage ofjobs with 3296ofall job,o.
Manufacturing isnext with 25%ofjobs [nthe City. In l99l,56%ofall jobs inthe City were related
tnMail ufactur[ng. ln2QQZ,the number VFjobs inmanufacturing dropped toZ8%. Manufacturing
continues todecrease inthe City. This trend likely reflects the diminished presence ofjobs with
Boeing and other manufacturing firms |nthe City'sindustrial areas.
Xn3OlO'retail accounted for l4%of jobs imTukwila. Warehousing, transportation, and utilities made
up 1296.
`40MMMOMMONNIMM
50,0100
45,000
40,000
ouon '
25,000,
20,000
1S,000
5,000
�
�
«'
Tukwila Covered Employment bySector, 0U0-2010
INV am,
17
�
�
�
�
�
maov°~ment
wse°ke5
.RC~.
wFIRE 1-1—'
q-;Eft.h��
�ra=^ucu=a
Resources
Employment within Tukwila is distributed
among anumber o[different sectors. Services
composed the largest percentage ofjobs in
2OlO'with, 3J96ofall jobs. N1anufacturing(J596);
Retail (l4%);and Warehousing, Transportation
and Utilities (lZ96)also make upsizable shares of
Tukwi|a'semp|oymemt.
The share of each sector relative to each other
d,idnot change dgniMcant|ybetween 2U00
and ZO1O.All sectors, with the exception uf
Construction, showed slight decreases. The
finance, Insurance and Real Estate (RRBsector
decreased the most will) al7% decease. Retail
and Manufacturing also saw decreases of2396
and J,4%,respectively.
TuuW|LmCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN -2n1s pma:Ez's
28
a
SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
CENTER(SBDQ
The SDD[atHigh|inaspecializes
inproviding business and training
services toentrepreneurs and existing
businesses, inorder tmbesuccessful |n
today'se/onomY The center provides:
~ Knowledgeable, trusted and
confidential one-mn-oneadvice om
all aspects ofyour business.
^ Alink to23other SBDCcenters in
the Statewide network for additional
advice.
next level.
the
^ Guidance omthe purchase of an
existing busime5sorafranchise.
~ Assistance infinding the best sources
ofcapital togrow your business.
^ Aproven pathway tnbreakout
growth for established businesses
ready totake their business tV
- 8encmarkingyour company's
performance with others inyour
industry touncover 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 Uzgrow your
business.
~ A"cam-da°attitude about anything
you need tosuccessfuHygrow your
business
TUKWILA CO
�`�=Fw
R E I'A � L S A �_ E S
While Tukwila
remains astrong attractornfconsumer
spendimg:,the, City has experienced msignificant reduction
in taxable retail sales, once adjustments are made for
inflation. When adjusted for infladon,to:ubUe retail sales
in2Ol3were lower than they were in2003.The City'ssales
tax decline began tooccur roughly around the late l99Os.
Competition for retail sales among regional retail centers
has grown stronger over the last ten years.
�
Current and existing economic trends suggest a variety of
issues and needs for economic development imthe City of
�1.
Provide access to the regional highway, transit and air
transportation system inaway that does not handicap
local property development and redevelopment
efforts.
Explore possible City actions tnincrease the median
income ofTukvvi|a'sresidents, including support
for entrepreneurship, small business startups, and
vocational training, particu|ar|yarnomg |ovv income Or
low English proficiency communities.
PAGE 2
Establish coordinated transit hubs thnomg,hVutthe
City including, but not limited to, the 5outhoenter
area, Tukwila South, Tukwila International Boulevard,
Interurban Avenue South, and the Manufacturing
Industrial Center that efficiently mix modes oftravel
and -stimulate development ofreal estate associated
with transportation facilities.
29
p0swEN5uvGPLAm - 2015
'6
11111111111111.' Vlivvvvvvvvv91111101111v1vvv. ,11111111111111 11v1111.1
111U1U1111111111111111111111111111111111111ovv 111111100 V1111111111111111111111111111,„1111 vvvvvvvvviv
11111010V 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111v.
11"0111111111111111111 011-100101010101000000 1111111 0110 111,1111,.vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
0000000Ill'IVVVVVo
lvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
1 1 1"1 1VVVIVVIVV111111VVVVV1V11VVV111VVVV111V11111VVVVVVVVVVVVVIVIV1OVIVIVVVIVIVIVVVVVVVVVVV11111111111,111111111V111111111V1111:11111111111111V:11:11V111111111111111111,11.111.1.11111111111111VVV11111,11V .111111111111111111.111111VVVV11,11,VV100001011111
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvtv„vvvvovvivv„ivi?„,„„,,,,,,,,„,„yvvyyyuu 111fifififVVVVVVIVVVIVVVIVVVIIII1V111VVVVVOV000000000000000011VVVVVVVVOOVVVVVV11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111v„„
V11111)111111vor
1111111111111100001111111111111111V1111111111o111111o1111111o11101
0111111
vvvvvoll111111011111111111111
11111111111111111 V 1V11111V1Vv11111111111,1V111V1OVVV1V1V1111V11vvvVVVVvl1111vV11111111VVVVV111111v1v1111111
11111111111111111111111
10101111110101111110111VV00
v00 1 11 v 10000111100000111111111010000ool000vvolovv1
V11111111111111111111111111VVVVV1VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIVIVIVIVIVVVIVIVIVIVIVVVVV11
VVVVVVIVIVVlvv1111111V 01110001 volo 011 1101111111111111111111111, 1110
vivivvvvvoo
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101 11111V1111111111
.• • ,
,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.„1,1„ijIp11,11,1))),01,1))))))1111111,1iiiiiiiiiiiiiv111111111111111111111111111111111111111!Ii'll111111111111111ioono „„„„mi,;;„„„„,„iiilil,q,p11„„„, looloo,001000000000 ilin1111111Ininnio irrniiiiiluir000no00000000000000i
„,, , lorintrippo
1111111111111 0111,11,1010111J111
'1"14,1
416e
Study and understand the factors causing the inflation -adjusted reduction in the City's overall
taxable retail sales.
to Support further enhancement of commercial and residential areas in the City's neighborhoods.
Foster environmental remediation (brownfield cleanup), land conversion and redevelopment in
the Manufacturing Industrial Center (MC) and Interurban Avenue areas.
Increase the development, intensity and diversity of uses in the Southcenter area, including the
development of housing 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 as the
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 of its businesses and focusing on its 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.
t:t Ensure that adequate public services are in place to support existing and proposed commercial,
mixed -use and industrial developments.
Fund infrastructure and services by maintaining a solvent and diversified revenue stream.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2015
PAGE 2-7
30
dini„
00i11,111,111,111111111111111,111,1111innounoull1111111111111111
11i11111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'
8,5
'
C 0 In 171 LA ty „LA
L 2.1
1111111111„„iii,„l11111 11111111111111111111111
'1'1'1'1111111111111 11111111111111111111011111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII?111111111111111111111111111111111111111
„„uNIVII))))))))))))111111111111111111„IllylyilipltV11111111111111,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,1,1111111,1,1,1,1,1,111,111,000100111IIIIIih„„
Tukwila has a strong role as a regional business and employment center
which allows it to enhance and promote the community's well-being.
11111p1\ „„„00101100„0„1.1111111"111°,1110.11,,,,,,,,,,,,,o1100000000110iiii
11.1111111„„„
1 '1,',1,1,1,1,1,1,01,11111b11)11,1111:11111,10,11111,1,1111,1111
111:11:111,11:,1,:1,:1,:1,,,,!,:1,:1,:1,1,1,11111,111,11,111,111,111,111,11111111111111111111)))1,1,1111':Aolly,j,n,1„1111,,,I;,111'111111111181?
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
for Tukwila residents.
Monitor City actions and impacts on the local economy and review economic
development incentives for all sizes of businesses.
"5 Continue to fund economic development staff to serve as a single contact point and
information source for the business community.
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 to fund infrastructure as part of a sub -area plan, in order to
encourage redevelopment and as an inducement to convert outdated and underutilized
land and buildings to high -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.
Consider a public -private partnership to examine creating a small business incubator
space in the City.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2015 PAGE 2-8
31
m�mmm�m�m�o
�
�
Il.lQ 1 rnprove Tukwila's image, participation and influence in reg
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 City'sentrepreneurs and small businesses increating
12,
.�.1� Seek funds fnornnon-City sources for use b«the City todirectly encourage economic
development.
2
^1,.I Z"i, Design and support human -service programs,
such aspartnerships for interns and job training
inhigher wage industries, toenhance the
economic well-being ofthe Oty'sresidents.
2, �,1
regional confcommerce, housing and entertainment.
luence
5 Promote Tukwila a5a
of
2;
.�,111 151
el
�.IAB
Promote and preserve economic use
of
industrial lands outside the Manufacturing
Industrial Center (MIC) through appropriate buffering requirements and use
Include s
tandards in the development regulations for industrial uses that adequately
mitigate potential adverse impacts onsurrounding properties and public facilities and
services.
Actively promote development in the Southceniter area by supporting existing uses,
proactively developing programs and incentives to attract new businesses, investing in
infrastructure and, public amenities, and encouraging business owners and developers tV
invest lnthe quality efboth the built and natural environment.
NMI
a '' W,
IN, 0
Implementation Strategies
Develop an Economic Development Plan,
Consider preparing overall area environmental impact statements for the Interurban/West Valley
Highway corridor and Tukwila International Boulevard area.
Develop afreight mobility plan that addresses the
efficient and safe movement offreight inthe City,
while also ensuringthat impacts tnadjacent land uses
are reduced and, where possible, eliminated.
Zoning regulations that fadOtatecommercial in -fill
development and redeveLopmen1consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan vision,
Al"
W�GIZIN �v�m��
Takejoint own er-City-reg u latoryagency environmental reme lationactionstofaci|itate
brovvnfieldredevelopment and in'fiU.
Focus public infrastructure investment to provide capacity in areas targeted for growth.
Create Local Improvement Districts tofinance specific transportation and utility in, -fill
improvements.
Identify and eliminate confusing ornmtdatedi regulations.
Encourage redevelopment through aninformed business and real estate community.
Support collaborative marketing initiatives with businesses.
Partner with abroad range 0fnQn-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 pro�rams for businesses, property owners and
managers.
Encourage businesses toincorporate environmental a,Ddsocial responsibilities into their
practices.
Increase communication between the City mfTukwila and Tukwila businesses using innovative
33
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 economy, including production, processing, wholesaling and distribution, as a
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 cornmerce 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
schoolchildren.
Consider providing information about City hiring processes and job openings at City -sponsored
events and inCity communications,
34
, „
111111111111111111111111111111111i111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,111111111111111111111111111),, 1,1,111111111,1 oolf 1111,1'111,111i0111,,,,
1,1101.1,11orroil,l,v„,11,1111111111111p1
1111111111,1,1,1,1,111,111,1,11,'jlooll1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,,1:1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,11
61:11:1:011.11.111.11111111.1.1.1.11111111111V11111„111„1„11„111„11,11„1:!1:!:w1.!:11:11111.11.1.111.11111.1111,1,1111,11.111.11:11.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi::::4!11.1.1.1.4..11u1lujlulA111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111„1„111111111111111111111111v.111:?.1,1'11,1,11,1,1,"1,11,1,11,11,1,1,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,1111,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,111111111111111111111111111111111,1,1,1,1.,?:?„„gurilili,11i1,
)11111111111111111111111, oil 111111111'111'1'11'1'1111
' ''''', "...' -":::::::::°:::::::::°:°' • --""•''''''". :::::::::;;;il "" l"' •..' ' '...:'''"ii::,,,IIII "1"I'llill111111111111111111111IL
,,
111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
II111,141.1.1.111111.11.1.1 iiii,11111.
looll111111111111111111111111111111 Ivo ,.,11111.11.,111,111.11.11,111.11,1,1,1,11I1i)o,lono VVVIIIIIIIlliiilliiiiiiiiilliili„,„,,,VII"NO;:,:VF,,,1IIIIIIIIAIIIII?i?iIiIll1111111ij1cffl:'(illIll:rfiill!:i:i',iPp,:.,„, „.
.;1.!.:;„„lil.„ ,,,,,,Irillilliiiiiiiillioo
f""'"11111111111i°111!iii...11.11111111111111111111111111Ilionnvo
, 1.11
111111111111111111111111111111111
rs3 F ()RIO All (3N1
Comprehensive Annua Fi ancipi Report
King County CountyyvidePlanningyolicies (2012)
Economic Development Ele ent Background Memo
TUKWI A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2015 PAGE 2-12
35
36
.IAMI 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:
Attachment D5
h tf'tt'i Ave S 'ae 000
%.J,i Cnrlgtorl90101
c:Phone 206E7.61000
fax' "06.56,+f: 01
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 -Conforming 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
confoiuiing, 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 peiiuit, 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 permit 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 stormwater 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-confoiniing structure may be converted to parking lot area if the
non-confoiuiing 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-confoiuiing
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
Attachment D6
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
Fisheries Division
39015 - 172nd Avenue SE • Auburn, Washington 98092-9763
Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-0752
April 12, 2019
Ms. Nora Gierloff
Deputy DCD Director
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: City of Tukwila Shoreline 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
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.
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 karen.. a.r@jn.uc„.k,esf;o.Qg�.:.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
caps i'fortra ss.w u.gpv/ecy/,p ublic,ation /do uu1Mentsi V ➢ B 0046 pa f
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 http5r:/ / gpvunuok.o rg(watcrsh.eds,'9,pdf/2014 Iuvenile-SahnonidUse ar Aqumeia :Hnutats-ins-
Lower GreenRiver.pd
http> i://youA k ngcouunty,govdrurcpi library/2006/kcrI953.pdf
lit pps.//www_gcrviinpco.rg watersheds/9/t pprts/LowerG-reenuBaselble aspx,
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
huupsr/yoa rkIlre>;;c.caunnsty.,gov!dng0ii raryi200.5/ kcr2O38.pdf
Pg. 25- The major rerouting of the Cedar and White Rivers did more than just affect flow. The former
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.
hup°//www ➢dngc oo.ooocicontiro B.org/defauu1LasmOID-:72
Pg. 27- Are all of the levees in Tukwila certified on both sides of the Green/Duwamish 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 Green/Duwamish River.
Pg. 49- The information regarding Muckleshoot fishing needs to be changed. The entire portion of the
Green/Duwamish 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 Green/Duwamish 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 httpsa//wvvw.lkungrourny gov/depts/d9nrp/wbr/sectioaas programs/river-fAoodpiaun section capjau,projects/greeiu dAver
systeunn-widegrvaprovement drarrtevvorkigLeen-raver-swif-docurneruts.as_px
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 salmon 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
Attachment D7
City of Tukwila Shoreline Management and Critical Areas Ordinance 2019 updates — comments from
King County Noxious Weed Program 4/11/19
What follows are 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.kin count . rov/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, berms 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 removal/spraying 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 [PB1]: 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'is approved in writing by the City
and the applicant presents a copy of the Aquatic Pesticide Permit issued by the
Department of Ecology or Washington Department of Agriculture.
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 f 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 f 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 tree 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 [PB2]: "...or a King County Noxious Weed
Control Program Best Management Practices document"
Commented [PB3]: 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 plan
(3) The pesticide is applied in accordance with state regulations;
(4) The proposed herbicide is approved for aquatic use by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; and
(5) The use of pesticides in the shoreline jurisdiction is'approved in writing by
the City and the applicant presents a copy of the Aquatic Pesticide Permit issued .
by the Department of Ecology or Washington Department of Agriculture. (Page
18-164)
Commented [PB8]: "...or a King County Noxious Weed
Control Program Best Management Practices document"
Commented [PB9]: 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
UV&T�� W��MU��� U�U�N�O�Y 8
'~~'�~` '``~~�'`~^ ^'~^^'`~°~`' ``
��� 0 /VKg|8 �
~^., ~ `...^.. ^
Att8ChDleOt[}8
I&��A���� ��M�V�T�KA �OHN&8
'`^�^~'~`~ �`�~^^'`'~ '°^"~^
mREaN/mwWAmISm
AND
PIUSETSOUND
mVATERSmIED
Algona
Auburn
Black[§ammnd
Buriem
Covington
Des Moines
Enumclaw
FederaUV#ay
Kent
King County
Maple Valley
Normandy Park
Renton
SeaTac
Seattle
Tacoma
Tukwila
King Conservation District
King County Flood
Control District
Yoshon8Naury Island
Community Council
�CuvimgtomWater District
Port of Seattle
Washington Department
of Ecology
Washington Department
ofFish and Wildlife
Washington Department
of Natural Resources
U�Army Corps
of Engineers
Green-0uvvam�sAUrban
Waters Partnership,
Washington Environmental
Council
Gireein/Duwambh
Watershed Alliance
Trout Unlimited/
Mid -Sound Fisheries
EmhamamentGmup
Save Habitat and Diversity
of Wet la nds (SHADOW),
American Rivers
The Boeing Company
Master Builders
Association
SMPPerbodic Update
Department ofCommunity Development
63OOSooLbcenLer8iSuite 1OO
Tukwila, \NA98188
ING COUNTY
Re: City of Tukwila Shoreline Management and Cnitical Areas Ordinance 2019 updates —
Comments from WRIA 9
Dear City of Tukwila,
Below are WRIA9staff comments on the City of Tukwiln's2O19Shoreline Management
(Tukwila Municipal Code 18.44)and Critical Areas Ordinance(Tukwila Municipal Code 18'4S)
updates.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
* W&are encouraged tosee various incentives being used to increase the likelihood that
shoreline restoration activities will occur.
* The River isnShoreline ofStatewide Significance. /odsdicbons
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 2O14DowaruisbBlueprint and the 2OOSSalmon
Habitat Plan are policy and programmatic guides for shoreline management in the city
and should beused Loguide shoreline restoration, protection, land use, and
regulations. VVR[A9iscurrently updating the Plan Loreflect new science,
programmatic and policy changes, and capture completed and new high priority
capital projects within the watershed. The updated plan isexpected Lobeadopted in
2020 by the Watershed Ecosystem Forum, followed by ratification by all the cities
which are party Lothe VVR['&9[nLer|ocn|Agreement. VVerecommend including
language that accommodates nddendorosand updates Lothe plan [e.g, Dovvnroisb
Blueprint), and any projects therein. WRIA 9 staff would be happy to assist in crafting
appropriate language toinclude inthis update.
SECTION SPECIFIC CO00000&)IS:
* Section 18.44.060 there is language about thinning restoration plantings under "4.
Restoration Project P|nnbngs^ \Nerecommend adding language about the purpose of
thinning for these densely planted restoration sites. The purpose should beLo
improve plant survival and health if dense planting is causing negative implications
from competition.
IKiogCounty AgricuNaral
Commission
F|nanoa|mVpm1pnvidedby$gnenMonnkg|werk)(,il|kxW0A9|mjud|o0:
A|gona.Aubum, 13 j (k D ia nloirll,8ur�I'[,hWngkm. DoWm|nIn, Lnumdavi, H��,m|0$A Ken\ Nng{oumX �1
* \Nestrongly support the new language bn18/44.110section ]0for time limits for
revisions Loshoreline permits. Shoreline permits should not betreated nsexisting in
perpetuity, and reasonable time limits like those being proposed should be instituted.
* Section 18/44.040 for shoreline buffers allows the director Loreduce 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 bySO96isnot founded inBest
Available Science. [Lappears this allowance isnolonger allowed under the C'&U,
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 Cdescribes nregional trail standard that isrelatively 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
Loconsider adding two Lothree smaller width trail standards Loaddress different
circumstances. '&Lthe lower end oftrail widths, vveencourage the City Loconsider n
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 ofstandard has nminimal footprint and isone ofthe most
appropriate approaches for minimizing impacts to critical areas and shoreline
environments while still encouraging access. Depending onthe CiLy'spark
classification, it may be appropriate to consider another standard that falls between
the regional standard and the bnckcoonLrystandard.
* Section 18/44.030, permitted uses matrix has new language nroondoverwaLer
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 nconditional use Lonpermitted use. Given the impacts LonShoreline ofState
Wide Significance, we strongly encourage the city keep the current conditional use
designation and not change iLLonpermitted use.
* WRIA 9 has been involved in several salmon habitat restoration projects in the lower
Green and DowandsbRivers ofthe City. Asour 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 ofinformation 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.
Sincerely,
Suzanna Smith
Suzanna Smith
Habitat Projects Coordinator
Green/Duwamish & Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9)
201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
susmith@kingcounty.gov
Office: (206) 477-4641, Cell: (206) 305-1752
3
53
54
Matrix of Proposed SMP Edits
Section
Change
Comment Summary/Staff Discussion
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.
Chapter 4
While the report has been finalized, the City continues to utilize the most
recent information available, such as the recently updated 9/15/2017 FEMA
Revised Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM), which were
issued after the completion of the Inventory and Characterization report.
Commenter asked what is the date of the referenced
DFIRM maps on this page?
Chapter 4.1
The Tukwila 205 ' '- levee on the left bank of the river in the
Urban Center is not certified and areas protected 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 •#,, , d Tukwila South area and levees along the right bank of
the river. Current m -osale in ' South ' the
of the cross valley levee , reconstruction of the
o meet COE-st
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.
Chapter 4.2
The entire length of the Green/Duwamish River within the City of Tukwila has
been declared "critical habitat" for Chinook salmon, Steelhead trout and bull
trout. BothThese species are listed as threatened under the Federal
Endangered Species Act.
Commenter notes that Steelhead trout are also listed
under the Endangered Species Act and are found in the
Green/Duwamish River.
SMP Edits
Page 1 of 4
Comment Summary/Staff Discussion
Changes to hydrology are the result of modified flow regime due to dam
construction, diversion, and urban development. River management, pipinq
of streams inc|udinq LhoUse ofUdo'Qoten. pumped storm dinchonlon. and
levees have reduced the connection between the rivers and their floodplains,
changing the spatial extent of habitats, and increasing the potential for
negative water quality impacts. Disturbances to the channel banks have
naou|had in areas that are dominated by non-native invasive opooioo and
qonoro||y devoid of sufficient riparian voqototion. Wood, in the form of
riparian tnaoo and in -channel wood, is generally lacking throughout the
oyoham' 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 4.2
Commenter states that this section should bomodified to
note that lack oftrees affects water temperatures which
exceed state standards and create lethal and sublethal
conditions for adult salmon.
Chapter 4.3
|ngeneral, these changes have reduced the amount ofwater flowing through
the Gremn/Duwamish River to about one third of historic conditions and
eliminated siqnificant fish habitat.
Commenter notes that the rerouting of the Cedar and
White Rivers eliminated the Black River, lowered the
flow, and reduced the source ofwood and sediment.
Staff suggests the proposed edit.
Chapter 4.4
Discussion ofshoreline planning for the Green River inTukwila must
acknowledge the fact that, inlight ofthe existing system oflevees (including
the federally ' ' outhohzod^2O5 levees) and revetments, the City
cannot act alone. There are avariety ofregulatory jurisdictions outside ofthe
City with different responsibilities for maintenance .-t,management and
naqu|otingofthe levee system, including the U.G.Army Corps ofEngineers
(the Corpo)'the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)'the King
County nManagement Unit(octingas-part ef4hs-&nnn
Flood Control District (KCFCD), and
private property ownom The City of Tukwila Public Works Department has
overall responsibility for maintenance of all levees, including the federally
authorized Tukwila 2O5Levee, which extends from about the |4O5
crossing to approximately G.1S8`'Street. The actual
maintenance work onthiupublic levees ioperformed bythe
KCFCD-t:A .
Commenter asked if all
ofthe levees inTukwila are
certified and stated that the references to the Green
River Flood Control District should be changed to King
County.
Page 2 of 4
Comment Summary/Staff Discussion
Chaphar4.5
Issues ofconcern today are focused on
reconstrucUnqexisting levees and revetments toprotect existing
development from flood hazards, oneffort that will take place over onumber
ofyears incoordination with the King County Flood Control Zone District,
KinqCounty and state and federal agencies. There are many opportunities
for conservation and restoration actions inthe City torestore orreplace
habitat while managing natural hazard areas.
Commenter states that there ionomention ofthe Lower
Green River Flood Hazard Management and Corridor
Plan that iobeing developed. Aothat plan iostill inthe
development process Staff suggests the language inred.
Chapter
Comment letter DG requested several updates and edits tothis Chapter.
However this ioasummary ofthe existing Shoreline Restoration Plan and
updating this underlying document ionot within the scope ofthis periodic
update.
Staff recommends the following clarifying comments but
these should not imply that the Plan itself has been
updated.
Chaphar5.3
Tukwila has worked within the larger Gnaon/DuwamiohRiver Ecosystem
restoration project to acquire or donate properties for restoration that are
-i(h— (Cooi|B. Moses Park, Cod igaFarnd'orhave the
North Winds Weir, DuvvamiohGandono).
Commenter states that the proposed restoration projects
onthis page need updating.
Chaphar5.4
. Removing fish barriers where tributary streams discharge bmthe
river. This action would remove flap gates and install fish -friendly flap
gates at the mouths ofTukvvi|a'othree major streams (Gilliam, Southgate
and Riverton) and possibly restore habitat area atthese locations inthe
shoreline jurisdiction. 0onyfish barriers onVVSDOTroadways are
required tobereplaced by2O3Oper the Federal Court iniunciionunder
U.S.v.VVoohinqton.
While the VVGDOTdecision was subsequent tothe Plan
itdoes reflect the current regulatory environment.
Chapter72
The entire Green/Duwamish river includinq its tributaries is a critical
resource for federally protected MuoNewhootIndian Tribe fishing.
Commenter states that the information regarding
Muoko|ohootfishing needs tobochanged.
Chaphar7.4
The Director may reduce the standard buffer onaoaoo'bv-caoobasis bvup
k>5O96upon construction ofthe following cross section: nao|opobank from
toe tobonosteeper than 2.53:1 using bioengineering techniques; Minimum
2O'buffer landward from top ofbank; Bank and remaining buffer tobo
planted with native species with high habitat value.
This ioavoluntary incentive for property owners tolay
their non -levee riverbank back toastable angle and
plant with native species. The change toaslightly flatter
slope would improve planting success and improve
slope stability.
Commenter: The City needs to explain why 1 OO'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 nedommondationofrom the Green River TMDLRiver improvement plan
Commenter says that the statement regarding buffer
widths for different riparian functions ioincorrect and not
supported bvvarious scientific studies and literature.
Staff responds that changing shoreline jurisdiction, buffer
widths orenvironment designations ionot within the
SMP Edits
Page 3 of 4
Section
Change
Comment Summary/Staff Discussion
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
Sourc
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
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
1
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
18.44.030
Shoreline Use Matrix:
Piers, Docks and other overwater structures - d 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
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 oxcept a maximum height of six feet in
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
commercial areas d where there is a demonstrated need to
ensure public safety and security of property. the fe
I o die areas, and 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
Section
Change
Comment Summary/Staff Discussion
Sourc
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
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
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
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
owner a 15 foot levee maintenance easement landward
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/F
Item 2
property provides
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 1 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.
TMC 4 04 Edits
Page 2 of 7
Section
Change
Comment Summary/Staff Discussion
Sourc
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
18.44.050 C 3.
d. The Director may approve a 301% 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/F
item 3
D8 p.1
the shoreline jurisdiction if the project proponent provides additional
restoration and/or enhancement of the entire shoreline buffer,what
may > ° e 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+i /err elf4k Med in order to obtain
the 1530% increase in height. in . s -:
^
60, Protection
n -r,•
e. Incentives may not be used to increase building height above that
permitted in the underlying zoning district.
18.44.050 E 9.
New, redeveloped or replaced flood hazard reduction structures
from the minimum levee profile only as Tolle 6 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 subsectionr
which structure has not lost its nonconforming status or to allow area for
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
waterward habitat restoration development. The floodwall shall be designed
to be the minimum necessary to provide 1519 feet of clearance between the
levee and the building, or the minimum necessary to preserve access needed
for building functionality while meeting all engineering safety standards. A
floodwall may also be used where necessary to prevent the levee from
encroaching upon a railroad easement recorded prior to the date of adoption
of this subsection.
TMC 18.44 Edits
Page 3 of 7
Section
Change
Comment Summary/Staff Discussion
Sourc
18.44.050 H 1.
Halting the - =01%
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
4
—#
Resident 9roa sal€ for an ira r w " , to eurrant . •a; , ° condi#ions ,{, °-j
r , w .wzn d:gr..:d r • • ovor time, All shoreline development
and uses shall at a minimum occur in a manner that results in no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions through the careful location and design of all
allowed development and uses. In cases where impacts to shoreline
ecological functions from allowed development and uses are unavoidable,
those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this section; in
that event, the "no net loss" standard is met.
18.44.050 F 6
Shoreline armoring such as rip rap rock revetments and other hard shoreline
stabilization techniques are detrimental to river processes and habitat
creation. Where allowed, shoreline armoring shall be designed, constructed
and maintained in a manner that does not result in a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions, including fish habitat, and shall conform to the
requirements of the 2004 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
(or as amended) criteria and guidelines for integrated stream bank protection
(Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department
of Ecology and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington), U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers and other regulatory requirements. The hard
shoreline stabilization must be designed and approved by an engineer
licensed in the State of Washington and qualified to design shoreline
stabilization structures.
Commenter: The proposed initial new comment about
hard revetments is contrary to the rest of the paragraph,
and other parts of the SMP, that allow them when
appropriate. Staff: The added language explains why
there are limitations on the use of shoreline armoring.
Public
18.44.050 K 4.
4. Over -water Structures. Where allowed, over -water structures such as
piers, wharves, bridges, and docks shall meet the following standards:
h. Shading impacts to fish shall be minimized by using grating on at least
30% of the surface area of the over -water structure on residential areas and
at least 50% of the over -water structure on all other properties. This standard
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
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
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.
TMC4 Edits
Page 4 of 7
Comment Summary/Staff Discussion
18�44�O8OC
Tree Protection
1lNoo�rago��equipment ��refuse, parki»Q��vehicles, dumPi»g��
materials or chemicals, or placement of permanent heavy structures or items
shall occur wi�in�oCRZ
Commenter: Parking ofvehicles within aCRZ(critical
root zono)ohou|dbo�|owod��op�Nngpmoodod�o
planting. Staff: This section only applies when asite io
developed or redeveloped, at which time the site should
bobrought uptocurrent code.
Public
18.44.080D
3.a. (6)The� use follows Best Manaqement Practices as described by the
KCNVVCPcurrent practice documents.
King County Noxious Weed Control Program also has
jurisdiction inthis area.
Public
18.44.080D
4. Restoration Project Plantings: Restoration projects may ovorp|antthe site
as a way to discourage the re-establishment of invasive species. Thinning of
vegetation toimprove plant survival and health without aseparate shoreline
vegetation removal permit may bopermitted five to ten years after planting if
this approach is approved as part of the restoration project's maintenance
and monitoring plan and with approval bythe City prior tothinning work.
Commenter recommends adding language about the
purpose of thinning for these densely planted restoration
sites. Staff proposes the additional language inred.
Public
18.44.080C
1. Development on Properties Abutting Existing Green River Trail. An
applicant seeking to develop pmpodY abutting the existing trail shall moot
public access requirements byupgrading the trail along the property frontage
tomeet the standards ofa4412400hwidotrail with 2400tshoulders oneach
side. If a12foot wide trail exists on the property itdaKmean public access
requirements have been met ifaccess to the trail exists within 1808feet of
The proposed change clarifies when atrail fulfills the
public access requirements for aproperty.
Staff
the property.
18.44.080C
2.Development onProperties Where New Regional Trails are Planned.
Anapplicant seeking todevelop property abutting the river inareas idonUfiodCommenter
for new shoreline trail segments shall meet public access requirements by
dedicating an4818400hwidotrail easement to the City for public access
along the river.
3. On -Site Trail Standards. Trai|opmvdinqa00000withinapmp*rtyLpmtorwhi|oaUUonoouraginga00000.Staffpmp0000an
encourages the City toadd smaller trail
width standards toaddress different circumstances
including aminimal width for natural areas tominimize
impacts tocritical areas and shoreline environments
additional standard for paths through natural areas not
used for regional access.
Public
restoration site shall bedeveloped �at awidth appropriate to the expected
uoaaoand environmental sensitivity of the site.
18.44.000
The Groon/Duwamioh River is an amenity that should be valued and
celebrated when designing projects that will bolocated along its length. The
d
Commenter states that the placement of this language
infers that ESA requirements would apply toupland
parts of projects adjacent to the shoreline and that this
language would be better placed in the Ordinance
Whereas clauses not regulations. Staff s intent was to
further explain the intent behind the regulations.
Sbaff7F
item
ww|salmon, Bu4Trout ^nt S\wz hw. tIf any portion of a project
falls within the shoreline jurisdiction, then the entire project will boreviewed
under these guidelines as well as the relevant sections of the Design Review
Chapter of the Zoning Code (TIVIC Chapter 18.60). The standards of TIVIC
Chapter 18.60 shall guide the type of review, whether administrative or by the
Board ofArchitectural Review.
TIVIC 18.44 Edit,
Page 5 of 7
Comment Summary/Staff Discussion
1844.000
4.DooiqnmfFlood walls
To prevent long stretches of blank walls the exposed portion of now
floodwal|oshould bedesigned tlincorporate brick or stone facing, textured
With greater flexibility in the use of floodwalls more may
constructed inthe coming years. Requiring design
standards will help tomitigate their appearance.
PC
concrete block, design elements formed into the concrete orvegetation tobo
cover the wall within 3years.
18.44.100
B.Changes inShoreline Jurisdiction Due boRestoration.
1 Relief may bogranted from Shoreline Master Program standards and use
regulations incases where shoreline restoration projects result inachange in
the location ofthe UHVVMand associated Shoreline Jurisdiction and/or
critical area buffers onthe subject property and/or adjacent properties, and
where application ofthis ohaphor'oregulations would preclude orinterfere
with the uses permitted bythe underlying zoning, thus presenting ahardship
to the project proponent.
This section allows relief for adjacent parcels when a
restoration project causes the movement ofthe UHVVM
and extends shoreline jurisdiction onto areas that were
not previously subject toshoreline regulations. Wetlands
may also bocreated aopart ofrestoration projects. |foo
these wetland buffer impacts are also eligible tobo
modified.
Staff
3.Consistent with the provisions ofsubparagraphs B.1a. 1band 1.oabovo.
the Shoreline Residential Environment -Buffo. High Intensity. er Urban
Conservancy Environment, 2rcritical area Buffer width may boreduced tono
less than 25 feet measured from the new location of the OHWM for the
portion of the property that moves from outside the Shoreline Jurisdiction to
inside Shoreline Jurisdiction aoaresult ofthe shoreline restoration project,
subject to the following standards:
The legislative intent is to relieve adjacent properties of
regulation due solely to the restoration work ootobo
effective woneed toboable togrant relief from both
shoreline and wetland buffers.
Staff
18.44.110
G2a.(2)|f the structure iolocated onaproperty that has noreasonable
development potential outside the shoreline buffer, there shall be no limit on
the cost ofalterations. |f the structure iolocated onaproperty that has
reasonable development potential outside the shoreline buffer,the cost of the
alterations may not exceed anaggregate cost of5O96ofthe value ofthe
building orohuotuminany3imarporiodbaooduponitsmootr000nt
assessment, unless the amount over 5O96ioused tomake the building or
structure more conforming, orioused torestore toasafe condition any
portion ofabuilding orstructure declared unsafe byaproper authority.
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 potential" ioasubjective standard that
would bodifficult 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
18.44.110
G2a.(3)Maintenance, repair GF+aple�cdanexisting private bridge io
allowed, without aconditional use permit, when ii
�8�����does not involve �ouse cdhazardous oub�an000.oma|an�or
other liquid oily substances, w°t i
Commenter requests that repair, maintenance and
replacement ofprivate bridges boexpressly allowed
without cost limits oraconditional use permit and has
proposed new language. Staff agrees for repair and
main�nanoobut mp|aoingabridge should boou�oot�
review. Staff recommends striking the language inblue
�om�oouggoo�daddiUono.
Public
Page 6 of 7
Comment Summary/Staff Discussion
18.44.110
G6o.The area beneath anon-confonningstructure may boconverted to
parkinglot area if the non'oonfarmingstructure iodemolished.
Commenter requests clarification that ifanon-
conforming ohucmmiodomolishodthefootphntmmbo
incorporated into smexisting parking lot. Staff agrees
that this would bothe least intrusive use ofthe new area.
Public
18.44.110
H1 Revisions to previously issued shoreline permits shall be reviewed under
the SMP in effect at the time of submittal of the revision, and not the SMP
under which the original shoreline permit was approved and processed in
accordance with VVAC173'27'18U
Commenter states we strongly support the new
language for time limits. Shoreline permits should not be
treated as existing in perpetuity and reasonable time
limits should boinstituted.
Public
18.44.110
Commenter suggests that avesting provision boadded to the Shoreline
regulations toassure that when aproject iophased into first land
development (grading.utilities) followed bybuilding permits those later
permits are vested tothe version ofthe shoreline regulations ineffect when
the ohomUinowork was done.
Staff responds that unlike critical areas regulations the
shoreline buffer width changes much less frequently (in
Tukwila once in45years) and shoreline jurisdiction ia
fixed bystate law.
Public