HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2019-06-27 ITEM 4 - STAFF REPORT - CRITICAL AREAS CODE UPDATEAllan Ekberg, Mayor
Department o Co
unity Develop ent - hack Pace,
ecror
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 27, 2019
FILE NUMBERS: L18-0056 Critical Areas Code Update
REQUEST: Review and revise Tukwila's Critical Areas regulations, hold a public hearing
and make a recommendation to the City Council.
LOCATION: City Wide
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice was published in the Seattle Times and a postcard was mailed to the
owners and tenants of all Tukwila parcels on 3/28/19. Proposed amendments
were posted on the website and an email notification was sent to the interested
parties list on 3/22/19. 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. Email notifications with links to the Planning
Commission meetings were provided to the interested parties list.
STAFF: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Letter dated June 13th from Nancy Rogers representing Segale Properties
B. Summary of the proposed changes to the Vegetation Management
regulations in the Shoreline, Critical Areas, Landscape and Tree Code
C. Edits in underline/strikeout version to the Vegetation Management
regulations in the following Chapters:
1. Shoreline (TMC 18.44),
2. Critical Areas (TMC18.45)
3. Landscape (TMC 18.52)
4. Tree (18.54)
BACKGROUND
Staff had a work session with the Planning Commission on this item on November 8, 2019. The staff
report for the November 8, 2018 meeting is available online. Here is the link to staff report.
The second work session was held on February 28, 2019 and here is the link to the staff report.
The public hearing was held on April 11, 2019 and here is the link to the staff report
Planning Commission deliberations were held on May 23, 2019 and here is the link to the staff report
Tukwila City Hall • 6200 South center Boulevard • Tukwila, A 98.88 • 206 8800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov
7
Ll8'0O56Critical Areas Update P[Staff Report
Page
On May 23, 2019, the Planning Commission deliberated and provided direction on the proposed
amendments and asked staff to come back with a recommendation on the following two items:
1)V�eating provisionsfor Critical Areas Master Plan Overlay
2)Applicability and consistency revisions related to the vegetation management section of the
Shoreline, Critical Areas, Landscape and Tree Code.
One additional item that has come upaopart ufthe Department of review ufthe Shoreline
Master Program no|ot*d to wetland buffers associated with restoration projects that include creation of
off -channel habitat projects.
DISCUSSION
Vesting provision for Critical Areas Master Plan Overlay
Sensitive Areas Master Plan (GAMP)was approved for the Tukwila South area (approximately
400 acres south of 180th) in 2010. This approval allowed filling of smaller wetlands in exchange
for enhancing larger wetlands located south OfG.200mSt. Additionally, 8noff-channel habitat
area was created as mitigation. See Attachment A for comments received from Nancy Rogers
representing 8eOo|eProperties. The request iatovest the project to the buffers approved au
part of the SAMP if the land has been cleared and graded and here is the language proposed
byNancy Rogers for the Planning Commission's consideration:
The external boundaries ofcritical area buffers adjacent tolands that have been cleared
and graded pursuant toenapproved Critical Area Master Plan (CAAP) or Sensitive Area
Master Plan (SAMP) are not subject to expansion due to the later adoption of increased
buffer widths into this Critical Areas Ordinance, the Shoreline Overlay regulations, or other
applicable regulations. This limitation on expansion Ofbuffer width means that future
applications for building permits on lands previously graded to CAMP- or SAMP approved
buffer boundaries, will remain subject to the CAMP- or SAMP-approved critical area buffer
widths.
Here are some policy options for the Planning Commission:
A. The vesting provisions for Tukwila South are addressed inthe Development Agreement. NO
additional language ienecessary inthe Critical Areas code,
B. Consistent with the vesting provisions in the Washington State 8 building permit Sh8U m8St
the project. N08ddiU0nG||8nguGgeiSneC8SSGryinth9ChUCG|Ar8GSC0d8.
C. Allow 8grading permit tOvest the project tOthHbUfferS8pprOV8d8Sp8rtOfth8SAK0Fo.
Under this option the proposed language should be amended to take out reference to
Shoreline Overlay regulations as the Planning Commission has finalized their
recommendation onthe Shoreline Code update. Also, the extent ofclearing and grading that
vests aproject ahouNbedarified.
Staff recommends option A.
2' Applicability and consistency revisions related to the vegetation management section of
the Shoreline, Critical Areas, Landscape and Tree Code
Summary ofthe proposed changes isincluded aaAttachment B. See Attachment C1.C2.C3
Ll8'0O56Critical Areas Update P[Staff Report
Page
(Ghorg|ing).18.45(Critical /\reaa).18.52/Lundaua ing\ond18.54(Tree).ThepurpoaeufUlgag
proposed amendments is to provide consistency between the four chapters and address
lessons learned during implementation of the newly adopted Tree and Landscape Code.
3. Wetlands buffers associated with restoration projects that include creation of an
off -channel habitat projects.
For shoreline restoration projects that result in o change in the location of the ordinary high
water mark and associated shoreline jurisdiction on the subject property and/or adjacent
properties, relief may be granted from Shoreline Master Program standards and use
regulations. Hovvaver, the relief for restoration projects is limited to ordinary high water mark and
not buffers of any associated critical areas such as wetlands. Therefore, staff is recommending
adding anew subsection:
77NC 1/I45.90 Wetlands Uses, Alterations and Mitigation (D) Wetland and Buffer Mitigation
7. Wetland creation for restoration projects may only beapproved /fthe applicantcan show (Y)
that the adjoining owners are amenable tOhaving wetland buffers extend onto 0r
across their pnoper�(VrCQthat the on -site wetland buffers are sufficient to protect the functions
and values ofthe wetland and the project aaowhole results /nnet environmental benefit.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the three items listed above and determine ifthese should become part ufthe Planning
Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Staff will incorporate the changes recommended by