Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COW 2019-08-26 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET
Tukwila City Council Agenda A to I: 2©' 19©$ COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Allan Ekberg, Mayor Counci/members: •:• Dennis Robertson •3 Verna Seal David Cline, City Administrator ❖ De'Sean Quinn + Kate Kruller Kathy Hougardy, Council President •i• Thomas McLeod + Zak Idan Monday, August 26, 2019; 7:00 PM Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on this agenda (please limit your comments to five minutes per person). To comment on an item listed on this agenda, please save your comments until the issue is presented for discussion. (Refer to back of agenda page for additional information.) 3. SPECIAL ISSUES a. Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 2019 progress update. b. Ordinances updating the Shoreline Master Program: ) Please bring your binder (distributed separately). < (1) An ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 2344; repealing the 2011 Shoreline Master Program; approving and adopting a new Shoreline Master Program update for the City of Tukwila to incorporate new state requirements. (2) An ordinance repealing various definitions as codified in Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.06, "Definitions"; repealing Ordinance Nos. 2346 and 2549 §23; reenacting TMC Chapter 18.44, "Shoreline Overlay," to establish new regulations related to shoreline uses; amending various ordinances as codified in TMC Sections 18.52.030, 18.60.050 and 18.104.010 to update zoning regulations related to shoreline uses. c. An Interlocal Agreement with the City of SeaTac for Justice Center frontage. Pg.1 Pg.29 Pg.65 Pg.127 Pg.223 4. REPORTS a. Mayor b. City Council c. Staff d. Council Analyst 5. MISCELLANEOUS 6. ADJOURNMENT City Tukwila Reasonable Clerk's Office www.tukwilawa.gov, Tukwila City Hall is ADA accessible. accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice to the (206-433-1800 or TukwilaCityClerk@TukwilaWA.gov). This agenda is available at and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities. Council meetings, are audio/video taped (available at www.tukwilawa.ciov) HOW TO TESTIFY When recognized by the Presiding Officer to address the Council, please go to the podium and state your name and address clearly for the record. Please observe the basic rules of courtesy when speaking and limit your comments to 5 minutes. The Council appreciates hearing from citizens and members of the public, and may not be able to answer questions or respond during the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS Members of the public are given the opportunity to address the Council on items that are NOT included an the agenda during PUBLIC COMMENTS. Please limit your comments to 5 minutes. If you have a comment on an Agenda item, please wait until that item comes up for discussion to speak on that topic. SPECIAL MEETINGS/EXECUTIVE SESSIONS Special Meetings may be called at any time with proper public notice. Procedures followed are the same as those used in Regular Council meetings. Executive Sessions may be called to inform the Council of pending legal action, financial, or personnel matters as prescribed by law. Executive Sessions are not open to the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action on matters affecting the public interest such as land -use laws, annexations, rezone requests, public safety issues, etc. Section 2.04.150 of the Tukwila Municipal Code states the following guidelines for Public Hearings: 1. The proponent shall speak first and is allowed 15 minutes for a presentation. 2. The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation. 3. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal. 4. Members of the public who wish to address the Council may speak for 5 minutes each. No one may speak a second time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken. 5. After each speaker has spoken, the Council may question the speaker. Each speaker can respond to the question, but may not engage in further debate at that time. 6. After the Public Hearing is closed and during the Council meeting, the Council may choose to discuss the issue among themselves, or defer the discussion to a future Council meeting, without further public testimony. Council action may only be taken during Regular or Special Meetings. COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE No Council meetings are scheduled on the 5th Monday of the month unless prior public notification is given. Regular Meetings - The Mayor, elected by the people to a four-year term, presides at all Regular Council Meetings held on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month at 7:00 p.m. and Special Meetings. Official Council action in the fonn of formal motions, adopting of resolutions and passing of ordinances can only be taken at Regular or Special Council meetings. Committee of the Whole Meetings - Councilmembers are elected for a four-year term. The Council President is elected by the Councilmembers to preside at all Committee of the Whole meetings for a one-year term. Committee of the Whole meetings are held the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 7:00 p.m. Issues discussed there are forwarded to Regular or Special Council meetings for official action. COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date 08/26/19 Prepared by Mayor's review I Council review SB ITEM INFORMATION ITEM No. 3.A. STAFF SPONSOR: HENRY HASH ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 08/26/19 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 2019 Update CATEGORY N Discussion Mtg Date 08/26/19 Motion Mtg Date Resolution Mtg Date Ordinance Mtg Date L f Bid Award Mtg Date U Public Hearing Meg Date ❑ Other Mtg Date SPONSOR ❑Council ❑Mayor ❑HR OD CD Finance ❑Fire ❑TS ❑P&R ❑Police ®PW ❑Court SPONSOR'S SUMMARY REVIEWED BY Staff will update Council on the progress of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP). Currently $400,000 is budgeted in the 2019 - 2024 Capital Improvement Program for Traffic Calming/Residential Safety. ❑ C.O.W. Mtg. ❑ CDN Comm ® Trans &Infrastructure ❑ Arts Comm. DATE: 08/20/19 ❑ Finance Comm. ❑ Public Safety Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. COMMI1'1 EE CHAIR: ZAK IDAN RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. Public Works Department COMMII'IEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $0.00 COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE AMOUNT BUDGETED $400,000.00 APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $ Fund Source: 103 RESIDENTIAL STREETS Comments: (page 8, 2019 CIP) MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 08/26/19 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 08/26/19 Informational Memorandum dated 08/16/19 Page 8, 2019 CIP Resolution No. 1955 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Map of 2019 NTCP Improvements (Revised after 08/20/19) Matrix of Description of Traffic Calming Methods Matrix of Traffic Calming Methods - General Overview Minutes from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 08/20/19 1 2 City of Tukwila Public Works Department - Henry Hash, Director INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee FROM: Henry Hash, Public Works Director BY: Cyndy Knighton, Senior Program Manager Scott Bates, Traffic Engineering Project Manager CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: August 16, 2019 SUBJECT: Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Project No. 80910301 2019 Progress Report Allan Ekberg, Mayor ISSUE Provide a summary of progress to date for the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP). BACKGROUND The NTCP was adopted by Council Resolution (No.1955) at the end of 2018 to address neighborhood concerns with traffic safety. The Council also wanted to ensure that traffic calming safety decisions are based on technical engineering and applied in a uniform and consistent manner. The 2019-2020 budget provides annual funding to implement traffic calming strategies on residential streets and other safety improvements throughout Tukwila. Although some work was accomplished in 2018, this program is taking off and much more has been accomplished in 2019. DISCUSSION Staff has collected requests for traffic calming treatments and other improvements in residential areas for many years. Requests for calming treatments and other safety improvements come into staff via a variety of ways: • Enrollment requests from the City's website • Face-to-face conversations • See-Click-Fix/Tukwila Works • Other Departments, especially Police • Email inquiries • Historical knowledge • Phone calls • Elected officials The NTCP is a welcoming program for our community and has already produced positive results to improve safety. When the Council adopted the NTCP, staff had a list of approximately 22 requests. Currently, there are more than 40 individual requests for improvements, and it is not uncommon for new requests to come in weekly. The NTCP has two levels of calming treatment types to use. Level I treatments are considered passive traffic control and are generally less restrictive than Level II treatments. Level II treatments focus on physical devices which are more costly and restrictive. Due to an increased number of requests today, staff is not strictly following the steps of the NTCP. In order to begin addressing requests quickly, staff has been installing new permanent speed feedback signs and LED enhanced signs which fall under the Level 1 category of improvements in the NTCP. Additionally, staff has installed many new parking restriction signs at the request of both residents and the Police Department to aid in enforcing parking violators and improve safety. These also fall under the Level 1 category. WAPW Eng I PROJECTSIA- RW & RS Projectsgraffic Calming1Tukwila Traffic Calming Program\NTCP 2019 Progress report.docx 3 Traffic Calming Info Memo Page 2 The attached map shows the locations where traffic calming treatments have been implemented bodate. Requests have come in for new crosswalks in the vicinity of schools, parks and other high pedestrian generation areas. Crosswalks require engineering study bJensure that they are safely sited, and the City is legally protected. For example, one location, 8 144m Street at 37 m Avenue G. staff is recommending installation of a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) on the west leg of the intersection's existing crosswalk because of the close proximity to high density residential and the Cascade View Park. Anew marked crooavvo|k is considered a Level 1 tnaatmnent, but the F{FlFB is a Level 2. KPG has recently been contracted to assist staff with the engineering for oroaevva|k siting studkeG, development of general RFlFB p|one' and other needs that may come up on an on -call basis. It is likely that additional consultants would also be retained for on -call engineering services to support the NTCP The NTCPis agreat program that brings staff closer b»the community which helps staff understand their needs and issues. In order to keep up with the requests in a tirne|y, professional and safe rnanner, o more orgmnized, programmatic traffic calming program is needed. To reach this point' dedicated staff are required to provide accurate ranking and studies as well as to install and maintain the additional infrastructure. Additional staffing will move this new program into one that complies fully with the adopted NTCP. RECOMMENDATION � � Information only. Committee is being asked to have the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Prwgnorn update presented to full Council at the August 26, 2019 Committee of the Whole. ATTACHMENTS � � Page O.2O19QP ° Resolution No. 1955—Neighborhood TraffioCo|nning Program * Map of2U1SNTCPimprovements * Matrix ofDescription ofTraffic Calming Methods * Matrix ofTraffic Calming Methods — General Overview CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2019 to 2024 PROJECT: Traffic Calming/Residential Safety Improvements Project No. 90210301 Programmatic approach to addressing neighborhood traffic concerns through a variety of methods. DESCRIPTION: Residential street improvements with sidewalks, safety improvements, and bike facilities. JUSTIFICATION: Neighborhood revitalization by improving residential streets. STATUS: Future candidates are listed in the citywide comprehensive update and safety -based prioritization of residential street improvements, sidewalks, and bike lanes. MAINT. IMPACT: Varies, depends on treatment(s) used. COMMENT: Residential improvements have included 42nd Ave S, 53rd Ave S. Speed cushions installed at S 160th St. FINANCIAL (in $000's) EXPENSES Design Land (RAN) Const. Mgmt. Construction TOTAL EXPENSES Through Estimated 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 BEYOND TOTAL 9 38 47 0 80 320 400 80 320 400 80 320 400 80 320 400 80 320 400 80 320 400 80 320 400 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant Proposed Grant Mitigation Actual Mitigation Expected City Oper. Revenue TOTAL SOURCES 47 47 0 0 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 569 0 0 2,278 2,847 r-- 0 0 0 0 2,847 2,847 Project Location 2019 - 2024 Capital Improvement Program 8 5 6 Washin Resolution No. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE "CITY OF TUKWILA NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM." WHEREAS, one of the top concerns of Tukwila community members is speeding and other dangers associated with motor vehicles; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for non -motorized street users; and WHEREAS, the adopted Tukwila Comprehensive Plan recommends implementation of a neighborhood traffic calming program in both the Transportation Element and the Residential Neighborhoods Element; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to document a transparent, predictable and equitable process for implementing effective traffic calming measures in neighborhoods throughout the City; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The "City of Tukwila Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program," as evidenced in Exhibit A, is adopted. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Special Meeting thereof this lez/TH day of e 0 hp , 2018. AlI EST/AUTHENTICATED: Christy 0' APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Rachert. Turpin, City Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A — City of Tukwila Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program WAINord Processinglisleighborhood Traffic Calming Program 11-30-18 LH:* Verna e Cou President Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Counc Resolution Number: Page 1 of 1 7 8 CITY OF TUKWILA PU . LIC 0 KS DEPA ' T ENT Adopted December 10, 2018 By Resolution No. 1955 9 Table of Contents OBJECTIVES 1 PROCESS STEPS 1 INITIATING A REQUEST 1 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION 2 SOLUTION ALTERNATIVES 2 No Action 3 Level I 3 Level II 3 PROCESS FOR QUALIFYING FOR LEVEL II TREATMENTS 3 PLAN DEVELOPMENT 4 PROJECT FUNDING 4 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 5 EVALUATION 5 RE -ENROLLMENT 5 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS OF TYPES OF STREETS APPENDIX B: PRIORITY RANKING WORKSHEET 10 Introduction Traffic conditions on residential streets greatly affect neighborhood livability. Speeding and unnecessary through -traffic in neighborhoods create safety hazards on residential streets. The City of Tukwila Public Works Department has developed a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) to guide City staff and inform residents about the procedures for implementing traffic calming on residential streets and collector streets. The NTCP is designed for local residential streets and collector arterials only. The NTCP does not apply to local or arterial streets in commercial areas or to streets classified as principal or minor arterials. As defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), traffic calming is the application of measures which can be taken which reduces the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alters driver behavior and improves conditions for non -motorized street users. The City's NTCP outlines a process for staff and residents to carry out a traffic calming program. It provides a way to objectively prioritize traffic calming requests. These procedures incorporate prioritization, planning, evaluation, implementation, and maintenance of the traffic -calming devices in residential areas. It also combines the four E's — Education, Engineering, Enforcement and Emergency Services. Objectives The primary goal of the City's NTCP is to improve the livability of the local streets and residential collectors. The City has identified the following objectives: • Provide alternative solutions to reduce vehicular speeds and accidents on residential streets. • Endorse safe and pleasant conditions for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and residents of neighborhood streets. • Provide a means for a collaborative working relationship between City staff and neighborhood residents in development of traffic calming measures. • Discourage use of residential streets for cut -through vehicular traffic. Process Steps Initiating a Request Request for traffic calming assistance can come from a resident's association or from concerned individuals. Requests can be made in writing by clearly stating the problem and location, accompanied with completed application which is provided by the City. The request can be made by either mailing or emailing the request to the Public Works Department. The request must include a contact name, address, phone number and email. 1 11 Staff will then acknowledge the completed application in writing to the resident's association or to the contact person listed in the application. An application fee could be implemented in the future to offset some of the costs involved. Preliminary Evaluation Each street in the community is a part of the larger roadway network that connects residents to each other, work, schools, goods, services and the countless destinations to which drivers and pedestrians travel daily. Common issues within neighborhoods include speeding, traffic volumes, and the utilization of neighborhood streets as a cut -through route, among others. In order to ensure that traffic calming concerns are addressed in an equitable manner, staff must assess the situation by reviewing the request and determining if the area qualifies for treatment using set criteria. The primary purpose of a preliminary evaluation is to determine whether the speeding or accident situation is significant enough to warrant further study. At this stage, staff collects data to analyze it to determine whether: • The roadway is eligible for traffic calming treatment. o Only residential streets classified as collector arterial or local access are eligible. • City recorded data supports the problem identified in the application. o Speeding: Traffic counts are taken to determine if 15% of the motorists travel at 5 mph or more above the posted speed limit. This is also referred to as the 85`11 percentile speed being at or above 5 mph over the speed limit. o Volume: Traffic counts also collect the number of daily vehicles on a street. This information is used to determine the best type of solution and is used to rank project priorities. o Traffic Accidents: The number of accidents for over a three-year period is collected and studied. The Public Works Director has the discretion to move an application forward or to address any safety issues discovered outside of the NTCP process. If the analysis confirms that a traffic problem exists based upon the above criteria, the Public Works Department will conduct a traffic calming study as explained in the following sections and staff calculates the priority score for the street segment using the Priority Worksheet in Appendix C. A written response back to the contact person with the findings of the preliminary evaluation is generally provided within 60 calendar days of the request. Solution Alternatives The solution alternatives are defined into three levels. 2 12 No Action After data collection and analysis is complete, any location not meeting the above criteria will be determined to not be eligible for any NTCP assistance. Staff will inform the applicant in writing that their request does not meet the City criteria for action and the request will be closed. Level I The first level improvement for traffic calming that should be considered are passive traffic control treatments, known as Level I. Level I improvements are less restrictive measures, and do not require a vote of the affected residents. The improvements used in Level I include: trimming bushes to allow better sight distance; pavement markings and striping; increased police enforcement; traffic speed display signs; neighborhood awareness campaigns; and education. This reduces the need for installing physical devices on every local street. If a marked crosswalk is recommended for installation where ADA-compliant ramps do not currently exist, the improvement will be automatically treated as a Level II solution. Level H Level II improvements should be considered only after Level I treatments have been in place for a minimum of 6 months and data collection and analysis indicate the problem(s) has not been resolved, or as determined by the Public Works Director. Level II improvements focus on physical devices such as speed cushions, traffic circles, and chicanes to calm traffic. These solution alternatives are much costlier than Level I and are generally permanent. Therefore, a more detailed evaluation is required and approval by key departments and impacted area residents is required before the implementation. The detailed evaluation includes as follows: • The speed, volume and accident history collected during the preliminary evaluation. • Collect new traffic speed and volume data and accident history for the past three consecutive years. • Other factors such as proximity to schools, parks and other pedestrian generators, lack of sidewalks, accessibility, presence of bicycle facilities, and other roadway characteristics. • Identify users of the affected streets. • Identify traffic and major pedestrian generators, such as schools, parks and shopping centers. • Analyze street use with respect to street classification. • Document any other relative factors. Process for Qualifying for Level II Treatments If the traffic problem(s) has not resolved with Level I treatments, an impact area is established by staff after identifying users of the affected street(s), identifying major traffic generators such as schools and parks, analyzing the actual street use with respect to roadway classification, and any other relative factors. The impact area includes the location requesting treatment as well as other streets in the immediate area that could be impacted by Level II treatment installation. 3 13 Plan Development Once an area has been selected for a traffic -calming project, steps need to be taken to determine solutions. The applications are prioritized based on the scores. The highest-ranking applications will be given priority in moving forward into Plan Development, as funding allows. Since Level I solutions are simpler in scope, the solution formulation process can usually be handled by staff. Public meetings are not usually required, although some type of public communication is beneficial and recommended. Level II improvements require a more comprehensive plan development due to the higher cost and impact of the actions taken. A public meeting with all affected residents may be held, as determined by the Public Works Director. The initial public meeting will: • Discuss the steps to develop a traffic -calming plan. • Gather additional information regarding traffic problems and related neighborhood needs. A ballot may be provided to each resident, either in person or via the postal service, to vote to indicate support of the NTCP plan. The implementation plan must receive at least 2/3 approval of all residents on the impacted street in order to proceed. In addition to the community support, the approval of the following public officials is required: • City Police and Fire Departments • City Council Once the necessary level of support is documented, projects may be funded and constructed according to their prioritization and as available staffing and budget permits. In cases where a Level II request does not receive sufficient support, the project is dropped from the list and the next highest ranked project can go through the same process. Residents in an area where a project has been dropped are able to resubmit their request for the following program year. Project Funding The number of traffic -calming projects undertaken each year depends on the City's budget and staffing availability. The City Council's Transportation & Infrastructure (or successor) Committee will be kept apprised on projects both proposed and selected on a regular basis, and the City Council will be notified of the NTCP's progress and expenditures at least every six months. In some cases, landscaping, maintenance and necessary easement dedication may be the responsibility of the residents or the homeowner's association. If this is the case, an agreement must be signed between the City and residents before the project is implemented. 4 14 Project Design and Construction Once traffic -calming treatments have been determined, the City's staff or a consultant develops the detailed plan, based on the study and the residents' input. The traffic calming device will be installed. In some situations, a test installation may be warranted to assure that the device is both effective and truly desired by the community. In this case, within three to twelve months after installation, staff evaluates how well the test installation perfoimed in teims of the defined problems. Evaluation An evaluation shall be conducted between six months to one year after the implementation of any permanent traffic calming devices. Speed, volume and collision data is collected and compared with the data collected before the installation of the traffic -calming device. The data collection should be done at approximately the same time of year as the original data collection. Re -enrollment If additional traffic calming treatments become necessary in the future due to changes in traffic patterns unrelated to the NTCP treatments, requests can be made for a new enrollment 12 months or more after the last evaluation period has been completed. The submission will be treated as a new request beginning with preliminary evaluation and will follow the NTCP process. Any future traffic calming treatments will be scored and ranked along with all other active requests and are subject to funding and staffing availability. 5 15 Appendices 16 Appendix A: Definitions of types of streets The City's Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan defines the street functional classifications. For the sake of this program, only residential local streets and collector arterials are eligible for NTCP treatments. Streets in commercial areas or which are classified as principal or minor arterials are not eligible for treatments under this program. Traffic calming on principal and minor arterials is very different than on residential streets, requiring substantial design, permitting, environmental approval, and budget in order to construct. These calming projects are developed into standalone capital improvement projects. Local streets (typical speed limit 25 mph) serve local circulation needs for motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrian traffic and provide access to residences and some businesses. Local streets are not intended to carry significant volumes of through traffic. Sixty to 80 percent of the roadway network is considered local streets. Collector arterials (typical speed limit 30-35 mph) are typically streets that provide access between local service streets or from local streets to thorough -fares. Collectors often carry some through traffic. Collectors in residential areas are eligible for NTCP treatments whereas collectors in commercial areas are not. Five to 10 percent of the roadway network is classified as collector arterials. Minor arterials (typical speed limit 30-40 mph) are streets which are typically wider and may have more lanes than collectors which connect the smaller arterial streets to destinations or to the regional roadway network. Minor arterials carry a large percentage of through traffic as well as traffic from the local area. Ten to 20 percent of the streets in network are minor arterials. Principal arterials (typical speed limit 35-50 mph) are major streets and highways that provide regional connections between major destinations. Speeds are higher, access and traffic control favors providing fast and smooth movement on the arterial over the lower classified streets. Five to 10 percent of a roadway network is classified as principal arterials. 17 El LE.OFNItl Roadway Classification —,-- Freeway - Principal — Minor Collector 77; City of Tukwila C.: Potential Annexation Area N1OT TO SCALE 18 ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION Appendix B: Priority Ranking Worksheet Location: Date: Staff Name: Catelt)t.y Accidents: Five points for each recorded accident over the past three years. Three additional points will be added for each accident with a recorded injury. Volume: Average weekday traffic volume divided by 100, rounded up to the nearest whole number. Maximum of 7 points possible. Speed: Five points for every mph greater than 5mph above the posted speed or (85th percentile speed - posted speed limit - 5) x 5 points. Sidewalks: Five points if there is not a continuous sidewalk on one side of residential streets or both sides of collectors. Pedestrian Generators: Five points for every K-12 school on and 2 points for school property within 500 ft of the subject street. Three points for other major pedestrian generator on the subject street. Major pedestrian generators may include parks, community centers, senior housing, or other uses with sinificant sedestrian traffic. Data Total Points: Score 19 20 City of Tukwila NTCP 2019 Installations NOT TO SCALE Pending LED Curve Signs IPA Speed Cushion Radar feedback tD LED Stop Sign RRFB Crossing School Zone Flasher Map Legend • City Facility City Bathroom • Fire Station Police Facility School Trail Street Tukwila Park Waterbody City Limits 21 22 Descriptions of Traffic Calming Methods Method Description Speed Watch Program Radar Speed Signs , Residents check out radar gun and gather speed data inspot locations ^ Data gathered isused k)validate other speed data • Residents learn what certain speeds "feel like" when standing on or near the roadway , Solar powered signs can be installed permanently or rotated ^ Can bHused inconjunction withVtamo enforcement emphasis -- traffic officers can be found further down the road to provide police back up of the legal speed limit Targeted Enforcement , A progressively stricter enforcement schedule with low thresholds for citations • Traffic officers work a select location over a period of time, graduating from marked police cars to ultimately unmarked cars Striping Vegetation Trimming - Installing center, walkway, and edge line markings to narrow or modify the travel lanes , Unique striping in individual cases can be used successfully , Striping can include yellow center skip strip white edge lines wording onpavement oodwalkways and bike lanes marked crosswalks , Applications are determined iOeach instance and can bemodified tofit individual needs , Paint cannot boapplied year round — weather dependent installation , Striping anunntripodroadway gives the appearance Vf8narrowed road and assigns where vehicle and pedestrian areas are located P.1 1mt e ("I ON Poxnre� -- / � � ~ !, City crews will trim vegetation in public i h)improve sight distance c8intersections, sign visibility, orgeneral safety Vegetation that is in private property can only betrimmed bvcity crews ifimpeding sight distance orcreating osafety hazard Property owners are always first encouraged to trim their private plantings Improved Signage Signs already inplace may bo improved by installing lamer signs,orLEDenhanCodsigns New signs may beinstalled oowarranted Existing signs may be relocated to provide maximum impact Traffic Safety Campaign ^ This effort not currently defined bvTukwila , Could include development oftraffic safety brochures orflyers , Could bedeveloped Vnincorporate local high school education , Could be jointly implemented using the PDSprint program and targeted enforcement Multi -way Stop ,All-wayormulti-way stops are installed at intersections where traffic flows are generally fairly equal Onall legs , Engineering warrants must bemet before installation can occur Pedestrian Safety Measures , Improvements can include: Sidewalk orwalkway installation Crosswalk installation paint textured pavement treatment Pedestrian signals (RRFB'HAYVK) Pedestrian scale lighting improvements Pathways Raised crosswalks Mid -block crossings with orwithout refuge area , Sometimes called planter islands, these are typically long and narrow islands placed inthe middle ofroads etintersections ^ 0nwide streets, curb extensions may beused on both sides (fthe roadway while still maintaining 2 lanes of roadway width ~ In some cases, pedestrian amenities such aoraised crosswalks, decorative pavement, orsimple painted crosswalks are also included eapart ofthe treatment ^ May also include additional street lighting for the intersection and decorative entrance signs 23 ' Traffic Circle 'SoeadCunh�O � Turn Prohibitor: Signing restrictions Turn Prohibitor: |Physical deterrent � Diagonal Road Closure Street Closure Descriptions of Traffic Calming Methods Description , Round islands installed atintersections tUforce traffic tOcircle around the island, thus disrupting the flow of traffic ~ Less expensive traffic circles can be painted0Othe asphalt, marked with � raised pavement markers , More costly traffic circles are made with curbing and back filled with asphalt , The most expensive traffic circle toconstruct include curbing and removal of existing asphalt from the center. Soil and approved landscaping are installed wru ,Aseries of tight turns inastraight section of road that restricts traffic speeds , Fire Code may limit chicanes orany other treatment from narrowing the road � toless than 2Ofeet ^ Chicanes can bemade of wooden traffic barricades, curbing with fencing, curbing with asphalt back fill, urcurbing with landscaping • Can be combined with on -street parking ,Araised mound across the roadway that reduces speeds 3Svehicles travel over them ^ TUbaeffective, should boplaced 3OO500feet apart and installed in8 series oftypically etleast 2cushions , Not recommended onprimary emergency response routes OrVnmajor transit routes ~ Signs are placed atintersection to restrict certain turning movements ortoonly allow acertain movement ~ Restrictions can beall the time orcan boduring certain times ofday only , Also known aahalf orpartial closures Urdkmrtnm , Physically directs traffic flow atintersections, prohibiting specific movements , Many variations can beimplemented, depending onthe need of the particular street , Can becombined with pedestrian amenities such as textured pavement orraised crosswalks . ,Diagonal road closure completely closes 8road to through traffic without completely closing aroad ^ Diagonal divoderocan beused k>fully orpartially divert traffic , Implementation can bedone hvusing wooden barricades, concrete barricades, curbing, and landscaping ^ Diagonal divartensare not applicable inmost places eominimum travel lane widths 0f2Ofeet must still bemaintained , Streets are closed to through traffic bvforming aoul-de-sam hammerhead , Additional hght-of-wavmay bonecessary 10construct the ou|'d8-oauor hammerhead ^ Street closures are not applicable inmost locations (. � � H' *q°��| / /| . 1� � 24 Method Potential Degree of Effectiveness Advantages Traffic Calming Methods - GENERAL OVERVIEW Disadvantages Volume Speed Noise & Safety Access Reduction Reduction Pollution Restrictions Emergency Vehicle Access Dependence on Police Enforcement Operation Maintenance and/or Cost/ Construction Problems Cost Speed Watch Program Radar Speed Trailer Target Enforcement Striping Vegetation Trimming Mild d Mild Mild Mild • Educates residents on what the legal speed limit "feels" like from a pedestrian stand point. Educates motorists of their current, actual speed of travel Makes motorists aware of the activeness of the community the are driving through. • Does not reduce speeds or volumes. • Only changes behavior in motorists while in place. • Some motorists use the reader board to "clock" how fast they can go. o Only when Present N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A • • Reduces speeds and raises awareness of drivers. Does not require infrastructure construction Can promote slower traveling vehicles Best in correcting vehicles traveling in middle of road Can significantly reduce speeds of users Increases visibility. • Effective only when program is ongoing • Staffing needs vary based on area specific needs • Not commonly used method of speed control • Degree of effectiveness may vary substantially Very Sligh Yes N/A Possibly N/A Improved N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A None to High Low to Can be used in Moderate conjunction with target enforcement High N/A N/A Low N/A Unlikely Possible N/A Improved Signage Mild • Corrects sign deficiencies • Develop motorist awareness of regulations and restrictions • Must be constantly maintained • Must be constantly monitored • Requires monitoring and planning to avoid visual clutter • Probably not effective to habitual violator No 0 Unlikely Unlikely N/A Increased visual pollution Traffic Safety Campaign Multi -way Stop Gateway/ Entrance Treatment Pedestrian Safety Measures ild Mild to Moderate • Raises awareness, cooperation, and appreciation of general motoring public. • Creates more stopping points for vehicles • Addresses concerns at locations with conflict potential Moderate • Provides visual transition between arterials and residential areas • Can improve pedestrian crossing safety on wider streets Moderate • Creates clearly defined areas for pedestrians • Provides safer areas for pedestrians Traffic Circle Moderate • Requires reduction in vehicle speed without use of stop signs • Removes conflict potential for many types of accidents • City does not currently have a program established • Requires development of program and continuation of staffing and program • Impact may be reduced when "newness" of program is lost Possible N/A Possibly None Improved Improved N/A Possibly N/A Improved Slight N/A Improve ment No Problem N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 oderate Low to Moderate Moderate Low to Moderate Low N/A Moderate Low Low • Stop signs that are installed that don't meet engineering Slight warrants are often not obeyed by motorists familiar with the intersection(s) • Can reduces pedestrian safety if not correctly installed • Should not use Stop signs as speed control: stop signs should be used to define right of way at intersections only • Speed change could result in rear -end accidents • May move traffic/problem to other roads • Neglect of landscaping can become a sight distance problems • Neglect of landscaping can become neighborhood "eyesores" • Ongoing maintenance costs • Definition of who is responsible for maintenance - possible landscape maintenance agreements with residents • • Sligh Possible Slight May be restrictive for larger vehicles or vehicles with trailers Possible May move traffic/problem to other roads May require additional lighting May be confusing for left turns May require additional Right-of-way Requires consideration for aesthetics Requires consideration for maintenance of landscaping, if used ikely Increased Mixed No Change None Possibly None Improved Mixed None No problem No Problem No Proble Moderate to High N/A N/A Low Low to Moderate Low Low to Moderate/ Possible Vandalism Moderate Moderate Improved None Some Constraint La Moderate Moderate/ Possible Vandalism CJJ Method Potential Degree of Effectiveness Advantages Traffic Calming Methods - GENERAL OVERVIEW Disadvantages Chicane Moderate • Effectively slows motorists traveling I through and approaching the treated section • Can be designed to improve pedestrian safety. • Moves traffic/problem to other roads May be restrictive for larger vehicles or vehicles with trailers May require additional lighting Can create confrontations between opposing motorists Fire codes requirement must be maintained Requires consideration for aesthetics Requires consideration for maintenance of landscaping, if used Volume Reduction Yes Speed Reduction Yes Noise & Safety Pollution Decrease Access Restrictions ixed None Speed Hump Turn Prohibitor: Signing restrictions Turn Prohibitor: Physical deterrent Diagonal Road Closure Street Closure Extreme • Reduces speeds of vehicles at and in the vicinity of the bump • Can be designed for any speed • Better if used in a series of 300 to 500 foot spacing. Moderate • Can reduces through traffic. Extreme • Reduces through traffic. Extreme • Eliminates through traffic • Provides for landscaping • Reduces conflicts • Increases pedestrian safety. Extreme • Eliminates through traffic • Can reduce speed of remaining traffic • Improves safety on the street closed • Causes increased noise from braking and accelerating vehicles, particularly if there are loose items in the vehicle • May move traffic/problem to other roads • Causes delays in emergency vehicle response time • Not supported by Fire Department • Can cause damage to fire trucks during emergency responses'. • Moves traffic/problem to other roads • Inconveniences local residents in gaining access to their property • Becomes an_ enforcement problem • Moves traffic/problem to other roads • Inconveniences local residents in gaining access to their property • Can affect emergency vehicle response time • Becomes an enforcement problem • Not viable in most locations • Moves traffic/problem to other roads • Inconveniences local residents in gaining access to their property • Not generally supported by Fire Department • Affects emergency vehicle response time • Reduces accessibility of emergency vehicles • Forces the problems onto another street • Reduces access to properties by residents Possible Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Possible Likely Likely Yes Increase at humps Improved None Emergency Dependence Vehicle on Police Access Enforcement Minor Constraint Minor constraint N/A Operation and/or Construction Cost Moderate to High Self Enforcing Moderate Maintenance Cost/ Problems Moderate to High/Possible Vandalism Moderate/ impacts street sweeping, snow removal Decrease Mixed Decrease Improved Decrease Improved Decrease Improved Somewhat Restricted Restricted Minor Moderate to - Low Constraint High Some Constraint Left or Right Some turn only Constraint Yes Moderate/ Possible Vandalism Moderate to Moderate to Moderate/ High High Possible Vandalism Low to High, High dependent on features Some Lo Constraint Moderate/ Possible Vandalism Moderate to Moderate to High High/Possible Vandalism City of Tukwila City Council Transportation & Infrastructure Committee TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes August 20, 2019 - 5:30 p.m. - Hazelnut Conference Room, City Hall Councilmembers: Zak Idan, Chair; Thomas McLeod, Kathy Hougardy Staff: David Cline, Scott Bates, Hari Ponnekanti, Han KirklanGail Labanara, Cyndy Knighton, Laurel Humphrey CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Idan called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. I. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Resolution: King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Staff is seeking Council approval of a resolution that would adopt King County's Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, which is pending approval of cities representing at least 75% of the population during the 120-day approval period. The Plan outlines programs to prevent, recycle, and dispose of waste, and includes six major planning elements: existing solid waste system, forecasting & data, recycling, transfer & processing, disposal & landfill management, and finance. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO SEPTEMBER 3, 01 REGULAR CONSENT AGENDA. B. Interlocal Purchasing Agreement: Job Order Contracting Staff is seeking Council approval of an Interlocal Joint Purchasing Agreement with the City of Bellevue which would provide access to the use of their Job Order Contract (JOC) for a maximum amount of $1,000,000. A JOC is a State -approved procurement method in which a contractor agrees to provide an indefinite quantity delivery of negotiated and definitive work orders from a pre -established catalog On contracts over a fixed period. The City of Bellevue's JOC has a $4 million capacity per year over three years, and this Agreement would allow Tukwila use up to $1, million of this capacity over the same period. The maximum dollar amount for any one work order i$500,000. Committee members discussed the proposal and requested that staff present this to the Committee of the Whole since it is a new method of procurement for the City. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. C. Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Staff provided a summary of progress and efforts to date for the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, which was adopted in 2018 by Resolution 1955 to address resident concerns about traffic safety. The program is taking off and staff has been installing new permanent speed feedback signs, LED enhanced signs, and parking restriction signs. Requests for new crosswalks have come in, but these require engineering study and are classified as a Level 2 treatment under the Program. Staff has contracted KPG, Inc. for assistance with engineering and may require use of other consultants in the future. Committee members and staff reviewed a matrix of requests that indicates rank, location, assessment information, status and more. Councilmembers asked clarifying questions. Chair Idan suggested adding requests and their status to the City's website. FORWARD BRIEFING TO AUGUST 26, 2019 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 27 28 COUNCIL AGENDA S Qpsis Initials Mee,tin� Date 06/24/19 Prepared by I Mayor's review Council reviei MD /26/19 MD MD ITEM INFORMATION STAFF SPONSOR: JACK PACE ITEM No. 3.B. ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 6/24/19 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Periodic Update of the Shoreline Master Program and Regulations CATEGORY Discussion Mtg Date 6/24/19 Motion Mtg Date ❑ Resolution Mtg Date Ordinance Mtg Date L_J Bid Award Mtg Date Public Hearing Mtg Date 6/24/19 Other Mtg Date SPONSOR ❑Counci ❑Mayor ❑HR ®DCD ❑Finance CFire CTS ❑P&R Police ❑P1V Court SPONSOR'S SUMMARY The City and Washington Department of Ecology are conducting a joint review process for the mandated periodic update of Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program and implementing regulations. The PC has forwarded a recommended draft of the changes to Council. The Council is being asked to hold a public hearing on the recommendations, review any additional public comments, give staff direction on further changes and adopt new ordinances. REVIEWED BY ❑ C.O.W. Mtg. ® CDN Comm C Finance Comm. ❑ Public Safety Comm. ❑ Trans &Infrastructure n Arts Comm. n Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. DATE: 2/12/19, 6/11/19, 8/13/19 COMMII'IEE CHAIR: QUINN RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. Department of Community Development Comm I°IEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED $24,750 AMOUNT BUDGETED $4,750 APPROPRIATION REQUIRED Fund Source: DOE GRANT $20,000, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUDGET Comments: MTG. DATE 6/24/19 Public Nearing held RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 8/26/19 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 6/24/19 Informational Memorandum dated 6/11/19 Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 6/11/19 Please Bring Binder Distributed Separately* 8/26/19 Informational Memorand Minutes from the 8/13 CDN Committee meeting 29 30 xty ���� ofu��nnmma �� n �0 -- �0 TO: Committee of the Whole FROM: Jack Pace, DCDDirector BY: QMinmieDhaKiwaU, Planning Supervisor CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: August 21,3019 SUBJECT: Shoreline Master Program Update m0_r 0� Allan Ekberg, Mayor ISSUE The City of Tukwila in required to periodically update its Shoreline Master Program and associated regulations for compliance with changes to the Shoreline Management Act, Department of Ecology guidelines, and legislative rules. BACKGROUND - ` The Grean/Ouvvarnioh River in Tukwila is categorized as a Shoreline of the State. In response to the State Shoreline Management Act (SK8A) and Federal requirements, Tukwila has adopted three documents related to the river — the Shoreline Master Program (GMP). Shoreline Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and zoning regulations in TIVIC Chapter 18.44 Shoreline Overlay. The City of Tukwila completed acomprehensive 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 SW1Aand Department ofEcology guidelines and legislative rules. As part of the current update an open house was held last October. Planning Commission held opublic hearing and made their recommendation tothe City Council. The City Council held a public hearing on June 24 th , 2019 and sent the item back to the Community Development and Neighborhoods Committee for recommendation. C)nAugust 13 m .2O1S.the Community Development and Neighborhood Committee reviewed the Planning {}onlnniaaion'o recommendations and the public comments received at the City Council public hearing on June 24 m.201S. DISCUSSION The Committee's recommendations are included as attachments to this memo. Attachment A includes staff response hnpublic comments. Attachment /\ was updated after the Community Development and Neighborhood meeting on August 13, 2019, to include the Committee's recommendations. Staff response to the Department of Ecology's recommendations is included aoAttachment 8. Additionally, there are two draft ordinances attached. One infor the Shoreline Master Program 31 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 The main areas of change that are policy related are listed below: A�dUU��� �m�bil�nKor Levee Profile Th ''e current 8K8P contains @ minimum levee profile with a mid -slope bench that is required throughout the City. In practice this has not always been the chosen solution for a given location and has required a shoreline variance even for designs with better environmental performance. The proposal is to retain the minimum levee profile as an example but allow flexibility to address site conditions and environmental opportunities without the variance process aslong aacriteria such as an overall 2.5:1 river bank slope (red line below) and native plantings are met. J-10, --1 Typical Shoreline Buffer in Leveed Aress-Width Will Vary / ' Maintenance Easement Reconfigured Levee |� ^ Reconfigured Slope averages 2.51 with bench � . — Vegetated Bench _Willows / ' �Existing Lwwv / / Ordinary High Water Mark Additional Flexibi|itvfor Floodwalls This update is happening alongside a discussion about flood protectionmeasures inthe Lower Green River Corridor Flood Hazard Management Plan. There are multiple alternatives under consideration including the question of whether future levees should be built toprotect against 500 year rather than 100 year flood events. This could require levees to be between 8.5 and 5.5 feet higher, which requires between 20 and 30 additional feet of width with a front and back slope of at least 2.51 or adding 3.5tn 5.5feet ofheight [o af|ood vva|| configuration without the need for anadditional 2Oto3Ofeet ofwidth. The current Flood Control District access road standard is 15', not the 10' built into our current buffer calculation so the total width of the levee footprint could increase by up to 35 feet. Allowing an alternative flood wall configuration to substitute for the back slope, especially where site constraints exist, would reduce the width needed and lessen the impact on adjacent property owners. Levees are so expensive to bui|d, and the consequences of levee failure are oosignificant that the need to allow site specific design solutions may be desirable to reach life safety and economic goals. Increased Hmiqht|ncmnlivmes The proposal ietoprovide incnaoeadbui|dingheightinoentiveeforpropertvovvnenaxvhoprovide shoreline restoration or shoreline public access above that required by code. The draft ordinance increases the shoreline foot height limit from 45toG5feet and allow another 15foot increase on properties that restore shoreline buffers or build shoreline public access amenities. These incentives would not allow heights greater than that permitted by the underlying zoning Public Access and Recreation 32 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 The Draft Ordinance allows recreational structures to be larger than 25 square feet and 15 feet tall for greater usability by the public. The trail width requirements are reduced from the 14 feet with 2feet shoulders tV 12feet with 2feet shoulders t0 match King County and City Park standards. Additionally, no additional public access is required if there is an existing trail on the property and access totrail is within 1000fest. Non-Comformmnq Structures The Draft Ordinance removes the cost limitation on alterations or improvements to non- conforming structures within the shoreline buffer if the buffer covers most of the parcel. Additionally if a non -conforming structure is demolished the footprint may be incorporated into an adjacent parking lot if the existing parking is accessory to a legally established upland use and any converted parking is located in a landward location. Also, the Draft Ordinance allows water quality improvements for non -conforming parking lots such as gravel parking lots can be paved. Veqetation Management The Draft Ordinance clarifies that permits �re quired ���remmvain vasive requires restoration planting to be monitored for survival for five years; and includes updated tree protections similar to the Tnaa Code update. During review of the Chdma| Areas update the Planning Commission recommended some additional consistency edits to how trees and vegetation are regulated under shoreline and these are reflected in the Draft Ordinance. The other proposed changes are technical edits and are described below: Consistency with State Reciulatimns As documented in the Gap Analysis report there are areas where the City's regulations do not reflect recent changes to State law. These include updates to definitions, new shoreline exemptions, and updated references to RCW and WAC sections. These changes are mandatory for consistency across jurisdictions. The proposal also includes language for revisions and time extensions for issued shoreline permits in accordance with State requirements. Streamlininq/Eliminati..n.9 Duplication The current SMP includes policies and regulations that were subsequently also adopted into the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. This duplication has given rise to inconsistencies and requires duplicate amendments whenever changes are made. The proposal is to create a multi- part SIVIP that spans these documents and includes the Shoreline Element and Chapter 10.44 byreference without repeating policy orregulation language. The current Chapter 18.44 Shoreline Overlay duplicates the environmental regulations found in Chapter 18.45 Sensitive Area Ordinance for sensitive areas within the shoreline jurisdiction. After discussion with our DOE reviewer the proposal is to eliminate this dup|icatinn, reference the regulations in 18.45that are currently being updated, and add additional language about applicability and limitations of that chapter. This does mean that adoption of the environmental regulation update will need to occur concurrently with the adoption of the shoreline update. Another proposal is to combine the shoreline use matrix and narrative list of uses into a single table for clarity. Similarly, the narrative discussion of shoreline buffers has been put into a table. Remunmberinq Some of the code sections inTIVIC18.44are quite long and therefore code citations can be4or 5 layers deep. This can be confusing and hard to use. Staff proposes to break up some of these long sections and renumber in the final ordinance format after the policy work is completed on 33 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 4 FINANCIAL IMPACT No direct impacts are expected due to these changes. The Department ofEcology has provided Tukwila with a $20,000 grant to offset the cost of hiring a consultant to assist with the update. RECOMMENDATI.O.N The Committee of the Whole is being asked to review the two ordinances and finalize their recommendation. The Department of Ecology will not approve the [ity'oShoreline Master Plan until the Critical Areas Code ieupdated and specific reference is added to the Critical Areas ordinance. Therefore, staff is proposing the following schedule for Critical Areas Code update: Community Development and Neighborhoods Committee -September 1O.2O1S Committee ofthe Whole Public Hearing- September 23.201S Community Development and Neighborhoods Committee -October 8.2O1S Committee ofthe Whole- October 14.2O1S Regular Meeting- October 21, 2019 for adoption of both Shoreline and Critical Areas Code. HKOENT - A. Staff -� bzPublic Comments submitted atthe City Council public hearing on June 24~' 2019 B. Staff response to the Department ofEcology's initial comments C. Example ofaproperty that has limited development potential outside the shoreline buffer D. Comments received onAugust S.2O1S.from Nancy Rogers, Cmirncrooe& Henlpe|nlann E. Ordinance revising the Shoreline Master Plan F. Ordinance revising the Zoning Code The previouslydistribu[ed binders also contain: 1. Shoreline Master Plan (clean version of the Planning Commission recommended SMP) 2. TK8C 18.44 (an annctated, atriheouVunder|ineveroion of Planning Connrnieoinn recommended draft) 3. TK8C 18.44 (clean version of the Planning Commission recommended draft) 4. f\matrix showing the PC'oresponses tothe public comments 5. Initial Determination letter from DOE The following documents were provided after the June 24m.2O19.City Council public hearing: 1. Public Comment letters provided to the Planning Commission and labeled D1 to O8 (these are referenced in the comment matrix previously provided in the binder) 2. Planning Commission meeting minutes from meeting Ootober25. 2018; March 28. 2019 and April 25.2O1S. 3. An electronic copy of the Shoreline Master Program (complete strikeout/underline version ofthe Planning Commission recommended draft) 34 SECTION PROPOSED CHANGE TMC 18.45.080 18.45.090 18.45.100 18.44.110.G. 6.d ATTACHMENT A Community Development and Neighborhood Committee Recommendations (August 13, 2019 meeting) including responses to public comments received at the City Council Public Hearing on June 24, 2019. ITEM COMMENTATOR Ion Manea, 13407 48th Ave S, Tukwila Jami Balint w Summit Law Group representing Desimoni Family ;ear a beneatin anon anfor, it o rna}a= be convey eci to a candour ua -kina lot area is Jemolisec and nark rq is a Bess use. The concert ted landward of conform r 3,r-,s rtu e e i !e cur3t,iaU o a legally estaalisn ark a area must be Estina arki. COMMENT SUMMARYISTAFF DISCUSSION The comments submitted were related to the critical areas code update and will be addressed as part of the critical areas code update. The Department of Ecology has expressed concern with the proposed revisions to TMC 18.44.130.G..6.d on non -conforming parking lots, allowing the area under a structure to be converted to parking if the structure is demolished. DOE believes this is inconsistent with SMP policies that do not support parking as a primary use within the shoreline buffer. Ms Balint suggested revising this section to clarify that paved parking will only be allowed if it is accessory to an otherwise permitted use. She also asked clarification be provided concerning whether gravel or dirt can be paved to meet stormwater or use requirements in situations where structures have been demolished. Jami Balint w/ Summit Law Group representing Desimoni Family 18.44.030 footnote 11 where ire i. '... ii ftv Planning Commission recommended increasing commercial fencing height from 4 to 6 feet to address public comments. TMC currently requires that chain -link fences be vinyl coated. Ms. Balint suggested adding language to clarify that temporary fencing does not need to be vinyl coated, as fencing companies typically do not have vinyl coated chain -link fencing available to rent. Page 1 of 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Defer to critical areas code update Staff has addressed DOE concerns and Jami Balint's suggestion and revised section 18.44.110.G.6.d in the Draft Zoning Code Ordinance. Committee Recommendation Committee agreed to defer discussion on this issue to critical areas code update Committee agreed with revised section No change Committee agreed that no change is needed ATTACHMENT A ITEM COMMENTATOR Joe Desimone, 5609 SW Manning Street Seattle SECTION 18.44.110.G. 2.a.(2) 18.44.110. G. 2.a.(3) 18.44.110.G. 6.d. PROPOSED CHANGE 18.44.110.G.2.a.(2) i truture is hate( u=tumm is located on a lent l shorelinelxu r. Tthe cost of the alterations may not exceed an aggregate cost of 50% of the value of the building or structure in any 3-year period based upon its most recent assessment, unless the amount over 50% is used to make the building or structure more conforming, or is used to restore to a safe condition any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. COMMENT SUMMARY/STAFF DISCUSSION Staff notes that no permit is necessary for temporary fencing and generally six months or less is deemed temporary. The existing code language only applies to permanent fencing. He shared his family owns approximately 80-85 acres of property in the City and they are here to work with the community and increase the public benefit. He made the following suggestions: 1) There should be no limit to the cost of alterations or renovations for structures located on a property that has no reasonable development potential outside the shoreline buffer. Jami Balint, representing the property owner has clarified that the intent of the proposed revision is to allow a property owner to invest in a structure when there is no development opportunity outside the buffer. The intent is to encourage property owners to invest in the property rather than let it become dilapidated (which could lead to transient and public safety issues). Their opinion is that the current code puts arbitrary limits on rehabilitation, which is more likely to result in abandoned structure than restoration of buffer areas. Limiting the dollar value of rehabilitation does nothing to improve the buffer. As an alternate to having no limit on the cost of Page 2 of 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION This change was included in the Planning Commission recommended draft and is reflected in the Draft Zoning Code Ordinance. Staff will revise the language based on direction at the Committee of the Whole meeting. Committee Recommendation. Majority of the Committee was not in favor of including the proposed language and it was decided that staff provide some examples where this provision could apply. See Attachment C for an example of a property that has limited development potential outside the shoreline buffer. The option for Council to consider are: 1.No change 2.Revise the code to have no limit on the cost of alterations if there is no reasonable development potential outside the shoreline buffer � PROPOSED CHANGE � ___ .� �DISCUSSION improvements one option they have asked City Council tOconsider iSb]revise the code to allow OOlimits On rehabilitation ifthe property owner agrees tOperform some buffer restoration aSlong 89the cost ofthe buffer restoration does not exceed the benefit ofimproving the � structure. � Also, note that the existing code GUovvG improvements greater than 5O96 aggregate cost |Fthe additional cost over 5096 i8for making the structure more conforming ortnrestore unsafe portions Ofthe structure. Also note. Ecology grants local jurisdictions flexibility when it comes to making nonconforming rules. Aslong aa the impact from development would not negatively impact oshoreline Orcritical area, then in Ecology's view, nonconforming structures could b8 repaired, maintained, replaced, and potentially expanded (as long GSthe level ofnonconformity /Snot expQDded). �~��������7� � ATTACHMENT �n ` STAFF Committee �RECOMMENDATION 3.Roviee the code 10 have nolimit onthe cost ofalterations if there ienoreasonable development potential outside the shoreline buffer and the proposal includes buffer restoration. Page 3 of 11 � ^ �n mpbstptHANGE Greg Haffner, Curran Law Firm representing 8tnandarLLC 18.44.030 footnotes 18.44.11O.G.2.@.(2) Maintenance nr repair m[ conditional use permit wlhen it does noli invo�ve ,_uSeofhazardous subs\ances' sea|anb5or other| 18.4411O.G.6 contiouounoaddnq|Otarea ifthe nOD- cQnfo/nninq struc1un2 is demolished Bndcn|Y to e ,eaallv es+abi.ished use. The converted O-Q area must be i1ccated landward of exisf'nn Request toadd anew footnote toshoreline use nlcddx stating that Vehicle bridges not permitted inthe transition zone COMMENT SUMMARY/STAFF 11�p DISCUSSION`'-~~-^�-^~� 2) Mir ormaintenance orrepair nfan existing private bridge beallowed without oconditional use permit when itdoes not involve the use ofhazardous substances or sealants. 3\Thearea beneath anon -conforming structure may beconverted toa contiguous parking lot area if the non- conforming Heshared that they submitted concerns to the Planning Commission. He repeated their request tohave afootnote added to the Shoreline Use Matrix that prohibits new bridges within the Transition Zone of the Duvvamiah/Groan River. He stated that the 8MPdescribes the Transition Zone as crucial in providing habitat for om|rnonidotoadjust tothe change between fresh and saltwater conditions. Extending another bridge across the river in that location will contribute tolighting, noise and vibration pollution that will be disruptive to am|nnon. Staff notes that per note 31vehicle bhdOeoare already STAFF RECOMMENDATION ' ~=_~ ^~^' This change was included in the � Planning Commission recommended draft � and ioreflected |nthe Draft Zoning Code Staff recommends changes tothis section to address this and OOE'econcern. These revisions have been implemented in the Draft Zoning Code Staff recommends no change. � ATTACHMENT �n Committee ~-000^~mr_`'`Committee agreed mgree with the proposed revision Committee agreed with the proposed revision Committee agreed that nochange ieneeded Page 4 of 11 ' COMMENTATOR ,SECTION Nancy Rogers, TMC Cairncroea& 18.44.030 Hernpe|nnmnn Shoreline representing Use Matrix 8egm|e Properties These comments were received on August S.2O19 `(after the public hearing) and are included as AthanhmertO. PROPOSED CHANGE '`- Replace public/private promenades, footpaths or trails with private/public open space. T--rp�� ; 'C�1; Delete footnote (2S) Parka, recreation and open space facilities operated bvpublic agencies and non-profit organizations are permitted COMMENT SUMM � ,'F ./ DISCUSSION- limited~~^.`���^ pub|ichg Essential streets are defined mslimited tolocations "where no feasible alternative location exists based onananalysis oftechnology and system eMlox�ncY�i i ^1O.00285 The purpose ofthis request ietoallow use ofshoreline buffer tocount towards recreation space requirement for residential development. TMC defines Open Space and Recreation space ao 18.O8585Open Space "Open means that area of site which is free and clear ofbuilding and structures and is open and unobstructed from the ground to the sky. 18.O8.G05Recreation Space "Recreation space" means covered and uncovered space designed and intended for active and/or passive recreational activity including but not limited tOtennis courts, swimming pools, cabanas, p|aygrounda, p|ayfie/da.orwooded areas, and specifically excluding any parking area, driveway, orrockery. 18.08.075Recreation Space, Uncovered "Uncovered recreation space" means an area ofground characterized byanatuna aurface, such as |mvxn, foreoto, or sandboxes (for nhi|dren'mp|my\. �The comments inthe email related to Critical Areas code update should be deferred. One comment related to shoreline use matrix could beaddressed sd this time. Since "open is mnon-deva|opment action it is more pertinent to revise the language as follows: Footnote CZS\ could be Page 5 of 11 � ATTACHMENT �� °Om,"=^te=_' �-k6coxmmendmtmm, Nodiscussion onthis item. Staff suggested that analysis of this item along with staff recommendation would be included for the Committee of the Whole meeting. Staff will revise the language based on direction at the Committee ofthe Whole meeting. ITEM COMMENTATOR SECTION 7. Counoi|momber � Robertson PAbPbSED CHANGE | 8K8P | 7.2 Nev Findimas of the Shoreline Section 72 hlventon//Characterization Reoort _ and Remtoret�n Plan �� This section summarizes findings from the |OVeOtO[y and Characterization Report and Restoration Plan elements of the SK8P update (AppendioeaA and B). These findings iOfO[nO the gO3|S, pO|ideS, regulations, and the development and application Ofenvironment designations. In this oontext, the key findings can be summarized as follows: ~ TheGnaen/[>uvvmnniah River throughout Tukwila is @ ChtiC@| habitat RySOu[Ce_f0r sa|rODnidSand other SDec|e0,Adult ,eru,'Ire food and iefurae from, ,-,.jah flows � _. _ , _ . "�°`''°`'"� '~""""""" ^"n� F-vvhicht�,@�extends from river mile 10 He�rn through the nO�hern City |inlha (see Map 2), vvhenajuveni|e salmon adjust from fresh to salt water habitat { losses oyerthe Ye@rs. A�d�oDaUyT��S[�8[ provides migratory hab�Gtfor nuDlen}us �8h apeciee, mgvvaUaeriparian habitat for a variety of wildlife. COMMENT SUMMARYISTAFF, A clear explanation of the critical habitat resource and the importance of transition zone is needed for context. /���������l� � ATTACHMENT o �� ��������r ,�-��- STAFF ` — ilttee Gtaffagrees and has indudedthe proposed revision inthe draft 8K�P ��`'~' ' Committee agreed �� the proposed revision Page 6 of 11 ^ ATTACHMENT A COMMENTATOR Councilmember Robertson SECTION SMP Table 3. SMP Section 7 Urban Conservancy Environment subsection C TMC 18.44.040 Footnote 4(a) TMC 18.44.050 E.4 (b) and E. 9 PROPOSED CHANT Replace the riverbank reslope requirement from 2.5:1 slope to 3:1 slope. COMMENT SUMMARY DISCUSSION A less steep riverbank allows more opportunities for habitat enhancement; improves slope stability; and increases the river water carrying capacity thus reducing flood risk. Page 7 of 11 TAFF STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff explained that the current standard is 2.5:1 slope in Urban Conservancy environment and 3:1 slope in High Intensity environment. Staff initially proposed that 3:1 slope be required for buffer reductions in both environments. No changes were proposed in the Residential environment, where the shoreline buffer is the distance required to setback slope from toe at 2.5:1 plus 20'. Planning Commission recommended staying with the current 2.5:1 slope standard for Urban Conservancy and 3:1 in High Intensity. No changes to residential shoreline buffer widths were recommended. Committee Recommendation Committee recommended changing from 2.5:1 to 3:1 slope in all areas except in the Residential environment where it is used to determine the required buffer width. The draft SMP ordinance shows the Committee recommended changes as shaded areas in the document. `»ITEM,,, � Cuunci|nlennber Robertson TMC 10.44.050.0 / 3. Height Restrictions. Except for bridges, Height incentive for approved above ground utility structureo, mnd� enhancement/restoration ofthe shoreline water -dependent uses and their atnuctures, to buffer should befor shoreline buffer preserve visual ooc000 to the shoreline and enhancement/restoration that iadone avoid rnoeaing of tall buildings within the | beyond what may otherwise be required. shoreline jurisdiction, the On@xnnunn height for structures shall be as follows: a. 15 feet where |000hsd within the River Buffer; b. 654-5 feet between the outside |8OdVV@Fd edge of the River Buffer and 200 feet of the OHWM. ' _... --..~.-A~a I.x,4/.~ .- .+...+.... .+.-..= thoc 35 feet above average grade level on shorelines ofthe State that will obstruct the view of aubatmndm| number ofresidences on mname adjoining such shorelines. For any building that ioproposed tobegreater than 35feet inheight in the shoreline juriediotion, the development proponent must demonstrate the proposed building will not block the viavvo of substantial number of residences. The Director may approve a 15 foot%, increase in height for project proponent provides restoration and/or enhancement of the shoreline buffer7-beyondwhat may otherwise be required indudina,_but not |ip?|ted to, paved o{ea,s_nO lonp8r jr e on (he_r.r0Q8i1y /n accordance with the standards ofTMC Section 1O.44. G &QOOO' ^V4soEtadioD Protection and Landscaping." |fthe required buffer has already been remtonad, the project proponent may | Page 8 of 11 ' RECOMMENDATION-` Staff has included the proposed change in the draft ordinance (shown as shaded). � ATTACHMENT �n MENTATOR SECTION PROPOSED CHANGE in order to obtain the 15 increase in height. , : acohrhann t TRA(' OMMENT SUMMARY/STAFF DISCUSSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENT A Committee Recommendation 10. Councilmember Robertson 11 Councilmember Robertson TMC 18.44.050. K. TMC 18.44.060. D. 3 K. Marinas, Boat Yards, Dry Docks, Boat Clarity is needed that demonstrated need Launches, Piers, Docks and Other Over- is to the satisfaction of the Director. water Structures 1. General Requirements. a. A dock may be allowed when the a,b icant has demonstrated a need for moor ade to the sat r t cn o rec cr d or n e oDn . ? tl a,` I`eer Iato icen'nve t are and are r 'es t available or cial or marina nooaaoe, floatjna moorage buoys; in, use moorage e erldock. Criteria for Shoreline Tree Revat. ?reii ree Removal and edetation nd Pdr,it sl all only be aadved b,° the of orrgm niav Dev -I oliow d Criteria as Clarity is needed so that the Director makes a decision if the applicable criteria are met. Page 9 of 11 Staff agrees and has included the proposed language in the draft ordinance (shown as shaded) Staff agrees and has included the proposed language in the draft ordinance (shown as shaded) Committee agreed with the proposed revision Committee agreed with the proposed revision w TEM COMMENTATOR 12 Councilmember Robertson TMC 18.44.060. F. 1.c. aoe on oubl e Tree conditionand health h Cit. ernation Trees present an imrninent hazard to The lie, It the hazard is not readily aooarent, the may reaUre an eval,Liation iii by nterr'ationai Society of Arborisis (ISA) certified reau ream 000. ices with tree aot c. On properties locatedlandward of publicly maintained levees, an applicant is not required to remove invasive vegetation or plant native vegetation on the levees, however n the remaining, = .buffer landwardofthe evee shall be irk roved and invasive ola COMMENT SUMMARYISTAFF DISCUSSION Exemption from removal of invasive vegetation and replanting should be only for the levees and any remaining buffer landward of the levee should be improved. ATTACHMENT A STAFF Committee RECOMMENDATION Recommendat Staff agrees and has included the proposed language in the draft ordinance (shown as shaded) Committee agreed with the proposed revision 13 Councilmember Robertson TMC 18.44.110.G 1.b . If any such non -conforming use ceases for any reason for a period of more than 24 consecutive months, the non-confoormina fo hts shah expire and any subsequent use shall conform to the regulations specified by in this chapter for the shoreline environment in which such use is located. unless r _ �a ablienment i a th ri a Shoreiin must be cool or °v`1 Use Pe Clarity is needed as to Shoreline Conditional Use Permit should be applied within two year from the time the non- conforming use ceases to exist. Page 10 of 11 Staff agrees and has included the proposed language in the draft ordinance (shown as shaded) Committee agreed with the proposed revision ITE1 COMMENTATOR SECTION PROPOSED CHANGE year period when the non -con° teases to exist. Water dee should not he considered discontinued nen they are inactive due to dormancy, or here the use voically seasonal. Upon request of the owner, prior to the end of the 24 consecutive months and upon reasonable cause shown, the City C2uoc£P may grant an extension of time beyond the 24 consecutive months using the criteria set forth in TMC Section A A 1 t.44P11 O.G.4. COMMENT SUMMARY/STAFF DISCUSSION STAFF RECOM EN©AT©N ATTACHMENT A Committee Recommendation Page 11 of 11 cn d, ATTAC��������N������F |� HMENT n�n~*x"nmxu�on u �� �^� �� U , Recommendations ����l� ���������� ��� u~���o������ � u�����0000��v+��U��ns � Ecology PecorOD18Dd8fioDs in red are neqUired t o comply with the SM[A (RCW90.58) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part 111). Ecology [8COD1DqeDdatiOOS in blue are reCornmended and consistent with SMA (RCW 90.58) policy and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part 111). :*���� .z Req'1 SMPSection 2 Tmkvv|m'm Shoreline Master Program Required and recommended c1hanges` DOE Rationale (underline = additions; sttikethtough � 2,1 SMP Components To comply with the SMA.Tukwila has included the following components in this Shoreline K8aohe/ Pmgnom(G[NP): Thi-c SIVIP document contains the SMA overview d backOroundn*�aimdbothe deve|npmmntqfthe * Outreach including acitizen participation process, coordination with state agencies, Indian tribes, and other local governments (see Section 2.4below) ~ Inventory, analysis and characterization of shoreline conditions, environmental functions and ecosystem -wide processes p Analysis of potential shoreline n*ahonaUon opportunities w Establishment ofshoreline environment designations * Evaluation and consideration ofcumulative impacts The Ghore|ineElement ofthe ComonnhenaiveP|an Contains f1he SMP aGoals and policies that have been adopted inthe Shoreline Element ofthe Comprehensive Plan (Ordin-ancm#, date) The Shoreline Requ|atinns ° Development regulations that have been codified inTIVIC18.44(Ordinance #.dahs), and ° Deve|Voment[aru|abonsthat have been codified inTyWC18.45 (Ordinance #, date) �City Staff Response The City isproposing togofrom astandalone Shoreline Master Program toamore integrated approach which includes SK8Ppolicies and regulations inother Tukwila Municipal Code Sections. |norder to � successfully make this transition the City must identify all code sections that will be utilized to meet the 8MP policy and regulation requirements. These provisions will beincorporated byreference aspart ofthe SW1P. .mmsuch they need tobeidentified with aspecific dated ordinance number, and itshould beclear within the SPWPthat any subsequent updates ormodifications tothese codified provisions will not be effective inthe shoreline jurisdiction until aformal SW4Pamendment has been approved byEcology iaaccordance with VVAC173-28-11O. / WAC173-26-1g1(2)(b) provides, inrelevant part, 3hoaelinennaoterpxogn7/nn/ney/n0hdeothorpn6iciemondn*gulati/no byreferencing aspecific, dated edition. When including referenced regulations within amaster program, local governments shall ensure that the public has anopportunity toparticipate /nthe formulation ofthe regulations or/ntheir incorporation into the master program, ancalled for in N/4C 173-20-20/ (3)(b)(i). /nthe approval process the department will review the referenced development regulation sections anpart nfthe master program. Acopy ofthe referenced regulations shall bosubmitted tnthe department with the proposed master program oramendment. /fthe development regulation /samended, the edition referenced within the master program will still be the operative regulation /nthe master program. Changing the referenced regulations /nthe master program tmthe new edition will require omaster program enveno)neni VVAC173-20'181(2)(c)also provides that, Local governments shall identify all documents which contain master program provisions and which provisions constitute part ofthe master | | Requirement 1:This revision has been implemented inthe Draft QMPordinance. Ordinance numbers will beinserted when the ordinances are Page 1 of 12 OE, Rationale ��r�"��/�� ons ATTAC����/���������l7 �� HMENT n����o n"�nu~o� u �� City Staff Response " Shoreline Design Guidelines that have been codified inTPWC18.44(ordinance #,da�') • Board of Arch ilectural Review Shoreline 'Ordinance #.date, ° Shoreline LandeceoeReouiremenisthat h�y�1�eencod�ed in Tk0C 18]�! De�n(Ordinance datel kionsonOv|dedinTMC18.OG(Ordinance #. date) Portions ofthe Criticai Areas Protectlon Provision that have been codified in TMC 18,45 (Ordinance date' w'th exclusions identified in Subsection 9 of this documerfand within TK4C18�44� a-2 SIVIP Section 3 Definitions used in the administration of the Definitions Shoreline [Waahar Program a+x4are incorporated into the Definitions Chapter cfthe Zoning Code TMC ' 18.O8.|nadditionto-the deUnibonaP/ovidedinTK4C |uhsdkction`1Where definifionsinTK4Cconflict vviflh state definitions, the definitionoonovidedinRCVVor VVACohaUcontrol ` — TIVIC18.0GDefinitions — 16OG21ODevelopment ^Oeve|npnlent"means the construction, naoonntruotion, conversion, structural a|h*notion, relocation, u/enlargement ofany structure that requires abuilding permit. ' � 18.06.217 Development, Shoreline |nthis case itappears that the City isproposing b]include the Shoreline Element ofthe City'oComprehensive Plan, along with portions ofTIVIC 18.00.TW1C18.44.TK8C18.45.TMC18.S2and TK8C18.GOaathe relevant policies and codified regulations that would now constitute the 8MPalong with the background and overview information still contained within the Shoreline Master Program document. (Ordinance #. date) should beadded atthe time oflocal adoption ofthis SW1P Periodic Review amendment and must boincluded with the formal submittal toEcology for final approval. The City proposed horeference the zoning code definitions section in TIVIC18.0Grather than have those definitions housed inthe SyWPnr duplicated inboth the SyWPand the codified TyWCsections of18.OSand 18.44.This approach iafine, but the definitions must beconsistent with those previously approved inthe SK4Pand with the SyWAand Guideline definitions ofRCVVQO.58.O3O.VVAC173'20-O2Oand VVAC173-27-O30. Ovdinanoe2347 adopted in 2011 codified the SyWP section 3 definitions intoTK4C 18.06. Hovvever, having all these definitions housed in one place outside the SK8Pcnu|d result in definitions within TW1C 18.06that are not consistent with definitions within the 8PNA.Additional clarification is required to ensure that if conflict does exist. the SWYA and Guideline definition shall prevail. This ionecessary toensure that the purpose, intent, and goals ofthe SMAare given the required weight when reviewing projects within the shoreline jurisdiction. Asnoted inthe Periodic Review Checklist, the state definition of ^deve|opment"was amended hoclarify that demolition isnot |development inthe shoreline. The City has added this clarification to Page 2 of 12 Requirement 2:This revision has been implemented in the Draft SK4Pordinance. These proposed revisions todefinitions in18.U8 have been implemented inthe Draft Zoning Code Ordinance otTPWC18.O6,The reference tosensitive areas tocritical areas will beaddressed inthe ordinance related tocritical areas code update. ATTACHMENT B Required and recommended + hand {underline = additions; stril throu deletions) "Development, shoreline" means, when conducted within the Shoreline Jurisdiction on shorelands or shoreland areas as defined herein, a use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; construction of bulkheads; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature that interferes with the normal public use of the waters overlying lands subject to the Shoreline Management Act at any stage of water level. "Development, shoreline" does not Ind or removing structures 'f tinere i< tier associated development or re- development Large Woody Debris {LWD': means v./hole trees oot wars and limbs attached, cut lodes at least 4 fir es in diameter along most of their iencth. root ds at least 6.5 feet Iona and 3 inohes in diamete oe ,vr?c'av oebr,s ;s (3 estal od §o as a efic'e ses.. 19a d na cnanel 3or !m'na Non -conforming Structure., Shoreline: means a tructure legally established nrior to the effective dates of the Shoreline Master P es not conform to orese standards of the program. rl 18.06.710 — 18.06.730 Change references from Sensitive Area to Critical Area. Critic,! Sensitive Area OE Ra he wrong definition. The required changes noted to TMC 18.06.210 and 18.06.217 are necessary for consistency with the SMA. Large Woody Debris and Non -conforming Structures definitions from the SMP are proposed to be deleted and replaced with a reference to TMC 18.06, but these definitions are not in 18.06. Need to add to 18.06 or explain why these definitions are no longer needed. Sensitive Areas should be changed to Critical Areas. This term has been changed throughout the City's code. It should be updated here as well for internal consistency and implementation. SMP Section 6 Shoreline Goals and Policies The goals and policies that lead and inspire Tukwila's shoreline actions are found in the Shoreline Element of the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan. These, along with the narrative in that Chapter, were updated based on The City has proposed to delete this entire section, except for the sentence that references the Shoreline Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan as noted in the column to the left. The City Staff comment for this proposed change, notes that minor edits to the Element are needed to match the 2011 revisions approved by Ecology. Page 3 of 12 st City Staff Response Requirement 3; In conjunction with the City's desire to reference the 2015 Comprehensive Plan's Shoreline Element in the SMP instead of duplicating it in SMP, the City has provided: (1) the specific ordinance and date of the Comprehensive Plan and Req-4 SMP Section 9 Environmental ly Critical Areas Within The Shoreline 'Also Required and recommended chant (underline = additions; strikethraugn deletions} the 2009 SMP and 2011 revisions approved by the Department of Ecology. 9.1 Applicable Critical Areas Regulations A. The following critical areas shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance TMC Chapter 18.45 (Ordinance ##, dete). adopted ;Dar- to d , which is herein incorporated by OE Fla The proposed language in SMP Section 6 Shoreline Goals and Policies is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the SMA and the existing Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan has not been reviewed for consistency with the SMA as part of a SMP amendment; therefore it cannot be used to fulfill the SMA policy and goal requirements of the City's SMP. Required: The 2011 Approved SMP Policies cannot be deleted from SMP Section 6 unless they are formally replaced by the Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan — any inconsistency between these two sets of policies and goals must be rectified during this Periodic Review Process. This can be accomplished by: • Providing a strikethrough/underline version of the 2011 SMP Section 6 Goals and Policies identifying the changes necessary to replace it with the current Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This is a SMP amendment and must be reviewed for consistency with the SMA and Guidelines. —OR— • Modifying the current Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan to match the already approved 2011 SMP Section 6 Goals and Policies. This would not require additional Ecology review for consistency with the SMA and Guidelines, because this would not include any edits to the approved language — it would only be a re -organization that changed where the City houses these policies and goals. In coordination with the incorporation by reference noted in Req-1, the City must identify the exact version of the Shoreline Element that will be utilized to meet the SMA requirements. Once an option is chosen to resolve this issue, an Ordinance No, and date will geed to be added to any Shoreline Element reference, because these Policies and Goals cannot be modified or edited wi?h{ i i a fom ai SMP amendment, Imient, Critical areas provisions proposed to be incorporated by reference into the SMP must include a "specific, dated edition." To meet this requirement the Ordinance number and dated must be added at the time of local adoption. Page 4 of 12 ATTACHMENT B City Staff Response (2) a strikethrough/underline version of the 2011 SMP Section 6 Goals and Policies identifying the changes necessary to replace it with the current Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Department of Ecology. Requirement 4: This ordinance date revision has been implemented in the Draft SMP ordinance and Draft Zoning Code Ordinance at TMC18.44.070. TIVIC 18.44.070 reference into this SMP, except for the provisions excluded insubsection 8ofthis Section: 1.VVeUands 2. Watercourses (Type F.Type Np.Type Ns) ' 3. Areas of potential geologic instability 4.Abandoned mine areas 5. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas | Such critical area provisions shall apply toany use, alteration, ordevelopment within shoreline jurisdiction whether ornot ashoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. Unless otherwise stated, nodevelopment shall be constructed, located, extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided without full compliance with the provision adopted byreference and the Shoreline Master Program. Within shoreline juriadiction, the regulations nfTyVIC Chapter 18.45 shall beliberally construed together with the � � Shoreline Master Program to give full effect tothe objectives and purposes ufthe provisions ofthe Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. |fthere ioaconflict or | inconsistency between any ofthe adopted � provisions below and the Shoreline Master Pnognam, the most restrictive provisions shall prevail. 8.The following provisions ofTPWCChapter 18.45 �donot apply within the Shoreline jurisdiction: � 1.Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay [TMC | Section 18.45.160) 2.Reasonable Use Exception (TK1CSection ' 18.46.180). 3. .Armeohs,and EnIforcen?wnt Pr zoedures � C.Critical areas comprised offrequently flooded � areas and areas of seismic instability are regulated bythe Flood Zone Management Code (TK8C �� ATTACHMENT �� ,CitySt�ff Response _ The City is also undertaking a Critical Areas Ordinance Update at this time. An update version of all CAO provisions proposed for incorporation into the SK4Pmust beincluded inthe final submittal for this GK8Pamendment, because all SyNP provisions must use "the most current, accurate and complete scientific and technical information available" [VVAC173-2G-2O1 (2)(a)].All sections ofTK8C18.45will need toboreviewed toensure that regulations and procedures that are not consistent with the SyWAorassociated Guidelines, such aareasonable use exceptions, administrative exemptions, waivers, appeals, permit procedures, and enforcement, are excluded from incorporation into the GW1P.See our SK8PHandbook ("hapter18for additional guidance on this topic. *The required changes herein are based onthe language provided within SK8FSection 9.A final version orupdated draft mtthe CAQ proposed tobeincorporated must besubmitted tmEcology for � review for consistency with theSK8/4 and applicable guidelines of i VVAC173'26' This may result inadditional required changes � necessary boensure that critical areas protection, reviews, and �permitting are conducted consistent with the SK8Aand Guidelines. 9.2-Change required for consistency with VhY\C173-20-221and RCVV 36.70A.480. Critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated bythe SW1P.Those specific (based nnordinance # and date) provisions are incorporated into the SMPtn meet the critical area protection requirements ofthe SPWAand will beadministered through the authorities ofthe SyWA. | The GMA(RCW 36.7OA48O(4)provides that, Shoreline master programs shall provide alevel nfprotection tocritical ' areas located within shorelines nfthe state that assures nonet loss oy shoreline ecological functions necessary h7sustain shoreline natural resources andefined bydepartment ofecology guidelines adopted -pursuant toRCkK0058000 Page 5 of 12 ATTAC�����*��������l7 �� HMENT u�v�^u oo�nu~xn o �� � Chapter 16.52) and the Washington State Building Coda rather than byTMCSection 18.44.OQO. 9.3Purpoee A. The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) and protection of critical areas cr.—I, defined aswetlands, watercourses, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife conservation areas, B.The purpose ofprotecting environmentally critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction is to: 1.Minimize developmental impacts onthe natural functions and values nfthese areas. 2 Protect quantity and quality ofwater resources. � 3. Minimize turbidity and pollution ofwetlands and fish -bearing waters and maintain wildlife habitat. 4. Prevent erosion and the loss of slope and soil stability caused bythe removal nftrees, shrubs, and root systems ofvegetative cover. 5 Protect the public against avoidable losses, public emergency rescue and relief operations cost, and subsidy cost ofpublic mitigation from landslide, subsidence, erosion and flooding. � G.Protect the community's aesthetic resources and | distinctive features ofnatural lands and wooded | hillsides. 7. Balance the private rights ofindividual property owners with the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas. O.Prevent the loss ufwetland and watercourse ' function and acreage, and strive for again over present conditions. O. Give special consideration toconservation or protection measures necessary toprotect or enhance anadrnmnuafisheries. RCVV36.7OA03U(5)ofthe GMAdefines critical areas as, "Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) kNe0endo Vdareas with acritical recharging effect onaquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas. "Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas" does not include such artificial features orconstructs euirrigation delivery systems, irrigation infrastructure, irrigation canals, o/drainage ditches that lie within the boundaries ofand are maintained byaport district orenirrigation district orcompany. The GMAGuideline (\AC173-2S'02O(8)defines critical areas as, (8) "Critical areas" aodefined under chapter 3670ARCNKincludes the following areas and ecosystems: (a) Wetlands; (b) Areas with acritical recharging effect onaquifers used for potable waters; (c) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areao� (d) Frequently flooded areas; and (e)Geologically hazardous areas. Abandoned mines are not onthe above referenced list and according to the Cdy'aInventory and Characterization completed aopart ofthe SyWP Comprehensive update in2O11.there are noabandoned mine areas located within the shoreline; therefore abandoned mine areas should be removed from the SMP critical areas list. The protection and regulation nfcritical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction ingoverned bvthe GMA.not the GMA.These references were updated to reflect the accurate WACs. *Similar issues with TIVIC1O.44.07Oplease amend both the GPWP Section 8and TMC18.44.O70for internal consistency and consistency with the above referenced RCW and WAC requirements. City Staff Response Page 6 of 12 Item - Req'S TMC 18'1D4'O10 � Classification of Project Permit Applications At juired,and,recommended changes the ientifc and teohn�a|infonna�jonavei{ab|ein the regulation and protection ofcritical areas asrequired bythe state Shore|ineK4anaoement Ao\according toVVAC173'2G-2O1 and \VAC17-,� 26'221� c�z5195 e-, 2 5�r� � C.The goal nfthese critical area regulations j-E-�'�` � zoh�ovor-4!ze-C���x�!c:�/:�tcr�c:rce.�r�c� lun:s is to rrovide a level Of to crtdca' areas located , ofthe_state that assuresnc net 1�oasofshoreline euplooicn|funcbVmaneneeservto sustain shoreline natuna|nasouroem. Critical areas currently identified in the shoreline jurisdiction are discussed inthe Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, which forms part ofthis Shoreline Master Program. The locations are mapped onthe Sensitive Areas inthe Shoreline Jurisdiction Map — Map 5,This map isbased nn assessment ofcurrent conditions and review nfthe best available information. Hovvever, additional sensitive areas may exist within the shoreline jurisdiction and the boundaries ofthe sensitive areas shown are not exact. It is the responsibility of the property owner todetermine the presence of sensitive areas onthe property and toverify the boundaries in the field. Type 3Decisions Matrix Type ofPermit Initial Decision Maker Appoa|Body DOE Rationale Shoreline buffer reductions and time extension for nonconforming uses/structures are not eshoreline permit type. All development and new uses within the shoreline jurisdiction must bareviewed for consistency with the City'eS[NP.but the only permit types that exist within the shoreline authorized by the SMAena Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, and �Shoreline Variances. All development that occurs within the shoreline Page 7 of 12 �� ATTACHMENT �� ��City Staff Response Requirement 5:This revision has been implemented inthe Draft Zoning Code ordinance. Proposed revision to18.1O4.O10has been removed. id, an cl 4pgels� Require ' TK8C1Q.44.120 Appeals Rec-2 TIVIC 18.44'11O ReqSubsection ' �o�,-Q An� L,enson aao�eve- o! reacindinoofa Shoreline |ooment na| Use permiL or |ine Var|ar-ice nlg&seeK ievYewfrgmlthe Non-Confonnin0PaMWngLotm. a. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed torequire achange inany aspect of at/uctunaorfaoi|itycovenadtheneunder including, without limitation, parking layout, loading space requirements and curb-outa, for any structure or facility which existed on the date of adoption of this chapter` ul/�|�ms ihm �r�_ch�n���fUaegl b. |fachange ofuse takes place oranaddition is proposed that requires an increase inthe area byenincrement ofless than 0100Y6.the 1 jurisdiction must beprocessed asashoreline substantial development permit, unless the activity meets the one of the narrowly construed exemptions from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process. These permit types are not consistent with ut-vxyu.boor WAC 173-27, and need to be deleted. This provisions hsnot consistent with RCVVgO.58�i80.which provides that (1) Any person aggrieved bythe granting, denying, orrescinding cf apermit onshorelines nfthe state pursuant hof7CkK0858.140 may seek review from the shorelines hearings board byfiling a petition for review within twenty-one days ofthe date nffiling of the decision aedefined inRCN/90.58.y40(6), RCVVQO.58.140(0) establishes the ''date offiling" and therefore the start ofthe 21-day state appeal period. The City'adecision onashoreline conditional use permit orvariance ionot the final decision because Ecology has final decision making authority onthose permit types. Replacement language kssuggested homore hoaccurately describe SyNPpermit appeal procedures for City staff, applicants, and the general public. This ionot asection that the City iscurrently proposing toamendment and the procedural requirements ofthe SK8/\and VVAC 173-27apply regardless ufthe specific language inthe GW1P.aothis io being suggested aaarecommended change rather than arequired change. a. The City staff comment onthe proposed SyWPdraft indicates that the City has a lot of parking areas within the shoreline buffer, o however, they debate how this section guides their use when the site iaredeveloped orchanges use. Reoommend|enguage bn c|erify th�� no, nhongesLo �xiat�ng non-con�onning parking /s nsquiredun[esmthesite isred�ve|ope�or�housaiaohan�ed�s �es�hb�d���a�baeoiionsbo|ovv o. Proposed re -wording hoclarify that this inapplicable ifnochanges hoanon-conforming parking area isrequired rather than ifitiwnot proposed. Also recommend adding clarification that any water quality Page 8 of 12 �� ATTACHMENT �� City Staff Response Recommendation 1: This revision has been implemented inthe Draft Zoning Code Ordinance sd | TMC 18.44,120. Recommendation 2/The recommended revision tn subsection G.ahas not been implemented. � � Subsection 8.caddresses change inuse or redevelopment. The recommended change to ` subsection 8.ohas been implemented aosuggested inthe Draft Zoning Code Ordinance at |MC 18.44.110. Requirement 6:This section has been revised to allow conversion hoparking area only when the existing parking iealready accessory hoanupland use and any converted parking ielocated 1na ATTACHMENT B equired and recommended chant underline = additions, trike hrou fe tions requirements of this chapter shall be complied with for the additional parking area. If a property is redeveloped, a change of use takes place, or an addition is proposed that requires an increase in the parking area by an increment greater than 100%, the requirements of this chapter shall be complied with for the entire parking area. t xit may be upgraded to improve water quality or meet local, state, federal regulations de ci iesulti in increase it non- - improvements cannot result in increased non -conformity. For example, if an existing gravel parking area is paved and treatment or detention is added the proposed upgrades cannot impact existing shoreline buffer vegetation, encroach closer to the OHWM, or include new impacts within the buffer such as stormwater treatment or detention facilities. d. This allowance is not consistent with the WAC 173-26-241(3)(k) Transportation and parking, which provides in relevant part, Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and shall be allowed only as necessary to support an authorized use. Shoreline master programs shall include policies and regulations to minimize the environmental and visual impacts of parking facilities. As proposed, this allowance to convert a non -conforming structure into non -conforming parking has no use nexus and could be applied on vacant property (with no authorized use) or associated with an unauthorized use. City Staff Response q=7 TMC 18.44.110 Subsection G.1.b If any such non -conforming use ceases for any reason for a period of more than 24 consecutive months the non -conforming rights shall expire and any subsequent use shall conform to the regulations specified L in this chapter for the shoreline environment in which such use is located, unless re- establishment of the use is authorized ter :ugh o U3.e Parrnit.vi w.w within the two-year period. Water - dependent uses should not be considered discontinued when they are inactive due to dormancy, or where the use is typically seasonal. Upon request of the owner, prior to the end of the 24 consecutive months and upon reasonable cause shown, the City may grant an extension of time beyond the 24 consecutive months using the criteria set forth in TMC Se . or.. . See also oq . The SMA only provides for shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, and shoreline variances. The State Shorelines Hearings Board is only authorized to review these types of permits. The authorization must fit into one of these permit types. Requirement 7: This revision has been implemented in the Draft Zoning Code Ordinance at TMC 18.44.110. Reccmme dation .3: This revision has been implemented in the Draft Zoning Code Ordinance at TMC 18.44.110. Page 9 of 12 item ''Settlo'" Req-8 TK0C 18.44.100 Shoreline Remtmmdimm GubamotionB' � Changeain ShowaUmm } Jurisdiction | Dueta Restoration. / 1.Relief may begranted from Shoreline Master Program standards and use regulations incases where shoreline restoration projects result in a change inthe location nfthe OHVVMand associated Shoreline Jurisdiction on the subject property and/or adjacent properties, and where application ofthis chapter'oregulations would preclude nrinterfere with the uses permitted bythe underlying zoning, thus presenting ahardship tuthe project proponent. a. Applications for relief, as specified be|ow, must meet the following criteria: (1)The proposed relief inthe minimum necessary to relieve the hardship; (2)After granting the proposed relief, there ianet environmental benefit from the restoration project; and (3)Granting the proposed relief isconsistent with the objectives ofthe shoreline restoration project and with the Shoreline Master Program. (4)Where ashoreline restoration project iacreated eemitigation toobtain adevelopment permit, the project proponent required toperform the mitigation ianot eligible for relief under the provisions ofthis section. b.The Department nfEcology must review and approve applications for relief. n. For the portion of property that moves from outside Shoreline Jurisdiction to inside Shoreline Jurisdiction as result ofthe shoreline restoration project, the City may consider the fo||owing, consistent with the criteria in TyVIC Section 18.44. 1OU.B.1a. (1)permitting development for the full range ofuses ofthe underlying zoning consistent with the Zoning Code, including uses that are not water orianted� (2)xvaiving the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit ifitinotherwise DOE Rafion'alo ..``' The City proposes toadd critical area buffers tnthe relief allowances of TMC18.44.100.B(1)and (3).However, this relief allowance must be provided consistent with the SW1A and Guide|ines, which provide that relief may begranted from Master Program development standards and use regulations resulting from shoreline restoration projects that shift the OHWM. Restoration projects that result in aohonge in the location ofacritical area buffer donot result inoshift inthe shoreline [}HVVM and would not besubject tonew shoreline use and development regulations. Shoreline jurisdiction isextended toinclude the any associated wetlands, but not their buffers. So larger critical area buffers oseresult ofashoreline restoration would not extend the shoreline jurisdiction and its use ordevelopment regulations onto portions ofthe property where it did not previously exist. Therefona, this relief mechanism ianot applicable tochanges incritical area buffers resulting from restoration projects. The proposed addition ofsubsection 2to18.44.1O0.Bksnot appropriately located within subsection Bbecause this section is title Changes /nShoreline Jurisdiction Due toRestoration. See suggested relocation into new subsection C. Shoreline Restoration Building Height Incentive. Howover, the allowance provided along with TyWC 18.44.05Oappear consistent with addresses the necessary view blockage issues consistent with RCVV9OS@,32O.which provides, Page 10 of 12 ATTAC��������������lF �� HMENT o���*o nnmxu~"� n �� City Staff Response Requirement 8:This revision has been implemented inthe Draft Zoning Code Ordinance ed TyWC 18.44.100. _ exempthnmtherequiementforasubstanda| development permit; (3)vvaiving the provisions for public access; (4) waiving the requirement for shoreline design review-, and (5)waiving the development standards set forth in this ohaphac d.The intent ofthe exemptions identified above in subparagraphs 8.1.c.(1) to B.1.o.(5) is to implement the restoration projects of the Shoreline KAaobar Program Restoration P|nn, which reflects the projects identified in the Water Resource Inventory Area (VVR|A) 0 Plan pursuant to Policy 6.2 of the SMP� a, — .~� u^rr",/"n«v^^nZn . ....w.. .�.�~`�... ��+ '�_ —I- 3.2. Consistent with the provisions of subparagraphs 8.1.a.1band 1.cabove, the Shoreline Residential Environment, High Intensity, urUrban Conservancy Environment Shoreline Buffewidth may bereduced tonoless than 25feet measured from the new location ofthe [)HVVMfor the portion ofthe property that moves from outside the Shoreline Jurisdiction to inside Shoreline Jurisdiction as o result ofthe —� -- ~'-_-_'~`~ Nnpermit shall beissued pursuant to this chapter for any new or expanded building orstructure ofmore than thirty-five feet above average grade level onshorelines ofthe state that will obstruct the view ofasubstantial number ofresidences onareas adjoining such shorelines except where amaster program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations ofthe public interest will be served. Page 11 of 12 ATTAC��������������l7 U� HMENT n���*x no~xu~n� o �� � ROM shoreline restoration project, subject hothe following standards: a.The 26-footbuffer area must bevegetated according tothe requirements ofthe Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section oraaotherwise approved by the City; and b.The proponents ofthe restoration project are responsible for the installation and maintenance of the vegetation. 4. The habitat restoration project proponents must record with King County asurvey that identifies the location ofthe DHVVMlocation prior to implementation ofthe shoreline restoration prn]oct, any atructureathatfall within the Shoreline Jurisdiction, and the new location ofthe OHVVM once construction ofthe shoreline restoration project is completed. 5. Shoreline restoration projects must obtain all U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers and Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife approvals as well eawritten approval from the City. C,Shoreline Restoration Bui|dinoHeiah'|nicenUve 1. Consistent with nvnviaions in TK8C Section i1wisdiction mav be increased if the voiect enhancement orthe shoreline ouner,oevonowhat mav otherwise be realjiied in accordance wilh the ! Protection and Landmcanin�., Additional Restoration and/orenhancement shaU � include: ! a. creahon ofshaU r (max s|ooe 5H1V)off channel neahno.habitat and/or b. removal of12-ioh roassame barriers to known or ontentia|fiwh habitat, and restoration of 'he barrier iba- DOE Rationale,, Page 12 of 12 |� ATTACHMENT �� �City Staff Response ATTACHMENT C / � This property ialocated ct 1OO55East Marginal Way. The entire property is within shoreline jurisdiction /200fe6t from the Ordinary High Water M8[h-{]H\NYM\ and majority of the property is within Shoreline Buffer (dotted portion -1OOfeet from OHWM). There is limited potential to develop outside the shoreline buffer area. The appraised value ofland is 1.718.S0Oand the appraised value ofimprovements isonly 113'8OO. Per the existing non- conforming provisions: 1\ The structures cannot be enlarged oraltered insuch away that increases the degree of non -conformity 2) The cost of alterations may not exceed onaggregate cost of5O96ofthe value of the building. The existing code allows improvements greater than 50% aggregate cost |Fthe additional cost over 5DY6iefor making the structure more conforming or to restore unsafe portions of the structure. 3\ |fthe structure ia destroyed bvaccidental means, the structure may Ua reconstructed toits original dimensions if permit is applied for within two years mfthe damage. 4) |fthe structure ievacated for 24months itiorequired 59 ATTACHMENT C Photos of the structures located at 10655 East Marginal Way. The property owner had proposed revisions to not have any limit on the cost of the alterations. Alternatively, the City Council may consider to not have any limit on the cost of the alterations in exchange for some buffer restoration. 60 cARNIcRoss<oHEmPLuvtANN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 524 2nd Ave„ Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 wwwcairncross,corn August 9, 2019 VIA EMAIL office 206.587.0700 fax 206.587,2308 City Councilmembers City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Comments on Proposed Updates to the Shoreline Master Program and Critical Areas Code Dear City Councilmembers: This firm represents Segale Properties LLC ("Segale"). Segale previously submitted comment letters regarding the Shoreline Master Program Update and Critical Areas Code Update. As detailed in these prior comment letters, Segale controls the large Tukwila South property, abutting the Green River ("Tukwila South"). Development of Tukwila South currently is governed by a long-term Development Agreement and a Sensitive Areas Master Plan, Some regulations are vested during the term of the Development Agreement, while others are not, and when the Development Agreement term expires, any regulations adopted by the Council now will apply. As a result, Segale is keenly interested in and impacted by the proposed Shoreline Master Program Update and Critical Areas Code Update. The Planning Commission could not address several issues and, therefore, Segale now asks that the Council address those issues. With respect to the Shoreline Master Program Update, Segale requests one additional change, to modify the proposed Code to clarify the types and amounts of recreation space allowed in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline in comparison to what is currently allowed under the draft provisions. Consistent with the City's goal to provide recreation space, we propose modifying TMC 18.44.030, Matrix, Recreation Space as follows (deleted text is shown in font, and new text is shown underlined, against the current draft text): nrogers@cairncross.com direct: (206) 254-4417 (03760090.DOCX;5 61 City of Tukwila City Councilmembers August 9, 2019 Page 2 P = May be Permitted Subject to development standards C = May be Permitted as a Shoreline Conditional Use X = Not Allowed in Shorclin Jurisdiction CREATION Recreation facilities commercial — indoor) Recreation facilities commercial — outdoor) Recreation facilities, including boat 1aunchin sublic space Private and public open Shoreline Residential Urban Conservancy High Intensity Aquatic Environ ment Buffer Non - Buffer But Non - Buffer Buffer Non - Buffer X P (23) P P P X X P (22) C (23, C (24) 24) P (23, 24) P (23, P 2625) C (23, C (24) 24) P (23) P P (3) P P (2-625) X 23. Recreation structures such as benches, tables, viewpoints, and picnic shelters are permitted in the buffer provided no such structure shall block views to the shoreline from adjacent properties. 24. Permitted only if water oriented. 25. Parks, 2-6Plaza connectors between buildings and levees, not exceeding the height of the levee, are permitted for the purpose of providing and enhancing pedestrian access along the river and for landscaping purposes. The effect of this amendment will be to create a clearer standard and allow more recreational space in a manner that is consistent with preserving the ecological function of the Shoreline environment. The provision as currently drafted permits only specific and very limited types of recreation space, "public and private promenades, footpaths, or trails." These types of improvements are not defined in the Code and therefore create unclear standards that are unnecessarily restrictive. Instead, we recommend utilizing the existing defined term "open space" and allowing recreational open space to be public or private. See TMC 18.06.595 (definition of open space) and TMC 18.06.665, .675 (defining recreation space to include certain forms of open space). This creates a broader and more flexible standard that will encourage both public and private developers to provide recreational open space. (03760090.DOCX;5 } 62 City of Tukwila City Councilmembers August 9, 2019 Page 3 This modified approach is consistent with the Statewide goal of encouraging reasonable recreational enjoyment of the Shoreline environment. With respect to the Critical Areas Code Update, Segale proposes two additional amendments, both of which address issues discussed by the Planning Commission at their final review of the regulations, and which issues the Planning Commission decided the Council was better suited to review. First, Segale proposes a new subsection to TMC 18.45.160 to address the circumstance where critical area buffers have already been set by an approved Critical/Sensitive Areas Master Plan and adjacent lands to those buffer boundaries have already been cleared and graded, As a result, these adjacent lands do not provide any ecological benefit and do not merit inclusion within buffers that will be expanded under the Critical Areas Code Update. This is the case with Tukwila South where Segale has spent years installing the necessary infrastructure and re -grading the land adjacent to the buffers set by an approved Sensitive Areas Master Plan. This preparation work for development was done consistent with the Development Agreement, an approved Sensitive Areas Master Plan, and City -approved grading permits. There is no added benefit to labelling previously graded lands as buffer, but there is a negative impact on the ability to develop the previously graded lands. We therefore recommend that the following language be added as a new subsection to TMC 18.45.160 (new text is shown underlined): The external boundaries of critical area buffers adjacent to lands that have been set by an approved Critical Area Master Plan (CAMP) 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, or other applicable regulations, so long as those external boundaries of the critical area buffers abut lands that have been cleared and graded ursuant to a Cit -a roved radin ermit, This limitation on ex ansion of buffer 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. The second requested amendment to the Critical Areas Code Update is to address the intent behind the Code as to what existing improvements serve to interrupt and terminate a buffer. As drafted, the proposed identical amendments at TMC 18.45.80.F.2.i and TMC 18.45.100.E.2.1, provide that existing paved public or private roads, buildings, and parking lots interrupt the buffers for wetlands and watercourses, respectively. During the Planning Commission's final meeting reviewing the SMP update, City Staff indicated that this provision also meant that any river levee would also interrupt the buffer. Segale recommends that intent be made explicit by adding "levees" to the list of improvements that interrupt a buffer. Segale proposes TMC 18.45.80.F.2 and TMC 18.45.100.E.2 be amended as follows (new text is shown underlined, against the current draft text): 2. Interrupted Buffer: Waiver for interrupted buffer ay be allowed by the Director as a Type 2 permit if the following criteria are met: {03760090.DOCX;5 } 63 City of Tukwila City Councilmembers August 9, 2019 Page 4 i) The buffer is interrupted by a paved public or private road; existin or future constructed levee; legally constructed buildings; or legally approved parking lots. waiver does not apply to accessory structures such as sheds and garages: e a 1 This We recommend the above amendments to the Shoreline Master Program Update and Critical Areas Code Update to facilitate the provision of recreation space and to ensure protection of Tukwila landowners. We appreciate your attention to this matter and would be happy to answer any questions. NBR:alw Cc: Ann Marie Soto Minnie Dhaliwhal Mark Segale Mike Pruett ( 03 760090, DOC X ;5 } Very truly yours, Nancy Bainb dge Rogers 64 NOTE: Shaded text on the attachment ("Shoreline Master Program" document) denotes changes made after the August 13, 2019 Community Development and Neighborhoods Committee meeting. See pages iii, 15, 22, 28, 29, 39, 40, 41, 47 and 49. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2344; REPEALING THE 2011 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM; APPROVING AND ADOPTING A NEW SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA TO INCORPORATE NEW STATE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Green/Duwamish River, a shoreline of the state regulated under RCW 90.58, runs through the entire length of the City of Tukwila; and WHEREAS, RCW 90.58 finds that shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that unrestricted construction on privately and publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and WHEREAS, RCW 90.58 establishes a hierarchy of preference for uses in shorelines of state-wide significance: recognizing and protecting the state-wide interest over local interest; preserving the natural character of the shoreline; resulting in long term over short term benefit; protecting the resources and ecology of the shoreline; increasing public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; increasing recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; and providing for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary; and WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.080 directs local governments to develop and administer local shoreline master programs for regulation of uses on shorelines of the state; and WHEREAS, Tukwila's current Shoreline Master Program was adopted in 2009 and revised per Department of Ecology comments in 2011; and WHEREAS, the City is conducting a required periodic update of its Shoreline Master Program per RCW 90.58.080 (4)(a)(i) using the joint review process with the Department of Ecology; and W: Legislative Development\SMP-Adopting update -repeal Ord 2344 8-26-19 MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 1 of 3 65 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Public Outreach Plan that incorporated a variety of methods to notify the general public and property owners along the shoreline of the proposed Shoreline Master Program update including an open house, mailings to property owners and tenants, notice in a stormwater bill, postings on the City's website, creation of a broadcast e-mail group who received updates of the shoreline review process and articles in the City's newsletter "The Hazelnut;" and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed a public review draft Shoreline Master Program, held a public hearing on March 28, 2019, and recommended adoption of a revised Shoreline Master Program to the City Council on April 25, 2019; and WHEREAS, an environmental checklist was prepared for the Planning Commission recommended draft Shoreline Master Program update and a Determination of Non - Significance was issued May 15, 2019; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on June 24, 2019 to review the Planning Commission recommended draft Shoreline Master Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed written and verbal testimony and approved revisions to the Planning Commission recommended draft Shoreline Master Program to address issues raised by interested parties, individual Councilmembers, staff and the Department of Ecology; and WHEREAS, notice has been provided to the Washington State Department of Commerce pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Shoreline Master Program established. The Shoreline Master Program with accompanying maps, as set forth in "Attachment A," is hereby adopted and shall become binding as of the effective date of this ordinance on all properties within the shoreline jurisdiction. Section 2. Repealer. Ordinance No. 2344, including the Shoreline Master Program adopted by reference in Section 1 thereof, is hereby repealed. Section 3. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/ subsection numbering. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. IN: Legislative Development\SMP-Adopting update -repeal Ord 2344 8-26-19 MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 66 Page 2 of 3 Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force upon approval of the Shoreline Master Program by the Washington State Department of Ecology and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2019. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Rachel B. Turpin, City Attorney Attachment A — Shoreline Master Program Allan Ekberg, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: W: Legislative Development\SMP-Adopting update -repeal Ord 2344 8-26-19 MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 3 of 3 67 68 TUKWILA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM December 14, 2009 Revised Per Ecology Letter March 24, 2011 PC Recommended Draft 4-25-2019 Prepared by Tukwila Department of Community Development with the assistance of ESA Adolfson and The Watershed Company This report was funded in part through a grant, G0600234, from the Washington State Department of Ecology. 69 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose and Background 1 1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction .............................. ................1 2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM ....... ... .............5 2.1 SMP Components 5 2.2 SMP Elements....... ..... ........... ...... ,.... ..6 2.3 History of SMP Planning in Tukwila ............. ........., ....................6 2.4 Current SMP Update Process ..7 3. DEFINITIONS ..... ................ 8 4. SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION —SUMMARY .8 4.1 Watershed Context and Shoreline Modifications .............. 4.2 Biological Resources and Shoreline Functions ...10 4.3 Land Use ............. .... .......... .... .................... ................ ......................11 4.4 Restoration Opportunities and Potential Use Conflicts..,.................13 4.5 Conclusions.............. .........................................................15 5. SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN - SUMMARY ..... .... .........................17 5.1 Background.. .. . .. ................................,..........,............... ............17 5.2 Assessment of Shoreline Functions ............... ... ...... ..._.............17 5.3 Plans, Programs, and Completed Projects ........... .......... 19 5.4 Restoration Opportunities. .........................,...... .............. ......,.......19 5.5 Potential Projects and Priorities.............. _.............. ............20 SHORELINE GOALS AND POLICIES 21 SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS 21 7.1 Pre 2009 Regulatory Framework 21 7.2 Key Findings of the Shoreline Inventory /........._.......... ........22 Characterization Report and Restoration Plan i 70 7.3 State Environment Designation System 23 7.4 Environment Designations ._—._^....~'—^'—.~,..—_,_'—_----l0 7.5 Determination ofShoreline Buffers ................................................... 3ll 7.6 Shoreline Residential Environment ...................................................366 7.7 Urban Conservancy Environment ......... ............................................ 388 7.8 High ............................................................... 422 #. SHORELINE USE REGULATIONS AND .................................................. 444 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS g. ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS WITHIN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION ..................................................................... 455 9'1 Applicable Critical Areas Regulations ..............................................455 9.2 Purpose'-,_,___.'''.—._.-'--._.--..'..'-.. . .......... lU. PUBLIC ACCESS T[}THE SHORELINE ................................................... 404 ll. SHORELINE DESIGN GUIDELINES .........................................................5ll 12. SHORELINE RESTORATION --_',—.—.—'—.'—.—'''.------'5ll 13. ADMINISTRATION —..—._—.--.~~----.---.--'—'.—.—.--.522 13.1 Applicability of Shoreline Master Program and Substantial Development ]Permit ....................................................... 522 13.2 Relationship t0Other Codes and ................................... 14' APPEALS ` ` ....................533 15. MASTER PROGRAM REVIEW AND AMENDMENTS ..—'—.—'.—.—'544 16 LIABILITY .................................................................................................... 544 SMP Public Review Draft Clean ii 8/21/2019 71 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Pre 2009 Tukwila SMP Shoreline Management Zones (1974 SMP; TMC 18.44) 22 Figure 2. Briscoe Levee Profile .......... .... . . ... . . . . . ................... . . . . . ............... 355 Figure 3. Schematic of Shoreline Residential Environment and Buffer... .... ....................... 388 Figure 4. Schematic of Shoreline Jurisdiction and Buffers for the Urban Conservancy Environment in Areas without Levees ........... ..... ............ 40 Figure 5. Schematic of Shoreline Jurisdiction and Buffers for the Urban Conservancy Environment in Areas with Levees ............ ... . ....... . . ..... . . 411 Figure 6. Schematic of Buffer Reduction Through Placement of Fill on Levee Back Slope ...................... . . .. 422 Figure 7. Schematic Showing the Proposed Shoreline Jurisdiction and Buffer for the High Intensity Environment 433 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. General Restoration Potential within the Shorelines of Tukwila ....... ... ................. 18 Table 2. State Recommended Environment Designation System — WAC 173-26-211 (5) Table 3. Summary of Buffer Widths for Land Use Zones and Shoreline ............................ 27 Ecological Conditions LIST OF MAPS Map 1. Annexation History and Potential Annexation Areas .4 Map 2. Duwamish River Transition Zone....... .... ....... ... ... ...... ......... ... ....... 16 Map 3. Shoreline Environments.. 30N. Map 54 Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline............._ ..... ...... Map-65. Shoreline Public Access APPENDICES A. Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report B. Shoreline Restoration Plan 50/19 SMP Public Review Draft Clean iii 8/21/2019 72 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Background This document presents the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) for the City of Tukwila. It is an update to Tukwila's existing SMP, originally adopted in 1974. The SMP is intended to guide new shoreline development, redevelopment and promote reestablishment of natural shoreline functions, where possible. It was prepared in conformance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) and its implementing regulations (WAC 173-26). This Shoreline Master Program reflects changes in local conditions and priorities and the evolving State regulatory environment. This Shoreline Master Program presents background information on the Shoreline Management Act, describes shoreline jurisdiction in Tukwila, summarizes the amendment process carried out to date, presents a summary of the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization, presents a summary of the Shoreline Restoration Plan, proposes shoreline environments, and establishes goals, policies and regulations, which apply to all activities on all affected lands and waters within the shoreline jurisdiction. In addition, there is a chapter that establishes design guidelines. Maps are provided to illustrate shoreline jurisdiction and environments. The Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report is provided in Appendix A. The Restoration Plan is provided in Appendix B. A Cumulative Impacts Analysis is provided as a stand-alone document. 1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction A. Jurisdiction under the Shoreline Management Act The Shoreline Management Act, or SMA (RCW 90.58), establishes regulations for the management and protection of the state's shoreline resources and requires planning for reasonable and appropriate uses. The Act calls for a joint planning effort between state and local jurisdictions, requiring local government to develop its own Shoreline Master Program based on state guidelines. The SMA requires that local governments establish shoreline jurisdiction for those bodies of water and lands that are considered to be "shorelines of the state" or "shorelines of statewide significance." Shorelines of the state include rivers with a mean annual flow of at least 20 cubic feet per second (cfs). Shorelines of statewide significance in western Washington include rivers with a mean annual flow of at least 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The minimum shoreline environment required by the SMA includes all lands 200 feet from the "ordinary high water mark" or floodway of a state shoreline, whichever is greater, and all wetlands associated with these state shorelines and located within the 100- year floodplain. The following graphic illustrates the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. SMP Public Review Draft - Strikeout 1 8/21/2019 73 Ordinary high water mark (OHWM) 1111 1111 1111 ==.- 1111 1111 1111 = 1E:1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 --L-= 1111 I II 1111 1111 III 200' Wetland in 100 year Flood plain 1111 1111 = 1111 1111 1111 — till = liii = liii = 200' I g_ 1111 I III 11111=-=:- 1111 --T=:7111 1111 111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 r: Iii = 1111 = 1111 = 1111 = 1111 - till = Flood way 100 Year Flood Plain 200' from OHWM or flood way and all marshes, bogs, and swamps in 100 year flood plain 200' from OHWM and 100 year flood plain Figure 1.1 Lands and waters under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act B. Shoreline Jurisdiction in Tukwila The Green/Duwamish River is the only "shoreline of statewide significance" in the city (RCW 98.58.030). A small portion of the Black River, a shoreline of the state, is also located in Tukwila. Throughout the SMP document, the term "Shoreline Jurisdiction" is used to describe the water and land areas subject to shoreline jurisdiction in Tukwila. Based on SMA guidelines for shoreline jurisdiction, Tukwila's Shoreline Jurisdiction is defined as follows: The Tukwila Shoreline Jurisdiction includes the channel of the Green/Duwamish River and the Black River, its banks, the upland area which extends from the ordinary high water mark landward for 200 feet on each side of the river, floodways and all associated wetlands within its floodplain. For the purpose of determining shoreline jurisdiction only, the floodway shall not include those lands that have historically been protected by flood control devices and, therefore, have not been subject to flooding with reasonable regularity. The Tukwila SMP applies to all development activity occurring within the Shoreline Jurisdiction, which corresponds to the Shoreline Overlay District as established by Chapter 18.44 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 74 2 8/21/2019 All proposed uses and activities under its jurisdiction must be reviewed for compliance with the goals, policies and regulations referenced herein. All proposed uses and development occurring within shoreline jurisdiction must conform to chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act and this Master Program whether or not a peiiiiit is required. This Master Program includes the two proposed annexation areas indicated in the Comprehensive Plan (Map 1). The north annexation area is located between the Green/Duwamish River on the east, Military Road to the west, and from S. 128th Street north to S. 96th Street. The south annexation area is located between 1-5 and the Green River, south of the City limits to S. 204th Street. Adoption of shoreline policies and environment designations for newly annexed areas would require an amendment to the Shoreline Master Program. To avoid having to amend the SMP later, these potential annexation areas are considered here and the environmental designations and regulations will apply upon annexation. In response to regional policies of the King County Growth Management Planning Council, Tukwila designated two key areas as its Urban Center and its Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC). The Southcenter area, from 1-405 south to S. 180th Street was designated the "Urban Center;" and the Duwamish Corridor, an area where existing industrial employment is concentrated, was designated as Tukwila's "Manufacturing Industrial Center." Both of these areas have lands adjacent to the Green River and are identified on Map 1. The City Council adopted a Strategic Implementation Plan for the MIC on November 2, 1998. The Plan includes an analysis of existing conditions along the shoreline, narratives of various habitats, current regulations, proposed requirements and prototypes for future development along the shoreline in the MIC. The Strategic Plan was prepared in conjunction with a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement that analyzed development alternatives in the MIC area and streamlined SEPA review for development in that corridor for the past 20 years. Where changed circumstances dictate, the SMP will provide updated guidance and regulations for the MIC area. The MIC area has significant potential for redevelopment. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 3 8/21/2019 75 Turtling Basin Legend , x.2TukwilaCityLimits WA Tukwila Urban Center Manufacting /Industrial Center Potential Annexation Areas i i Green 1 Duwamish River Shoreline Annexed After 1974 Map 1 Annexation History and Potential Annexation Areas Manufacturing/Industrial Center Boundary Tukwila Urban Center SMP Public Review Draft Clean 76 4 8/21/2019 2. TUKWILA'S SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 2.1 SMP Components This SMP document contains the SMA overview and background related to the development of the SMP Comprehensive Update in 2011 as updated through the 2019 Periodic Review process. To comply with the SMA, Tukwila has included the following components in this Shoreline Master Program (SMP): • Outreach including a citizen participation process, and coordination with state agencies, Indian tribes, and other local governments (see Section 2.4 below) • Inventory, analysis and characterization of shoreline conditions, environmental functions and ecosystem -wide processes • Analysis of potential shoreline restoration opportunities • Establishment of shoreline environments Development regulations that have been codified in TMC 18.171 and 18.15 • Shoreline Design Guidelines that have been codified in TMC Chapter 18.44 • Evaluation and consideration of cumulative impacts The Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan: • Contains the SMP goals and policies that have been adopted in the Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance #, date) The Shoreline Regulations: • Development regulations that have been codified in TMC Chapter 18.44 (Ordinance #, date) • Development regulations that have been codified in TMC Chapter 18.45 (Ordinance # to be inserted after City Council adoption in 2019, date) • Shoreline Design Guidelines that have been codified in TMC Chapter 18.44 (Ordinance #, date) • Board of Architectural Review Shoreline Design Criteria found in TMC Section 18.60.050 (Ordinance #, date) • Shoreline Landscape Requirements that have been codified in TMC Chapter 18.52 (Ordinance #, date) • Definitions provided in TMC Chapter 18,06 (Ordinance 4, date) • Portions of the Critical Areas Protection Provisions that have been codified in TMC Chapter 18.45 (Ordinance #, date) with exclusions identified in Subsection 9 of this document and within TMC Chapter 18.44. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 5 8/21/2019 77 2.2 SMP Elements The SMA includes eight main issues, or "elements," to be addressed in each local shoreline master program (RCW 90.58.100). To implement these elements, shoreline policies and regulations are to be developed for each. The policies are found in the Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the regulations in Chapters 18.44 and 18.45 of the City's Zoning Code. The elements required by the SMA are: Economic Development Public Access Recreation Circulation Shoreline Uses Conservation Historical, cultural, educational and scientific element Preventing or minimizing flood damage Consistent with the Growth Management Act requirement to integrate the SMP and the Comprehensive Plan, the City incorporated the required elements of a SMP noted above into its Plan. Further direction for implementation of the required elements of SMPs is provided through Zoning Code and Design Review requirements. 2.3 History of SMP Planning in Tukwila Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was first adopted in 1974, in response to the passage of the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58). The SMP was later updated through minor amendments in 1982 and 1987, none of which required the adoption of a new SMP. In 1992-1993, as part of the preparation for a major revision to the City's Comprehensive Plan, the City completed a Shorelines Background Report (1993), with the participation of the Tukwila Tomorrow Citizen's Committee. This report established the basis for the shoreline comprehensive plan goals and policies adopted in 1995. Staff began the process to prepare a new SMP in 1999, based on the draft shoreline guidelines that were in the process of adoption by the Department of Ecology at the time. A grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology provided funding for a Shoreline Inventory of all parcels within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction and a Shoreline Design Manual. New shoreline regulations approved by Ecology in 2000 were immediately appealed and ultimately invalidated by the Shoreline Hearings Board in 2001. As a result, the City opted to defer completing its SMP update process until new guidelines were issued by Ecology, which occurred in 2003. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 6 8/21/2019 78 In 2005, Tukwila received a grant (SMA Grant No. 0600234) to complete a comprehensive update, including new technical analyses of shoreline conditions, restoration planning, and the preparation of revised SMP goals, policies, and regulations. In order to capitalize on previous citizens' involvement in the planning process, the City decided to start the SMP update with the work begun in 1999, with revisions to address new Ecology regulations and guidance, as well as changed conditions in the City's shoreline area. The development of any SMP, as required by new shoreline regulations, involves three specific steps: • Shoreline inventory and characterization, preparation of a restoration plan, preparation of a cumulative impacts analysis; • Citizen involvement in development of policies and regulations; and • Review by interested parties, including adjacent jurisdictions. As part of this 2009 SMP update process, the City: • Continued the previously started citizen involvement program utilizing the Planning Commission, which serves as the City's peimanent citizen advisory body for land use issues, holding open houses and public hearings • Coordinated and shared information with neighboring jurisdictions • Updated and expanded the Shoreline Inventory and mapping (included as Appendix A to this document) • Prepared a Shoreline Restoration Plan (Appendix B) Proposed shoreline environment designations • Proposed shoreline development policies • Proposed shoreline development regulations • Prepared a draft Cumulative Impacts Analysis • Coordinated with Department of Ecology, submitting a staff draft SMP for review and comment and meeting with Ecology staff 2.4 Current SMP Update Process The City of Tukwila completed a comprehensive update to its Shoreline Master Program in 2009, with additional revisions made in 2011. Washington State law requires jurisdictions to periodically review and update their SMPs every eight years in accordance with the SMA and its current guidelines and legislative rules to attain state approval. The City of Tukwila' s update started with an open house in the fall of 2018 and will be complete in 2019. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 7 8/21/2019 79 This periodic update is focused on: • Reviewing relevant legislative updates since 2009 and incorporating any applicable amendments. • Ensuring consistency with recently adopted regulations for critical areas and flood hazard areas. • Streamlining and eliminating duplication in the documents. • Addressing a limited number of policy questions such as a required levee profile, use of flood walls and incentives for public access. This periodic update will not: • Re-evaluate the ecological baseline which was established as part of the 2009 comprehensive update. • Extensively assess no net loss criteria other than to ensure that proposed amendments do not result in degradation of the baseline condition. • Change shoreline jurisdiction or environment designations. 3. DEFINITIONS Definitions used in the administration of the Shoreline Master Program and are incorporated into the Definitions Chapter of the Zoning Code, TMC Chapter 18.06. In addition to the definitions rovided in TMC Cha ter 18.06, Cha ter 90.58 RCW, Cha ter 173-26 WAC, and Chapter 173-27 WAC apply within the shoreline jurisdiction. Where definitions in the Tukwila Municipal Code conflict with state definitions, the definitions provided in RCW or WAC shall control. 4. SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION - SUMMARY Local jurisdictions updating their Shoreline Master Program (SMP) are required to prepare an inventory and characterization of the shoreline resources within their boundaries. As part of the City's prior SMP update, a Draft Inventory and Characterization Report and Map Folio was prepared in December 2006, and finalized in the spring of 2007 following technical review by Ecology and King County. The final report and map folio are included as Appendix A to this SMP. While the report has been finalized, the City continues to utilize the most recent information available, such as the recently updated FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Revised Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM), which were issued after the completion of the Inventory and Characterization report. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 8 8/21/2019 80 The purpose of the Inventory and Characterization Report was to conduct a baseline inventory of conditions for water bodies regulated as "shorelines of the state" located in the City of Tukwila. The area regulated under Tukwila's SMP is approximately 12.5 linear miles along the banks of the Green/Duwamish River. For the baseline inventory, the river shoreline was divided into fourreaches: 1) Reach G1 -PAA (southern Potential Annexation Area); 2) Reach G1 (from the southern City boundary downstream to the Black River/Green River confluence); 3) Reach G2 (from the Black River/Green River confluence downstream to the northern City limits); and 4) Reach G2-PAA (the northern Potential Annexation Area). The reaches are depicted on Map 3. The shoreline characterization identifies existing conditions, identifies current uses and public access, evaluates functions and values of resources in the shoreline jurisdiction, and explores opportunities for conservation and restoration of ecological functions. The findings are intended to provide a framework for updates to the City's shoreline management goals, policies, and development regulations. Key findings of the inventory and characterization are summarized below. 4.1 Watershed Context and Shoreline Modifications The City of Tukwila includes approximately 12.5 miles of the Green/Duwamish River and is situated in the Puget Sound Lowlands at the transition from the fresh water Green River to the tidally influenced Duwamish estuary ecosystem. The Green River basin is part of the Green/Duwamish Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 9). Historically, the Green/Duwamish River drained a significantly larger area than it does today. The Green/Duwamish River has undergone extensive modifications in the past to reduce channel migration and limit the extent and duration of valley flooding. The modifications include both natural river course changes and major engineering projects in the early part of the 20th Century that diverted the White, Black and Cedar Rivers to neighboring basins. As a result, the overall freshwater discharge in the Green/Duwamish River has been reduced to around a third of the pre -diversion era. Seven pump stations also modify flows into the Green and Duwamish Rivers. Three of the pump stations, Black River, P-17, and Segale, are operated by the Green River Flood Control District, and four stations, Lift Stations 15, 17, 18, and 19 are operated by the City of Tukwila. The Black River pump station is the largest station discharging flows to the Duwamish River. This station is approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the Green —Black River confluence, and is intended to both block floodwaters from the Green from inundating the Black River and Springbrook Creek in the City of Renton, and also regulates flows from Springbrook Creek into the Duwamish River. The P-17 pump station drains SMP Public Review Draft Clean 9 8/21/2019 81 the P-17 Pond that collects surface water from a majority of the Urban Center. The Segale pump station was installed to regulate soil saturation and piping during high river events but does not add new flows to the river. The remaining City pump stations only operate when gravity discharge to the river is prevented by high river events. Levees and/or revetments were constructed along much of the Green/Duwamish River through the City of Tukwila to increase bank strength and reduce flooding. In addition, flows within the Green/Duwamish River were greatly modified by the construction of the Howard A. Hanson Dam and installation of water diversions. These modifications significantly reduced the severity of floods that historically covered much of the valley bottom. The condition of the current system of levees and revetments is a growing source of concern for King County and the cities involved, as many of the levees are aging and do not meet current standards for either flood conveyance or stability. The Tukwila 205 certified levee on the left bank of the river in the Urban Center is not certified and areas rotected b this levee have been designated as "secluded" and re ulated as outside of the 100-year Special Flood Hazard on the proposed 9/15/2017 FEMA Revised Preliminary Digital Flood Hazard Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM)., o Other levees in the City also do not meet Corps of Engineers COE standards and are mapped as floodplain. These include portions of the newly annexed Tukwila South area and levees along the right bank of the river. ern -lifting for this work is on going. 4.2 Biological Resources and Shoreline Functions The Green/Duwamish River within the City of Tukwila provides important habitat for several fish and some wildlife species, such as osprey. The aquatic environment within the channel is an important corridor located at the transition from the freshwater riverine environment to tidal estuarine environment of Elliott Bay. Almost every species of anadromous fish migrates through this Transition Zone. 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. Both These species are listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. One particularly important feature of Tukwila's shorelines is the habitat functions provided by the Transition Zone between fresh and salt water associated with the Duwamish estuary. In Tukwila, this area generally extends from the East Marginal Way bridge to the city's northern limits. The Transition Zone between fresh and salt water has effectively been pushed upstream from its historic location due to: (1) a significant reduction (70%) of fresh water flowing into the Duwamish estuary (owing to the diversion of the White and Cedar/Black Rivers); (2) channel dredging; and (3) reduction of flows as a result of the construction of the Howard A. Hanson Dam. The establishment of heavy industrial uses in the Transition Zone has replaced wetlands with impervious surfaces, and the stream banks have been replaced by levees and other armoring, eliminating edge habitat which slows flows and creating unrestrained rapid downstream flows. Spatial structure, residence time, and the habitat available for fish refugia and rearing functions in the Duwamish SMP Public Review Draft Clean 10 8/21/2019 82 estuary have therefore been reduced and constrained. High densities of fish have been observed utilizing what is left of this specific habitat. At the watershed scale, overall increases in salmonid survival rates are dependent on the availability of sufficient Transition Zone habitat to accommodate fish while they adjust from fresh to salt water (WRIA 9 Steering Committee, 2005). Modifications to the river system have resulted over time in reduced levels of ecosystem functioning, including hydrology, water quality, riparian habitat, and in -stream habitat. Changes to hydrology are the result of modified flow regime due to dam construction, diversion, and urban development. River management, piping of streams including the use of tide -crates um ed storm discharaes 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 resulted in areas that are dominated by non-native invasive species and generally devoid of sufficient riparian vegetation. Wood, in the form of riparian trees and in -channel wood, is generally lacking throughout the system, 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. 4.3 Land Use A. A History of the Green/Duwamish River and Tukwila's Shoreline: Origins of Land Development Patterns The Green River drains 492 square miles extending from the western Cascade Mountains to Elliott Bay. The City of Tukwila lies at the lower 1/4 of the overall watershed. As the Green River flows into the southern boundary of the City of Tukwila, it has drained approximately 440 square miles, or about 78 percent of its total drainage basin. Approximately 12.5 river miles of the Green/Duwamish River are included within the City of Tukwila, from about River Mile (RM) 16 to RM 3.7. The Green/Duwamish River channel has been highly modified during the last 150 years. Modifications range from the installation of levees and revetments to straightening and dredging for navigation purposes. In general, the level of physical modification to the system increases with distance downstream, culminating at the artificial Harbor Island that supports industrial activities at the Port of Seattle. Several turning basins are maintained by periodic dredging throughout the straightened reach. The highly modified portion of the Green/Duwamish has also been the location of significant discharge of pollutants, resulting in portions of the river being designated as Federal Superfund sites. Remediation, source control and disposal activities are ongoing throughout the area. Prior to European settlement of the Lower Green River Valley, the floodplain likely consisted of a highly interspersed pattern of active and temporarily abandoned meandering channels, secondary channels, logjams, riparian forest, and scrub -shrub wetlands. The proportion of open channel to forest in the floodplain appears to have varied depending on the severity and timing of floods. High flows resulted in wider channels and the creation of new channels SMP Public Review Draft Clean 11 8/21/2019 83 across the floodplain. Accounts of the channel systems indicate that major floods resulted in channel avulsion (abrupt change in the course of a river), rerouting around logjams, and the fomiation of new logjams. The area presently occupied by the City of Tukwila appeared historically to contain oxbow channels, secondary and backwater channels, and extensive floodplain wetlands. As part of regional flood control and river management efforts, significant watershed -scale changes occurred to the major river drainages south of Elliott Bay, including changes to the alignments and discharge points of the Cedar, Black, Green and White Rivers. In general, these changes have reduced the amount of water flowing through the Green/Duwamish River to a roximatel one third of historic conditions and have impacted fish habitat. Land use changes between European settlement and the current day have occurred in two general phases. From the mid 1800s to World War II, agriculture and timber harvesting dominated the Lower Green River Valley. Population densities in the Lower Green River Valley remained low until the Howard A. Hanson Dam project was completed in 1962, providing flood protection for the valley. Levees have also been constructed along the banks of the Green/Duwamish River, ranging from federally -certified levees to non -engineered agricultural bemis. Since the dam and levee systems have significantly decreased the extent of flooding within the Lower Green River Valley, land development and urbanization have occurred. For more discussion on the character of the Green/Duwamish River and an inventory of river conditions, see the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report prepared by ESA/Adolfson, May 2007, found in Appendix A. Historically, the Green/Duwamish River Valley was known for its farmland. Farming was established in the early 1900's after forested areas were cleared and transportation to the area was improved. In 1906, construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal eliminated flows of the Black River into the valley, reducing valley flooding. As a result, the river valley developed into highly productive farmland for the region. In the early 1950's, the Port of Seattle proposed to convert much of the Green/Duwamish River Valley to intensive industrial uses. These plans included converting the river into a shipping canal, possibly reaching as far south as the City of Auburn. Valley landowners countered this proposal by annexing large tracts of land into Tukwila to retain more control over future land use decisions. With the construction of the Howard A. Hanson Dam in 1962 on the upper Green River, flooding in the valley was further reduced. Much of the river is now contained within levees and surrounded by commercial and industrial development. The Port's actions in the northern part of the River and drastic reduction in river flooding have had a major influence on the development of the river valley. Today, Tukwila's portion of the Green/Duwamish River is known as a center for retail, commercial and industrial uses. The river remains inaccessible to shipping activity south of the Turning Basin, where it can be accessed primarily by small water craft, kayaks and canoes only. Land uses along the river are mostly commercial and industrial activities, with a few residential areas. With the designation of the Southcenter area as an Urban Center and the Duwamish Corridor as a SMP Public Review Draft Clean 12 8/21/2019 84 Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC), this development pattern is expected to continue, and to intensify as redevelopment occurs. B. Riverbank Vegetation The natural environment along the river has been significantly altered from its original riparian corridor by intense urban development and riverbank modification due to the construction of levees, revetments or other shoreline armoring. Most native stands of trees are gone, but have been replaced by new trees and plants in some areas. Landscaping with native and non-native plantings have also been completed in conjunction with new development along the corridor. Birds and small mammals are supported in both habitats. While more natural habitat is found upstream, redevelopment of the shoreline has the potential to provide appropriate landscaping and restoration of habitat that are more attractive to wildlife and people and a more environmentally sensitive form of development C. Public Access The regional Green River Trail provides public access to existing shoreline amenities and plans anticipate future linkages to Seattle's system. As redevelopment occurs, there will be opportunities to provide other types of public access, including viewing platforms, boat ramps and fishing areas. 4.4 Restoration Opportunities and Potential Use Conflicts Past restoration work focused on the Green\Duwamish River (in Water Resource Inventory Area 9) has resulted in good data collection and identification of potential restoration opportunities. Significant restoration activities along the Green\ Duwamish River are already underway in the form of the multi -agency Green River Ecosystem Restoration Project. Several opportunities have been identified on the river as part of the recently adopted King County Flood Hazard Management Plan. Restoration opportunities focus on several key elements: Removing non-native, invasive plant species and re -vegetating with native riparian forest species; Removing artificial debris and walls that harden channel banks; Integrating the reconnection of floodplains, levee setbacks, and other ecosystem restoration techniques with future flood and river management efforts; and • Property acquisition to allow for levee setbacks, side channel reconnection, and channel migration. Two key issues illustrate constraints to implementing restoration and potential use conflicts in Tukwila: 1) levee maintenance and management; and 2) existing development patterns and anticipated redevelopment. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 13 8/21/2019 85 Discussion of shoreline planning for the Green River in Tukwila must acknowledge the fact that, in light of the existing system of levees (including the federally certified authorized "205" levees) and revetments, the City cannot act alone. There are a variety of regulatory jurisdictions outside of the City with different responsibilities for maintenance and management, and regulating of the levee system, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), King County - - ° • Flood Control Zone District (KCFCD), and private property owners. The City of Tukwila Public Works Department has overall responsibility for maintenance of all levees, including the federally certified authorized Tukwila 205 levee, which extends from about the 1-405 crossing to the south City limitsapproximately S. 196th Street. The actual maintenance work on 414-s--public levees is contracted by the City to King Countyperformed by KCFCD. The restoration of native tree and shrub species along the levees would increase riparian habitat ecological functioning of this reach of the Green/Duwamish River, benefiting salmonids as well as other species. However, the Corps of Engineers (responsible for certifying the federal levee) believes that the root system of these trees could destabilize levees, resulting in water piping (e.g., water infiltrating into and through levees along root pathways at higher rates than it could through root -free soil) at high flows, and potential levee failure if trees fall. For the Vegetation Free Zone of the levee, current Corps guidance only allows grass as vegetative cover on the levees (USACOE, Engineering Manual 1110- 2-301). Current guidance also specifies a root -free zone where plantings can occur, but roots will generally not penetrate this structural zone. Therefore, under current regulations, to meet the requirements for federal levee certification, some vegetation was recently removed and ongoing vegetation management will be required to maintain the levee certification. Under the SMA, removing trees and vegetation from the riparian zone of shorelines of the state is in conflict with policies for vegetation conservation and enhancement. A possible solution is to step back and re -slope the levees to create mid -slope benches where vegetation can be planted that will not interfere with the levee prism as the levee system is reconstructed to improve its stability. This would require additional easement area beyond the existing maintenance easements that have been acquired along the length of the system. The existing development pattern also represents constraints to implementing restoration projects, including levee setbacks, off -channel habitat restoration, wetland and stream restoration, and riparian zone enhancements. Most of Tukwila is fully developed, with portions having a dense, urbanized land use pattern. The City's first SMP, in place since 1974, established a 40-foot setback from the mean high water line. In places that have not been redeveloped under current regulations there is little more than this 40-foot zone that is not intensely developed. Some places have somewhat more open space and less development and thus have greater flexibility to accommodate potential habitat restoration actions. The City's vision for future land use, based on its Comprehensive Plan, includes maintenance and further development of its urban character, particularly its identity as a regionally significant center for manufacturing, industrial, and commercial development. A challenge lies ahead in determining how best to accommodate new and redevelopment SMP Public Review Draft Clean 14 8/21/2019 86 near the shoreline in a manner consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master Program in order to achieve "no net loss" of shoreline function. 4.5 Conclusions Like many rivers in the Puget Sound region, the course and dynamics of the Green/Duwamish River has -have changed significantly as a result of development and alteration of its watershed over the past century or so. Characteristic of many cities in the region, Tukwila has grown and become highly urbanized. Continued growth is anticipated and the City is planning for that growth. To a significant degree, the City has envisioned and maintained a development pattern that preserved public access to the Green River and assured setbacks of new buildings from the shoreline. Issues of concern today are focused on reconstructing existing levees and revetments to protect existing development from flood hazards and restore habitat, an effort that will take place over a number of years in coordination with the King County Flood Control Zone District, King County and state and federal agencies. There are many opportunities for conservation and restoration actions in the City to restore or replace habitat while managing natural hazard areas. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 15 8/21/2019 87 11.= o IN^wo. vss.1,10,1,n en. te paapCatt ataPtt, a ,999; ,L41,1t1C1,1r9, paPp. ;.; ;OpC rp,Pop. I; a, ranoWt,,,, LI I., PIA (AP Of 100 ; PAM POP 1,PC; COOrp, .1"Pti PC1 PP Pall, PA an; pfLPP,C to; IncderP .0 PI ,CdPelpp old arn.xe: t1J,ON Iat tat mt.1taI.^.At Ppt,Cop,trap;;; t Or;pAp 9 990 99 v9, el.cf tin tarlwaPt V, TOM M.,' rup at rgohl,toloc,1,1 par ran(tPPAPPP, /P11 CCLI, 1410 4266wOulranstonZontiVap knal imaQery 2012 Revised Map 2 — Duwamish River Transition Zone Duwamish Transition Zone River mile and number Incorporated area 0 2.000 .1.000 rec October 2014 SMP Public Review Draft Clean 16 88 8/21/2019 5. SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN -SUMMARY 5.1 Background The state guidelines require that local governments develop SMP policies that promote "restoration" of impaired shoreline ecological functions and a "real and meaningful" strategy to implement restoration objectives. The City's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report identifies which shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem processes have been impaired. Local governments are further encouraged to contribute to restoration by planning for and supporting restoration through the SMP and other regulatory and non -regulatory programs. As part of the SMP update process, the City developed a Draft Shoreline Restoration Plan in February 2007. The draft plan was finalized in May 2008 following technical review by King County and Ecology, and has since been updated to include additional potential projects, address Ecology comments and refocus priorities to projects within the Transition Zone. II -The Shoreline Restoration Plan is included as Appendix B to the SMP. The restoration plan builds on the Inventory and Characterization Report and provides a framework to: • Identify primary goals for ecological restoration of the Green/Duwamish ecosystem; • Identify how restoration of ecological function can be accomplished; • Suggest how the SMP update process may accomplish the restoration of impaired shoreline functions associated with the Green/Duwamish ecosystem; and • Prioritize restoration projects so that the highest value restoration actions may be accomplished first. 5.2 Assessment of Shoreline Functions As summarized in the previous section, the shoreline inventory and characterization analysis examined riverine and estuarine ecosystem processes that maintain shoreline ecological functions, and identified impaired ecological functions. The inventory report identified key ecosystem processes, and provided a qualitative assessment of their levels of functioning at both a watershed and city reach scale. Key ecosystem functions identified in the inventory, their level of alteration, and potential restoration actions are summarized in Table 1. As noted in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and summarized in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Summary Section, many of the alterations to shoreline functions and ecosystem processes in the Green/Duwamish River are due to watershed scale issues within the upper watershed which that cannot be fully restored or addressed in the lower river section through Tukwila. However, hydrologic, water quality, and habitat restoration measures in the City do have the potential to improve the overall functioning of this important section of the Green/Duwamish River ecosystem that includes the Transition Zone from fresh to salt water. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 17 8/21/2019 89 Table 1. General Restoration Potential within the Shorelines of Tukwila Function Category Function Alterations to natural functioning Potential Restoration Action within the City Hydrologic Channel-Floodplain Interaction Presence of flood protection structures (e.g., levees, riverbank revetments, flood gates) and significant fill and development along the shoreline limit channel-floodplain interactions in Tukwila. 1. Modify current levees and revetments to increase channel and floodplain interaction; 2. Excavate back or side channels. Hydrologic Upland sediment generation Fine sediment contribution to the river is increased due to build-up and wash -off from surrounding urban land uses. Implement enhanced stormwater Best - Management Practices for fine sediment removal in stormwater runoff Water Quality Retention of particulates and contaminants Levees and revetments are virtually continuous along the riverbanks, limiting the potential to retain particulates or contaminants contained in stormwater sheet flows in the fluvially dominated reaches. Particulates, including sediment, are retained in the tidally dominated reaches, as evidenced by the need to dredge the estuary turning basin. 1. Modify current levees and revetments to increase channel and floodplain area; 2. Install native riparian species to increase bank roughness. Water Quality Nutrient cycling As channel-floodplain interaction was reduced, the channel became a conduit for nutrients, offering little opportunity for contact time with soils. 1. Increase riverine wetland area; 2. Install native riparian plant species; 3. Set back banks (revetments and levees). Large Woody Debris (LWD) and Organics Maintain characteristic plant community The majority of the shoreline within the City of Tukwila is currently dominated by non-native invasive weed species (Himalayan blackberry, reed canary- grass, and Japanese knotweed). Some • higher quality areas of cottonwood, alder, and willow exist in riparian areas bordering open space, parkland, and residential zones. 1. Remove invasive plants and install native riparian species; 2. Incorporate LWD into bank stabilization and restoration projects; 3, Institute programmatic weed control activities along shoreline. . Promote 4. rbioengineering techniques for shoreline stabilization projects. LWD and Organics: Source of LWD Despite the lack of many sources for LWD, there are some large cottonwoods and big leaf maples that occur along the 1. Install native riparian species; 2. Incorporate LWD into bank stabilization and restoration projects. levees and revetment system. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 18 8/21/2019 90 5.3 Plans, Programs, and Completed Projects The importance of the Green/Duwamish ecosystem within the Puget Sound has resulted in significant focus on this area in terms of restoration potential. With the federal listing of Chinook and bull trout as endangered species, watershed planning in the region (e.g., WRIA 9) has focused on developing a Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9, 2005), to which the City of Tukwila is a party. The plan establishes goals, objectives, and programmatic and site specific actions to address restoration of habitat critical to salmon species in the Green/Duwamish watershed. Tukwila has already engaged in the greater regional restoration effort for the Green/Duwamish River. The City Council has ratified the WRIA 9 Plan and contributes resources to maintain operating staff Tukwila has worked within the larger Green/Duwamish River ecosystem restoration project to acquire or donate properties arc either currently functioningfor restoration (Cecil B. Moses Park, Codiga Farm33—Of orth Winds Weir, Duwamish Gardens). WRIA 9 and other regional partners are currently working together to monitor baseline conditions. Several projects from the WRIA 9 Plan are included on the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) list; other projects will be added as CIP projects are completed and funds are identified for new projects. The restoration plan identifies several projects that have already been completed in the Green/Duwamish River. These projects provide an excellent opportunity to learn about what river restoration measures are the most effective. For example, it appears that the back channel that was excavated at Codiga Farm provides important habitat for migrating juvenile fish. 5.4 Restoration Opportunities Based on the key ecosystem functions that are currently altered, there appear to be five specific types of restoration actions that will most benefit the Green/Duwamish ecosystem in Tukwila. These actions are intended to boost the levels of ecosystem functioning as part of a self-sustaining ecosystem that will limit the need for future manipulation. While these projects are intended to restore many ecosystem functions, the restoration activities will occur in the highly urban valley bottom, and as a result, cannot fully achieve pre - disturbance channel conditions. In addition, some restoration actions must occur at the watershed scale, which will restore ecosystem functions that cannot be addressed solely within Tukwila or as part of the SMP. Enlarging channel cross -sectional area. This action could include setting back levees and re -sloping banks to reduce steepness. These actions will increase flood storage, allow for more stable levees, restore some floodplain area, provide a larger intertidal zone in this important transitional area, and provide a more natural transition from aquatic to upland habitats. The Transition Zone is identified in Map 2. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 19 8/21/2019 91 • Enhancing existing habitats. These actions could include the removal of non- native invasive vegetation, installation of native riparian vegetation, and installation of LWD below Ordinary High Water. This action will improve the functioning of the aquatic, riverine wetland, and riparian habitats that currently exist along the Green/Duwamish River. • Creating off -channel habitat areas. This action would create off channel areas through the excavation of historic fill or floodplain materials to create back channels as fish foraging and refugia areas. • Reconnecting wetland habitat to the river. This action would reconnect an old oxbow wetland to the river, allowing for off -channel habitat (Nelson Side Channel). • Removing fish barriers where tributary streams discharge to the river. This action would remove flap gates and install fish -friendly flap gates at the mouths of Tukwila's three major streams (Gilliam, Southgate and Riverton) and possibly restore habitat area at these locations in the shoreline jurisdiction. 5.5 Potential Projects and Priorities The restoration plan summarizes 26 potential projects as specific restoration projects within the shorelines of Tukwila. Most of the restoration projects are part of ongoing restoration planning through the WRIA 9 watershed planning process. Additionally, opportunities exist to enhance riparian vegetation along the majority of the Green/Duwamish River. The restoration plan provides a preliminary qualitative (high, medium, low) project ranking system. Within this ranking system, the highest priority location for restoration projects is within the Transition Zone. The Transition Zone is mpidentified in Map 2. High priority projects will typically: • Address both hydrologic and habitat ecosystem functions; • Have opportunity for multiple funding sources; • Include freshwater tributary channels; and/or • Not require additional property acquisition. Medium priority projects will typically: • Address limited ecosystem functions; and • Be eligible for multiple funding sources, and/or require property acquisition. Low priority projects will typically: • Only focus on habitat enhancement; • Will be used as mitigation to offset impacts elsewhere; or • Not be eligible for multiple funding sources. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 20 8/21/2019 92 6. SHORELINE GOALS AND POLICIES The goals and policies that lead and inspire Tukwila's shoreline actions are found in the Shoreline Element of the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan. These, along with the narrative in that Chapter, were updated based on the 2009 SMP and 2011 revisions approved by the Department of Ecology. 7. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS The City of Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) establishes a system to classify shoreline areas into specific "environment designations." This system of classifying shorelines is established by the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-211). The purpose of shoreline environment designations is to provide a uniform basis for applying policies and use regulations within similar shoreline areas. Generally, shoreline designations should be based on existing and planned development patterns, biological and physical capabilities and limitations of the shoreline, and a community's vision or objectives for its future development. 7.1 Pre 2009 Regulatory Framework Tukwila's first SMP, adopted in 1974, designated all shorelines as "Urban." At the time the 1974 SMP was developed, all of the land in Tukwila's shoreline jurisdiction was either zoned commercial/industrial or was developed with urban uses. The SMP defined the Urban Environment as "areas to be managed in high intensive land uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial development and accessory uses, while providing for restoration and preservation to ensure long-term protection of natural and cultural resources within the shoreline" (Tukwila, 1974). The SMP further stated that the management objectives for the shoreline "are directed at minimizing adverse impacts on the river and shoreline ecology, maximizing the aesthetic quality and recreational opportunities of the river shore, and recognizing the rights and privileges of property owners" (Tukwila, 1974). Within the Urban Environment, Tukwila's SMP employed a tiered system of regulations based on the distance from the Green/Duwamish River mean high water mark (MHWM). These tiered management zones are generally described below and illustrated on Figure 1: • River Environment/Zone: A 40-foot wide zone extending landward from MHWM and having the most environmentally protective regulations; • Low -Impact Environment/Zone: The area between the River Environment and 100 feet from the MHWM; and • High -Impact Environment/Zone: The area between 100 and 200 feet from the MHWM. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 21 8/21/2019 93 The City also administered the King County Shoreline Master Program for the areas which had been annexed since the adoption of the City's SMP in 1974. These areas were designated Urban and the setbacks from Ordinary High Water Mark varied from 20 feet to 50 feet depending on whether the use was water dependent, single family or commercial/industrial. See Annexation History (Map 1) for an identification of the areas where the City administered the County's SMP. 4 200' URBAN ENVIRONMENT 100' 60' 40' HIGH IMPACT ZONE LOW IMPACT ZONE RIVER ZONE 200' 40' RIVER ZONE URBAN ENVIRONMENT 60' LOW IMPACT ZONE 4E-MEAN HIGH WATER LINE 100' HIGH IMPACT ZONE Figure 1. Pre 2009 Tukwila SMP Shoreline Management Zones (1974 SMP; TMC Chapter 18.44) 7.2 Key Findings of the Shoreline Inventory / Characterization Report and Restoration Plan This section summarizes findings from the Inventory and Characterization Report and Restoration Plan elements of the SMP update (Appendices A and B). These findings inform the goals, policies, regulations, and the development and application of environment designations. In this context, the key findings can be summarized as follows: • The Green/Duwamish River throughout Tukwila is a critical resource for salmonids and other species. Adult salmon heading upstream to spawn require cool water; and juveniles heading downstream require food and refuge from high flows., particularly itt-tThe Transition Zone,. portion of the river that which extends from river mile 10 upstream from the Interstate 5 bridgodownstream through the northern City limits (see Map 2), where juvenile salmon adjust from fresh to salt water habitat (osmoregulate), is of critical importance because of significant habitat losses over the years. Additionally,. Tthe river provides migratory habitat for numerous fish species, as well as riparian habitat for a variety of wildlife. • The entire Green/Duwamish River and its tributaries is are a critical resource for federally protected Muckleshoot Indian Tribe fishing. • The river is a critical resource for some water dependent uses north of the Turning Basin. • The river is an important recreational resource for sport fishing, small water craft and Green River Trail users. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 22 8/21/2019 94 • At an ecosystem scale, the habitat is largely homogenous throughout the city. In addition, many ecosystem processes are largely controlled by up -river characteristics, particularly the Howard A. Hanson Dam and are little affected by actions in the City, except for such functions as water quality (especially fine sediment capture and filtering of contaminants in stormwater), local surface hydrology (stormwater from increasing amounts of impervious surfaces and contribution to peak flows of the river), riparian habitat, and temperature control (shading from riparian habitat). With the exception of the functions provided by the transitional mixing zone from salt to fresh water, habitat conditions and functions are relatively similar throughout the shoreline. The Transition Zone needs greater protection and restoration focus than other sections of the shoreline in the city. • Restoration opportunities are numerous and spatially distributed throughout Tukwila's shoreline. Activities that provide restoration of both floodplain functions and habitat functions should be prioritized, particularly those projects in the Transition Zone. Policies should promote and regulations should enable the City to accomplish restoration goals and actions. 7.3 State Environment Designation System State Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-211) establish the environment designation system for shorelines regulated by the Shoreline Management Act. The guidelines (WAC 173-26-150 and 176-26-160) give local jurisdictions the option to plan for shorelines in designated Urban Growth Areas (UGA) and Potential Annexation Areas (PAA) as well. The City can "pre -designate" shoreline environments in its designated PAA as part of this planning process. However, shorelines in the PAA would continue to be regulated under the provisions of the King County SMP until the City annexes those areas. The County's SMP designates the City's North PAA and the South PAA as High Intensity. The guidelines (WAC 173-26-211(4)(b)) recommend six basic environment designations: High -intensity Shoreline residential Urban conservancy Rural conservancy Natural Aquatic Local governments may establish a different designation system, retain their current environment designations and/or establish parallel environments provided the designations are consistent with the purposes and policies of the guidelines (WAC 173-26-211(4)(c)). The guidelines also note that local shoreline environment designations should be consistent with the local comprehensive plan (WAC 173-26-211(3)). SMP Public Review Draft Clean 23 8/21/2019 95 For each environment designation, jurisdictions must provide a purpose statement, classification criteria, management policies and environment specific regulations. Table 2 describes the purpose for each of the recommended designations in the state guidelines. For each designation, the potential applicability to Tukwila is noted. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 24 8/21/2019 96 Table 2. State Recommended Environment Designation System - WAC 173-26-211 (5) Environment Designation Purpose Applicability to Tukwila Aquatic The purpose of the "aquatic" environment is to protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high-water mark. This designation will be used for the area waterward of the ordinary high water mark which includes the water surface along with the underlying lands and the water column. Natural The purpose of the "natural" environment is to protect those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions intolerant of human use. While the Green River shorelines in Tukwila provide some important ecological functions, the river and adjacent uplands throughout Tukwila have been significantly altered by dense urban development and are generally armored or otherwise modified. Rural Conservancy The purpose of the "rural conservancy" environment is to protect ecological functions, conserve existing natural resources and valuable historic and cultural areas in order to provide for sustained resource use, achieve natural floodplain processes, and provide recreational opportunities. Not applicable to Tukwila. All of the City's shorelines are urbanized. Potential annexation areas are either urbanized or proposed for intensive development. Urban Conservancy The purpose of the "urban conservancy" environment is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. This designation is applicable in that the Green River is an important natural resource. The most significant shoreline function provided in Tukwila is related to fish and wildlife habitat. Open space is limited by the existing development pattern and floodplains are largely disconnected by a series of levees, revetments, and other infrastructure. Shoreline Residential The purpose of the "shoreline residential" environment is to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this chapter. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses. This designation is most applicable for those portions of Tukwila's shorelines where the existing and planned development pattern is for low density (i.e., predominantly single-family) residential uses or public recreation uses. High -Intensity The purpose of the "high -intensity" environment is to provide for high -intensity water -oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded. This designation is applicable along only part of Tukwila's shorelines, in the Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) north of the Turning Basin. Water - dependent uses are currently limited, as only a small portion of the river in Tukwila is navigable for commercial purposes, and much of the river has levees, thus restricting use immediately adjacent to the river. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 25 8/21/2019 97 7.4 Environment Designations The Natural and Rural Conservancy Environments are not well suited to a highly developed, urbanized river that is navigable for only a small portion of the system and is significantly constrained by levees for flood management, such as the Green/Duwamish River in Tukwila. The City's Shoreline Environments, which are identified on Map 3, are: • Shoreline Residential Environment • Urban Conservancy Environment • High -Intensity Environment • Aquatic Environment The City designated a buffer to replace the prior system of parallel shoreline management zones. Instead of the prior River Environment, a minimum buffer was established for each shoreline environment and allowed uses were designated for the buffer area along the river and the remaining shoreline jurisdiction. This system is intended to facilitate the City's long-range objectives for land and shoreline management, including: Ensuring no net loss of ecological shoreline functions; Providing for habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration to improve degraded shoreline ecological functions over time and protection of already restored areas; Allowing continued and increased urban development in recognition of Tukwila's role as a regionally significant industrial and commercial center; and • Providing for improved flood control in coordination with King County and the Army Corps of Engineers. Table 3, on the following page, provides a summary of the characteristics of the river shoreline in Tukwila to set the stage for the discussion in Section 7.5 on the determination of shoreline buffers. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 26 8/21/2019 98 Table 3. Summary of Buffer Widths for Land Use Zones and Shoreline Ecological Conditions Area Characteristics Environment Buffer Modification MIC/H & Fresh/Salt Water High Intensity 100' The Director may reduce the MIC/L zoned Transition Zone, Lower flooding standard buffer on a case -by -case basis by up to 50% upon property risk, Less than 20' construction of the following cross from North difference from section: City Limits OHWM to top of - 1. Reslope bank from OHWM to EMWS bank, tidal (not toe) to be no steeper than Bridge, and North influence 3:1, using bioengineering techniques Potential Annexation - 2. Minimum 20' buffer landward from top of bank Area - 3. Bank and remaining buffer to be planted with native species with high habitat value Comment: Maximum slope is reduced due to measurement from OHWM and to recognize location in the Transition Zone where pronounced tidal influence makes work below OHWM difficult. Any buffer reduction proposal must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that it will not result in direct, indirect or long-term adverse impacts to the river. In all cases a buffer enhancement plan must also be approved and implemented as a condition of the reduction. The plan must include using a variety of native vegetation that improves the functional attributes of the buffer and provides additional protection for the shoreline ecological functions. LDR zoned Moderate flooding Shoreline Distance Removal of invasive species and property risk, Less than 25' Residential required replanting with native species of w/o levees difference from to set high habitat value voluntary unless from OHWM to top of back triggered by requirement for a EMWS to bank, tidal slope Shoreline Substantial Development 1-405 influence on northern section from toe at 2.5:1 plus 20' setback, Min. 50' width permit. SMP Public Review Draft - Strikeout 27 8/21/2019 99 Area Characteristics Environment Buffer Modification LDR zoned property with levees from EMWS to 1-405 Moderate flooding risk, Less than 25' difference from OHWM to top of bank, tidal influence on northern section Shoreline Residential 125' Upon reconstruction of levee in accordance with City levee standards, the Director may reduce the buffer to actual width required. Comment: This applies to City - owned property at Fort Dent. Commercially zoned property from 42nd Ave S. Bridge to 1-405 Moderate flooding risk, Less than 25' difference from OHWM to top of bank Urban Conservancy 100' The Director may reduce the standard buffer on a case -by -case basis by up to 50% upon construction of the following cross section: - 1. Reslope bank from toe to be no steeper than 32,5. :1, using bioengineering techniques - 2. Minimum 20' buffer landward from top of bank - 3. Bank and remaining buffer to be planted with native species with high habitat value Any buffer reduction proposal must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that it will not result in direct, indirect or long-term adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions. In all cases a buffer enhancement plan must also be approved and implemented as a condition of the reduction. The plan must include using a variety of native vegetation that improves the functional attributes of the buffer and provides additional protection for the shoreline ecological functions. West River bank from I-405 to South City Limit, Tukwila 205 Levee and South Annexation Area High flooding risk, Federally certified and County levee, large water level fluctuations Urban Conservancy 125' Upon construction or reconstruction of levee in accordance with City levee standards the Director may reduce the buffer to the actual width required. In no case shall the buffer be less than 50 feet. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 28 8/21/2019 100 Area Characteristics Environment Buffer Modification East River bank without levee from 1-405 south to City Limits Moderate flooding risk, 20 to 25' difference from OHWM to top of bank, Moderate slumping risk, large water level fluctuations Urban Conservancy 100' The Director may reduce the standard buffer on a case -by -case basis by up to 50% upon construction of the following cross section: - 1. Reslope bank from toe to be no steeper than 3a4:1, using bioengineering techniques - 2. Minimum 20' buffer landward from top of bank - 3. Bank and remaining buffer to be planted with native species with high habitat value Any buffer reduction proposal must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that it will not result in direct, indirect or long-term adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions. In all cases a buffer enhancement plan must also be approved and implemented as a condition of the reduction. The plan must include using a variety of native vegetation that improves the functional attributes of the buffer and provides additional protection for the shoreline ecological functions. East River bank with levee from I-405 to South City Limit Moderate flooding risk, 20 to 25' difference from OHWM to top of bank, Moderate slumping risk, large water level fluctuations Urban Conservancy 125' Upon reconstruction of levee in accordance with City levee standards the Director may reduce the buffer to the actual width required for the levee. In no case shall the buffer be less than 50 feet. Any shoreline environment where street or road runs parallel to the river through the buffer End buffer on river side of existing improved street or roadway. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 29 8/21/2019 101 Reach G2 PM Legend r „ Tukwila City Limits i . 3 PAA Potential Annexation Areas »°e;• Urban Conservancy Shoreline Environment ... High Intensity Shoreline Environment =.gym «t...= Shoreline Residential Environment Map 3 SMP Public Review Draft Clean 102 30 8/21/2019 7.5 Determination of Shoreline Buffers The determination of the buffer distances for each shoreline environment was based on several factors including the analysis of buffer functions needed for protecting and restoring shoreline ecological function (as presented in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report) and the need to allow space for bank stability and for protecting human life and structures from damage from high flows, erosion and bank failures. Safety of residents and people who work in buildings along the shoreline has become even more important in recent years due to the increase in stormwater entering the river from increasing impervious surfaces throughout the watershed and increasing frequency and intensity of flows during high rain events. These higher and more frequent flows will put more stress on over -steepened banks all along the river, increasing the possibility of bank erosion, levee failures, and bank failures. Thus, ensuring that new structures are not built too close to the river's edge is crucial to avoid loss of human life. Staff also reviewed the rationale for the buffer widths established for watercourses under TMC Chapter 18.45, the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, as well as buffer widths recommended by resource agencies, such as the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources and the recent Biological Opinion issued by National Marine Fisheries Service in relation to FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program. The final buffer widths proposed by staff for each shoreline environment attempted to balance shoreline ecological function needs, human life and property protection needs (including future levee repair/reconstruction), existing land use patterns, and state and federal agency policies. The following information summarizes the analysis carried out and the rationale used for determining buffer widths. A. Buffer Functions Supporting Shoreline Ecological Resources, Especially Salmonids Buffers play an important role in the health of any watercourse and an even more important role when considering the health of salmonids in the Green/Duwamish River system. The key buffer functions for the river are summarized below. The Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology regulations require evaluation of ecological functions and that local SMPs ensure that the policies and regulations do not cause any net loss of shoreline ecological function. In addition, the SMP must identify mechanisms for restoration of lost ecological functions. The crucial issue for the Green/Duwamish River is the presence of salmonids that are on the Endangered Species list. To protect and restore ecological functions related to these species it is important to provide for the installation of native vegetation along the shoreline. Such vegetation provides shade for improving temperature conditions in the river and habitat for insects on which fish prey. Trees along the shoreline also provide a SMP Public Review Draft Clean 31 8/21/2019 103 source of large woody debris (tree trunks, root wads, limbs, etc. that fall into the water), which in turn provides pooling and areas of shelter for fish and other animals. In order to allow for planting of native vegetation, banks need to be set back to allow for less steep and more stable (requiring less armoring) slopes, so that they can be planted, which is crucial for improving shoreline ecological functions that are needed in the river. The buffer widths needed to achieve a particular buffer function vary widely by function type from as little as 16 feet for large woody debris recruitment (assuming the buffer has large trees) to over 400 feet for sediment removal. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recommends a riparian buffer width of 250 feet for shorelines of statewide significance (this applies to the Green/Duwamish River). The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) recommends a riparian buffer of 200 feet for Class 1 Waters (the Green/Duwamish River is a Class 1 Water under the WDNR classification scheme). The National Marine Fisheries Service (responsible at the federal level for overseeing protection of endangered salmonids under the Endangered Species Act) has recommended a buffer of 250 feet in mapped floodplain areas to allow for protection of shoreline functions that support salmonids.' Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC Chapter 18.45) has established a 100-foot buffer for Type 2 watercourses in the city (those that bear salmonid species). The key buffer functions for the river are summarized below. 1. Maintenance of Water Quality Salmonid fish require water that is both colder and has lower nutrient levels than many other types of fish. Vegetated shoreline buffers contribute to improving water quality as described below. a. Water Temperature: The general range of temperatures required to support healthy salmonid populations is generally between 39 degrees and 63 degrees. Riparian vegetation, particularly forested areas, can affect water temperature by providing shade to reduce exposure to the sun and regulate high ambient air temperatures. b. Dissolved Oxygen: Dissolved oxygen is one of the most influential water quality parameters for aquatic life, including salmonid fish. The most significant factor affecting dissolved oxygen levels is water temperature — cooler streams maintain higher levels of oxygen than warmer waters. c. Metals and Pollutants: Common pollutants found in streams, particularly in urban areas, are excessive nutrients (such as phosphorous and nitrogen), pesticides, bacteria and miscellaneous contaminants such as PCBs and heavy metals. Impervious surfaces collect and concentrate pollutants from different sources and deliver these materials to streams during storm events. The I Endangered Species Act— Section 7 Consultation, Final Biological Opinion and Magnuson —Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation, Implementation of the Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington, Phase One Document, Puget Sound Region, September, 2008. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 32 8/21/2019 104 concentration of pollutants increases in direct proportion to the total amount of impervious area. Undisturbed or well vegetated riparian buffer areas can retain sediment, nutrients, pesticides, pathogens and other pollutants, protecting water quality in streams. Elevated nitrogen and phosphorus levels in runoff are a typical problem in urban watersheds and can lead to increased in -stream plant growth, which results in excess decaying plant material that consumes oxygen in streams and reduces aquatic habitat quality. 2. Contributing to in -stream structural diversity a. Large woody debris (LWD) refers to limbs and tree trunks that naturally fall into the stream bed from a vegetated buffer. LWD serves many functions in watercourses. LWD adds roughness to stream channels, which in turn slows water velocities and traps sediments. Sources of LWD in urban settings are limited where stream corridors have been cleared of vegetation and developed and channel movement limited due to revetments and levees. Under natural conditions, the normal movement of the stream channel, undercutting of banks, wind throw, and flood events are all methods of LWD recruitment to a stream channel. b. LWD also contributes to the formation of pools in river channels that provide important habitat for salmonids. Adult salmonids require pools with sufficient depth and cover to protect them from predators during spawning migration. Adult salmon often hold to pools during daylight, moving upstream from pool to pool at night. 3. Providing Biotic Input of Insects and Organic Matter a. Vegetated buffers provide foods for salmonids and other fish, because insects fall into the water from overhanging vegetation. b. Leaves and other organic matter falling into streams provide food and nutrients for many species of aquatic insects, which in turn provide forage for fish. B. Bank Stability and Protection of Human Lives and Structures The main period of runoff and major flood events on the Green River is from November through February. The lower Green and Duwamish levees and revetments foiiii a nearly continuous bank protection and flood containment system. Farmers originally constructed many of these levees and revetments as the protection to the agricultural lands of the area and this original material is still in place as the structural core. In particular, these protection facilities typically have over -steepened banks 7 and areas with inadequate rock buttressing at the toe, and lack habitat -enhancing features such as overhanging vegetation or in -water large woody debris. Because of these design and construction shortcomings, the protection to riverbanks has not always performed as intended. Instead, there have been bank failures that have threatened structures and infrastructure; erosion of banks — making them even steeper; and damage to levees that has required a series of repair projects. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 33 8/21/2019 105 The damage to the levee system in storm events lead led to discussions among the City, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the King County Flood Control District to determine the best levee design to prevent the recurring problem of continued levee repairs. The criteria used to design a levee profile are: • Public safety; • Maintaining levee certification; • Solutions that eliminate or correct factors that have caused or contributed to the need for the levee repair; Levee maintenance needs; and • Environmental considerations. To overcome the existing problems and to reduce future maintenance and repair costs, the Corps chose to lessen the overall slope to a stable grade. This selected method is consistent with recommendations set forth in the Corps of Engineers' Manual for Design and Construction of Levees (EM 1110-2-1913) for slope stability. It also is consistent with the levee rehabilitation project constructed on the nearby Briscoe School levee that has proven to be a very effective solution to scour problems the design slows the river down, provides additional flood storage and allows a vegetated mid -slope bench for habitat improvements. This profile was used to repair two areas of the federally -certified levee in Tukwila the Lily Point project and the Segale project, which were about 2,000 linear feet of repairs. Costs of these repairs were around $7 million dollars, not including any costs of land acquisition for laying back the levees. It is expected that the use of this levee design or an environmentally superior solution will reduce the need to continually repair the levee in those areas, thus avoiding such high expenditures in the future and saving money in the long run. The profile discussed above is illustrated in Figure 2 below: SMP Public Review Draft Clean 34 8/21/2019 106 10' 18' Typical Shoreline Buffer in Leveed Areas•Width Will Vary 2* alin111-12/Mtantriqe •. Maintenance Easement Reconfigured Levee 15' Reconfigured Slope averages 2.5:1 with bench Vegetated Bench Minimum Levee Profile Not To Scale Figure 2. Briscoe Levee Profile Willows Existing Levee Ordinary High Water Mark OHWM Because of the similarities in the soil conditions and taking into consideration the tidal influence, the Green/Duwamish River can be divided into three areas —South of I-405; North of I-405; and areas around residential neighborhoods. Looking at the slope geometry and the difference in height between the ordinary high water mark and the 100-year flood elevation for these three areas, it was found that 125 feet of setback distance (buffer) is needed to accommodate the "lay back" of the levee in the area south of I-405 and around Fort Dent Park.2 During high flow events, the water surface can be as much as 16 feet above the OHWM in these areas. At locations further downriver, the water surface elevation difference is much less pronounced due to the wider channel and proximity to Puget Sound. For areas without levees, north of I-405 and those areas south of I-405 on the east side of the river (right bank), a 100-foot setback distance is required to accommodate the slopes needed for bank stability. Within residential neighborhoods, a minimum 50-foot setback is justified because of the less intense land use associated with single-family home construction and the estimated amount of space needed to achieve the natural angle of repose for a more stable slope. Even though the above explanation for determining appropriate buffer distance used levee design as the example, the same problems exist where there are no levees. The river makes no distinction between an over -steepened slope associated with a levee or a riverbank. Scouring within the river will cause sloughing and slope stability will be weakened, potentially resulting in the loss of structures. In fact, the non -leveed riverbank can be more 2 The 125 foot distance includes a slope no steeper than 2.5:1 with a mid -slope bench incorporated, 18 feet at the top of the levee and 10 feet on the back side of the levee for access and inspection. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 35 8/21/2019 107 prone to these problems since they tend to be steeper and consist mainly of sand and silt. This makes them susceptible to erosion. Because the non -leveed riverbanks are for the most part privately owned, they are not actively monitored for damage by the City or County. C. Conclusions The determination of buffer widths was based on two important criteria: (1) the need to achieve bank stability and protect structures along the shoreline from damage due to erosion and bank failures; and (2) to protect and enhance shoreline ecological function. Applying the 200 to 250 foot buffer widths recommended by WDFW and WDNR would not be practical given the developed nature of the shoreline. It was also felt that a buffer less than that already established for Type 2 Watercourses under the City's SAO Sensitive Areas Ordinance would not be sufficiently protective of shoreline functions, unless those functions were enhanced through various restoration options. Therefore, 100 feet was established as the starting point for considering buffer widths from the standpoint of shoreline ecological function in each of the Shoreline Environments. Between 100 and 125 feet was the starting point for buffer widths from the standpoint of bank stability and property protection. Thus buffers were established taking into account (as explained in the following sections) the characteristics of each Shoreline Environment, needs for protection/restoration of shoreline ecological functions, and needs for stable banks and protection of human life and property protection. 7.6 Shoreline Residential Environment A. Designation Criteria All properties zoned for single-family use from the ordinary high water mark landward 200 feet. In addition, those areas zoned for single family use but developed for public recreation or open space within 200 feet of the shoreline shall also be designated Shoreline Residential, except Fort Dent Park. B. Purpose of Environment and Establishment of River Buffer The purpose of the Shoreline Residential Environment is to accommodate urban density residential development, appurtenant structures, public access and recreational activities. However, within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction in the Shoreline Residential Environment there will be a protective buffer along the river, where development will be limited to protect shoreline function. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 36 8/21/2019 108 The purpose of the river buffer in the shoreline residential environment is to: • Ensure no net loss to shoreline ecological functions; • Help protect water quality and habitat function by limiting allowed uses; • Protect existing and new development from high river flows by ensuring sufficient setback of structures; • Promote restoration of the natural character of the shoreline environment; and • Allow room for reconstructing over -steepened riverbanks to achieve a more stable slope and more natural shoreline bank conditions and avoid the need for shoreline armoring. C. Analysis of Development Character of Residential Shoreline An analysis was prepared that looked at the residential properties along the shoreline and identified the number of parcels with structures within 50 feet and 100 feet of the OHWM. This analysis showed the following: ZONE Number of parcels within 50 feet of OHWM Number of vacant parcels within 50 feet Number of parcels with structures within 50 feet / % Number of parcels within 100 feet of OHWM Number of vacant parcels within 100 feet Number of parcels with structures within 100 feet / % LDR 135 12 67 / 49% 201 25 165 / 82% As can be seen from the chart above, almost half of the parcels in the residential neighborhoods have a structure within 50 feet of the OHWM—a direct result of the current King County regulations. To apply a buffer width that is consistent with the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) of 100 feet would create a situation where 82% of the properties along the river would have nonconforming structures as they relate to the proposed shoreline buffer. Expansion of single family nonconforming structures in the proposed SMP buffer would be governed by Tukwila Municipal Code Section 18.44.110, which permits an expansion of only 50% of the square footage of the current area that intrudes into the buffer and only along the ground floor of the structure. For example, if 250 square feet of a building extended into the proposed buffer, the ground floor could be expanded a maximum of 125 feet in total area along the existing building line. A buffer of 100 feet was considered for the shoreline residential properties, with the potential of a property owner applying for a buffer reduction of 50%; however, under the Shoreline Management Act, this would have required an application for a shoreline variance for each requested buffer reduction, a process that requires review and approval both at the local and state level (Ecology must review and approve the variance in addition to the City of Tukwila). This did not seem a reasonable process to require of so many property owners. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 37 8/21/2019 109 The riverbank in the Shoreline Residential Environment is typically in a modified and degraded state but generally not stabilized with revetments, dikes or levees. Based on an analysis of the river elevations and existing banks, a 50-foot minimum buffer in the Shoreline Residential Environment would allow room to achieve a 2.5:1 bank slope with an additional 20-foot setback from the top of the slope —a distance that will allow for bank stability and, in -turn, protection of new structures from high flows, and bank failures. A schematic of the shoreline jurisdiction showing the buffer is provided in Figure 3. 200' Shoreline Residential Environment i50' min 20 feet from top of Buffer reconfigured river bank -- 20' -- Ordinary High Water Mark Figure 3. Schematic of Shoreline Residential Environment and Buffer The proposed buffer area for the Shoreline Residential Environment will allow for removal of invasive plants, planting of native vegetation in the riparian zone and inclusion of other features to improve shoreline habitat. It also will prevent the placement of any structures in an area that could potentially prove unstable. In the event of bank erosion or slope failures, the buffer will provide sufficient space for re -sloping the bank to a more stable 2.5:1 slope, either through bank stabilization projects or through natural bank failures that result in the natural angle of repose (2.5:1 or greater). 7.7 Urban Conservancy Environment A. Designation Criteria This environment will be designated in the area between the Ordinary High Water Mark and 200 feet landward as regulated under the Shoreline Management Act and applied to all shorelines of the river except the Shoreline Residential Environment and the High Intensity Environment. The Urban Conservancy Environment areas are currently developed with dense urban multifamily, commercial, industrial and/or transportation uses or are designated for such uses in the proposed south Annexation area. This environment begins at the southern end of the Turning Basin and includes portions of the river where levees and revetments generally have been constructed and where the river is not navigable to large water craft. Uses will be restricted immediately adjacent to the river by establishment of a minimum protective buffer. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 38 8/21/2019 110 B. Purpose of Environment The purpose of the Urban Conservancy Environment is to protect ecological functions where they exist in urban and developed settings, and restore ecological functions where they have been previously degraded, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. C. Establishment of River Buffers The Urban Conservancy environment will have two different buffers, depending on the location along the river and whether or not the shoreline has a flood control levee. The purpose of Urban Conservancy River Buffers is to: • Protect existing and restore degraded ecological functions of the open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands in the developed urban settings; • Ensure no net loss of shoreline function when new development or re- development is proposed; • Provide opportunities for restoration and public access; • Allow for adequate flood and channel management to ensure protection of property, while accommodating shoreline habitat enhancement and promoting restoration of the natural character of the shoreline environment, wherever possible; • Avoid the need for new shoreline armoring; and • Protect existing and new development from high river flows. Buffer in Non -Levee Areas: A buffer width of 100 feet is established for the Urban Conservancy Environment for all non-residential areas without levees. This buffer width is consistent with that established by the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance for Type 2 streams that support salmonid use, which is based on Best Available Science. In addition, as noted above, looking at the slope geometry and the difference in height between the ordinary high water mark and the 100- year flood elevation for these areas, it was found that a 100-foot setback distance is required to accommodate the slopes needed for bank stability. The buffer width of 100 feet allows enough room to reconfigure the riverbank to achieve a slope of 314:1, the "angle of repose" or the maximum angle of a stable slope and allow for some restoration and improvement of shoreline function through the installation of native plants and other habitat features. The actual amount of area needed to achieve a 32,5:1 slope may be less than 100 feet, depending on the character of the riverbank and can only be determined on a site -by -site basis. As an alternative to the 100-foot buffer, a property owner may re -slope the riverbank to be no steeper than 324:1, provide a 20-foot setback from the top of the new slope and vegetate both the riverbank and the 20-foot setback area in accordance with the standards in the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. Any buffer reduction proposal must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that it will not result in direct, indirect or SMP Public Review Draft Clean 39 8/21/2019 1 1 1 long-term adverse impacts to shoreline ecosystem functions. In all cases a buffer enhancement plan must also be approved and implemented as a condition of the reduction. The plan must include removal of invasive plants, and plantings using a variety of native vegetation that improves the functional attributes of the buffer and provides additional protection for the watercourse functions. In no case shall the buffer be less than 50 feet. In areas of the river where this condition currently exists or where the property owner has constructed these improvements, the buffer width will be the actual distance as measured from the ordinary high water mark to the top of the bank plus 20 feet. The shoreline jurisdiction and buffers for the Urban Conservancy Environment are depicted in the schematic in Figures 4 and 5 below. Allow room to reconfigure river bank to 2.5:1 slope I I 200' >I I Urban Conservancy Environment I I I I 100' 1 Ordinary High Water Mark Rive Figure 4. Schematic of Shoreline Jurisdiction and Buffers for the Urban Conservancy Environment in Areas without Levees Buffer in Levee Areas: For properties located behind the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Certified 205 levee and County constructed levees, the buffer will extend 125 feet landward from the ordinary high water mark, determined at the time of development or redevelopment of the site or when levee replacement or repair is programmed. This buffer width is the maximum needed to reconfigure the riverbank to the minimum levee profile and to achieve an overall slope of 324:1, the "angle of repose" or the maximum angle of a stable slope. The establishment of the 324:1 slope along the Corps certified 205 levee in the Tukwila Urban Center will allow for incorporating a mid -slope bench that can be planted with vegetation to improve river habitat. The mid -slope bench also will allow access for maintenance equipment, when needed. An fifteen foot easement necessary to allow access for levee inspection is required on the landward side of the levee at the toe. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 40 8/21/2019 112 200' Urban Conservancy Environment Allow room fi for Levee I repair or replacement 125' Ordinary High Water Mark Rive Figure 5. Schematic of Shoreline Jurisdiction and Buffers for the Urban Conservancy Environment in Areas with Levees As an alternative to the 125 foot buffer for leveed areas, a property owner may construct levee or riverbank improvements that meet the Army Corps of Engineers, King County Flood Control District, and City of Tukwila minimum levee standards. These standards at a minimum shall include an overall slope no steeper than 32.5:1 from the toe of the levee to the riverward edge of the crown, 162-foot access across the top of the levee, a 2:1 back slope, and an additional 15 foot no build area measured from the landward toe for inspection and repairs. In instances where an existing building that has not lost its nonconforming status prevents achieving an overall slope of 324:1 the slope should be as close to 32,5:1 as possible. A floodwall is not the preferred back slope profile for a levee but may be substituted for all or a portion of the back slope where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to a structure legally constructed prior to the date of adoption of this Master Program which has not lost its nonconforming status and to preserve access needed for building functionality. The floodwall shall be designed to provide 15 '(fifteen_foot clearance between the levee and the building or to preserve access needed for building functionality while meeting all engineering safety standards. A floodwall may also be used where necessary to avoid encroachment on a railroad easement or to provide area for waterward habitat restoration. In areas of the river where the property owner or a government agency has constructed a levee with an overall waterward slope of 32,5:1 or flatter, the buffer will be reduced to the actual distance as measured from the ordinary high water mark to the landward toe of the levee or face of a floodwall, plus 15 feet. In the event that the owner provides the City and/or applicable agency with a 15 foot levee maintenance easement measured landward from the landward toe of the levee or levee wall (which easement prohibits the construction of any structures and allows the City and/or applicable agency to access the area to inspect the levee), then the buffer shall be reduced to the landward toe of the levee, or landward edge of the levee floodwall, as the case may be. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 41 8/21/2019 113 In cases where fill is placed along the back slope of the levee, the shoreline buffer may be further reduced to the point where the ground plane intersects the back slope. The area between the landward edge of the buffer and a point 15 feet landward of the underground levee toe shall be covered by an easement prohibiting the construction of any structures and allowing the City and/or applicable agency to access the area to inspect the levee and/or floodwall and make any necessary repairs. See Figure 56 below. Buffer that could - Be Replaced ' by Easements -V 'NNi New Ground < cos= 2 Plane Access/ Inspection 11— Fill Buffer Reduction Landward Levee Toe Proposed Levee 18Top Width 2* Buffer Reduction with Backfill Option Not To Scale Figure 6. Schematic of Buffer Reduction Through Placement of Fill on Levee Back Slope 7.8 High Intensity Environment A. Designation Criteria The High Intensity Shoreline Environment area is currently developed with high intensity urban commercial, industrial and/or transportation uses or is designated for such uses in the proposed north annexation area. This environment begins at the Ordinary High Water Mark and extends landward 200 feet and is located from the southern edge of the Turning Basin north to the City limits and includes the North PAA. This Environment is generally located along portions of the Duwamish River that are navigable to large watercraft. Uses will be restricted immediately adjacent to the river by establishment of a minimum protective buffer. The Transition Zone is located partly in the High Intensity Environment. The Transition Zone is the location where freshwater from a river and saltwater from the marine salt wedge mix creating brackish conditions. Often it is also where the river widens, stream velocities decrease and estuarine mudflats begin to appear. Habitat associated with the Transition Zone is critically important for juvenile Chinook and chum smolts making the transition to salt water. The Transition Zone moves upstream and downstream in response to the combination of stream flow and tidal elevations and as a result varies over a twenty four SMP Public Review Draft Clean 42 8/21/2019 114 24-hour period and seasonally. The Transition Zone is a crucial habitat for salmonids. B. Purpose of Environment and Establishment of River Buffer The purpose of the Urban High Intensity Environment is to provide for high intensity, commercial, transportation and industrial uses and to promote water dependent and water oriented uses while protecting existing shoreline ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded. The purposes of the High Intensity River Buffer are to: • Protect existing and restore degraded ecological functions of the open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands in the developed urban settings; Ensure no net loss of shoreline function when new development or re- development occurs; • Provide opportunities for shoreline restoration and public access; • Allow for adequate flood and channel management to ensure protection of property, while accommodating shoreline habitat enhancement and promoting restoration of the natural character of the shoreline environment, wherever possible; • Avoid the need for new shoreline armoring; and • Protect existing and new development from high river flows. A buffer of 100 feet is established, which allows enough room to reconfigure the riverbank to achieve a slope of 3:1 (starting at the OHWM rather than the toe), the "angle of repose" or the maximum angle of a stable slope and allow for some restoration and improvement of shoreline function through the installation of native plants and other habitat features. The actual amount of area needed to achieve a 3:1 slope may be less than 100 feet, depending on the character of the riverbank, and can only be determined on a site -by -site basis. tr Allow room to reconfigure river bank to 3:1 slope 200' High Intensity Environment l< 100' Buffer Ordinary High Water Mark Fitly Figure 7. Schematic Showing the Proposed Shoreline Jurisdiction and Buffer for the High Intensity Environment SMP Public Review Draft Clean 43 8/21/2019 115 As an alternative to the 100-foot buffer, a property owner may re -slope the riverbank to a maximum 3:1, provide a 20-foot setback from the top of the new slope and vegetate both the riverbank and the 20-foot setback area in accordance with the standards in the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. The property owner must also demonstrate that this approach will not result in a loss of ecological functions of the shoreline. In areas of the river where this condition currently exists or where the property owner has constructed these improvements, the buffer width will be the actual distance as measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark to the top of the bank plus 20 feet. In no case shall the buffer be less than 50 feet. In any shoreline environment where an existing improved street or road runs parallel to the river through the buffer, the buffer would end on the river side of the street or road. 7.9 Aquatic Environment A. Designation Criteria All water bodies within the City limits and its potential annexation area under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act waterward of the ordinary high water mark. The aquatic environment includes the water surface together with the underlying lands and the water column. B. Purpose The purpose of this designation is to protect the unique characteristics and resources of the aquatic environment by managing use activities to prioritize preservation and restoration of natural resources, navigation, recreation and commerce, and by assuring compatibility between shoreland and aquatic uses. 8. SHORELINE USE REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDA I S Uses that are permitted outright, permitted as a Conditional Use, or prohibited altogether for each Shoreline Environment are provided in TMC Section 18.44.030 along with special conditions and general requirements controlling specific uses. These regulations are intended to implement the purpose of each Shoreline Environment designation adopted with this SMP. Development standards such as setbacks, height limitations, water quality regulations, flood hazard reduction, shoreline stabilization, protection of archaeological resources, environmental impact mitigation, parking and over water structures requirements are codified in TMC Chapter 18.44. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 44 8/21/2019 116 The Administrative procedures codified in TMC Chapter 18.44 are designed to: • Assign responsibilities for implementation of the Master Program and Shoreline Permits. • Establish an orderly process by which to review proposals and permit applications. • Ensure that all persons affected by this Master Program are treated in a fair and equitable manner. These procedures include permit application requirements, conditional use approval criteria, variance approval criteria, and regulations for non -conforming development. 9. ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS WITHIN THE SHORELINE JURISDICTION 9.1 Applicable Critical Areas Regulations A. The following critical areas shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance ,(TMC Chapter 18.451 Ordinance k date), which is herein incorporated by reference into this SMP, except for the provisions excluded in subsection B of this section: 1. Wetlands 2. Watercourses (Type F, Type Np, Type Ns) 3. Areas of potential geologic instability 4. Abandoned mine areas 5. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas Such critical area provisions shall apply to any use, alteration, or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. Unless otherwise stated, no development shall be constructed, located, extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided without full compliance with the provision adopted by reference and the Shoreline Master Program. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of TMC Chapter 18.45 shall be liberally construed together with the Shoreline Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. If there is a conflict or inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline Master Program, the most restrictive provisions shall prevail. B. The following provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45 do not apply within the Shoreline jurisdiction: 1. Sensitive Critical Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC Section 18.45.160) 2. Reasonable Use Exception (TMC Section 18.45.180). 3. Permitting, Appeals, and Enforcement Procedures (TMC Section 18.45.195) SMP Public Review Draft Clean 45 8/21/2019 117 C. Critical areas comprised of frequently flooded areas and areas of seismic instability are regulated by the Flood Zone Management Code (TMC Chapter 16.52) and the Washington State Building Code, rather than by TMC Chapter 18.44. 9.2 Purpose A. The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) and Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) requires protection of critical areas (sensitive areas), defined as wetlands, watercourses, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, and fish and wildlife conservation areas, 18.11 B. The purpose of protecting environmentally critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction is to: 1. Minimize developmental impacts on the natural functions and values of these areas. 2. Protect quantity and quality of water resources. 3. Minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and fish -bearing waters and maintain wildlife habitat. 4. Prevent erosion and the loss of slope and soil stability caused by the removal of trees, shrubs, and root systems of vegetative cover. 5. Protect the public against avoidable losses, public emergency rescue and relief operations cost, and subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide, subsidence, erosion and flooding. 6. Protect the community's aesthetic resources and distinctive features of natural lands and wooded hillsides. 7. Balance the private rights of individual property owners with the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas. 8. Prevent the loss of wetland and watercourse function and acreage, and strive for a gain over present conditions. 9. Give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to protect or enhance anadromous fisheries. 10. Incorporate the use of best available science the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available in the regulation and protection of critical areas as required by the state Growth Shoreline Management Act, according to WAC 080173 26 201 and WAC 173-26-221. C. The goal of these critical area regulations is to provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resottrces. Critical areas currently identified in the shoreline jurisdiction are discussed in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, which forms part of this Shoreline Master Program. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 46 8/21/2019 118 The locations are mapped on the Sensitive Areas in the Shoreline T➢, ; i ti Map (Map J. This map is based on assessment of current conditions and review of the best available information. However, additional sensitive areas may exist within the shoreline jurisdiction and the boundaries of the sensitive areas shown are not exact. It is the responsibility of the property owner to determine the presence of sensitive areas on the property and to verify the boundaries in the field. mine areas do not apply as none of these a SMP Public Review Draft Clean 47 8/21/2019 119 Legend Tukwila City [jails Type 2 Shoreline Wetland Type 2 Shoreline Wetland Buffer (80') [22;121 Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Fish & Wildlife Habitat Buffer (100) Type 2 Stream Type 2 Stream in Pipe Type 3 Stream Type 3 Stream in Pipe Type 4 Stream Type 4 Stream in Pipe Type 2 Watercourse Buffer (100) Type 3 Watercourse Buffer (80') Type 4 Watercourse Buffer (50') 200ft River Buffer Slope Classifications 2at sestete It, axial, {...A4-141 temna eW relt,ty,eletvyLerelaeoeedeal,IeLesrei3O+C LIII 3 41 0,5, Ina Ivo,O, kt7 Vropr"= Vre==!:r" 4 ockengrrappl, "ado r;,,loy's a.,. Tay and Wildlle Radial Carmen-atm Areas elm. are Salmon habdal ed-vmmeni prciecls amnpleled or indemay. The rntr bell is also a riSh old C Cue Handal Conwvalion Area. Map 4 Sensitive Areas In the Shoreline The InaPP en or Mae 01 pmemN getiagt Inslablitr aPPrcM`Mte On Me verrmalion al 1,,mgraUly and onalogy is rams:my Wal.rd and locallan, ximrre only and 7rra- as steam on lienay been suNeY0 -71,r -2-ri $<$.$ t4)!, 55 -11 eve • Si 4555 ._ II se 47/ $1-1 MILE SMP Public Review Draft Clean 120 48 8/21/2019 10. PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE SHORELINE Public access to the shorelines of the state is one of the key goals of the Shoreline Management Act. Of the seven uses identified in RCW 90.58.020 as having preference in the shoreline, two relate to public access and recreational opportunities along the shoreline. The City of Tukwila is fortunate to have a number of public access sites already along the Green/Duwamish River in addition to the Green River Trail, which runs along almost the entire length of the river through the City. Other public access points are available at the North Winds Wier, the Tukwila Community Center, Codiga Park, Bicentennial Park at Strander Boulevard and parking available on Christianson Road, and at S. 180th Street. A habitat restoration project is underway at Duwamish Riverbend Hill on South 115th Street, which also includes public access to the river. The Shoreline Public Access Map (Map 65) identifies several street ends that could be improved or to which amenities could be added that would offer opportunities for neighborhood access to the river and/or the Green River Trail. The Shoreline Public Access map identifies several potential trail sites on the river to supplement the existing Green River trail system. The largest stretch of potential trail runs from S. 180th on the left bank to the end of the south annexation area. A pedestrian bridge to link the area south of S. 180th Street to the existing trail on the right bank is being discussed as well. 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 public access points to the River should be completed to identify gaps and opportunities. Requirements for public access to shorelines have been codified in TMC Chapter 18.44. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 49 8/21/2019 121 Legend Tukwila City Limits CLI.i Potential Annexation Areas I City of Tukwila Property Interurban Trail Green River Trail Potential New Trail Street Ends Potential rt Public Access Potential - Trail Map 5 Shoreline Public Access jGreen River Trail 21 Interurban Trail S 110 SI ; 11 f smat ; v SZ.(411".if tt, f SMP Public Review Draft Clean 122 50 8/21/2019 11. SHORELINE DESIGN GUIDELINES The Green/Duwamish River is an amenity that should be valued and celebrated when designing projects that will be located along its length. The river and its tributaries support salmon runs and resident trout, including the ESA -listed Chinook salmon, Bull Trout and Steelhead. If any portion of a project falls within the shoreline jurisdiction, then the entire project will be reviewed under the shoreline specific guidelines codified in TMC Chapter 18.44, as well as the relevant sections of the Design Review Chapter of the Zoning Code (TMC Chapter 18.60). The standards of TMC Chapter 18.60 shall guide the type of review, whether administrative or by the Board of Architectural Review. The standards apply to development, uses and activities in the Urban Conservancy and High Intensity Environments and non-residential development in the Shoreline Residential Environment. iiiiiiii[iiu,:i: --,011111tillIIIIIii, 12. SHORELINE RESTORATION The Shoreline Restoration Plan, found in Appendix B, identifies the sites that have been identified to -date as possible locations for habitat restoration along the Green/Duwamish River. The City will continue to add sites to the Restoration Plan as they are identified and will include them in the City's Capital Improvement Program for acquisition and improvement. Project sites in the Transition Zone have the highest priority for acquisition. Amendments or revisions to the Shoreline Restoration Plan do not require an amendment to the Shoreline Master Program. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 51 8/21/2019 123 13. ADMINISTRATION The Administrative procedures below are designed to: • Assign responsibilities for implementation of the Master Program and Shoreline Permit • Establish an orderly process by which to review proposals and peimit applications • Ensure that all persons affected by this Master Program are treated in a fair and equitable manner. 13.1 Applicability of Shoreline Master Program and Substantial Development Permit A. Development in the Shoreline Jurisdiction Based on guidelines in the Shoreline Management Act for a minimum shoreline jurisdiction, Tukwila's Shoreline Jurisdiction is defined as follows: The Tukwila Shoreline Jurisdiction includes the channel of the Green/Duwamish River, its banks, the upland area which extends from the ordinary high water mark landward for 200 feet on each side of the river, floodways and all associated wetlands within its floodplain. The floodway shall not include those lands that have historically been protected by flood control devices and therefore have not been subject to flooding with reasonable regularity. B. Applicability The Tukwila Shoreline Master Program applies to uses, change of uses, activities or development that occurs within the above -defined shoreline jurisdiction. All proposed uses and development occurring within the shoreline jurisdiction must confoini to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act, and this Master Program whether or not a permit is required. Except that requirements to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other review to implement the Shoreline Management Act do not apply to the following described in WAC 173-27-044 and WAC 173-27-045: 1. Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial action at a facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to Chapter 70.105D RCW, or to the Department of Ecology when it conducts a remedial action under Chapter 70.105D RCW. 2. Boatyard improvements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person installing site improvements for storm water treatment in an existing boatyard facility to meet requirements of a national pollutant discharge elimination system storm water general permit. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 52 8/21/2019 124 3. WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Washington State Department of Transportation projects and activities meeting the conditions of RCW 90.58.356 are not required to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other local review. 4. Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant to RCW 90.58.045. 5. Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process, pursuant to Chapter 80.50 RCW. 13.2 Relationship to Other Codes and Regulations 1. Compliance with this Master Program does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and pelinit requirements that may apply. The applicant is responsible for complying with all other applicable requirements. 2. Where this Master Program makes reference to any RCW, WAC, or other state or federal law or regulation, the most recent amendment or current edition shall apply. 3. When any provision of this Master Program or any other federal, state, or local provision conflicts with this Master Program, the provision that is most protective of shoreline resources shall prevail, except when constrained by federal or state law, or where specifically provided otherwise in this Master Program. 4. Relationship to Critical Areas Regulations. (a) For protection of critical areas where they occur in shoreline jurisdiction, this Master Program adopts by reference the City's Critical Areas Ordinance, which is incorporated into this Master Program with specific exclusions and modifications in Section 9 of this SMP. (b) All references to the Critical Areas Ordinance are for the version adopted [SAO adoption date]. Pursuant to WAC 173-26-191(2)(b), amending the referenced regulations in the Master Program for those critical areas under shoreline jurisdiction will require an amendment to the Master Program and approval by the Department of Ecology. (c) Within shoreline jurisdiction, the Critical Areas Ordinance shall be liberally construed together with this Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the provisions of this Master Program and Chapter 90.58 RCW. 14. APPEALS Any appeal of a decision by the City on a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use, Unclassified Use or Shoreline Variance must be appealed to the Shoreline Hearing Board. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 53 8/21/2019 125 15. MASTER PROGRAM REVIEW AND AMENDMENTS 15.1. This Master Program shall be periodically reviewed and adjustments shall be made as are necessary to reflect changing local circumstances, new information or improved data, and changes in State statutes and regulations. This review process shall be consistent with WAC 173-26 and shall include a local citizen involvement effort and public hearing to obtain the views and comments of the public. 15.2 Any provision of this Master Program may be amended as provided for in RCW 90.58.080 and WAC 173-26-090 and 173-26-100. Amendments or revisions to the Master Program, as provided by law, do not become effective until 14 days following written approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology. 15.3 Proposals for shoreline environment re -designations (i.e. amendments to the shoreline maps and descriptions) must demonstrate consistency with the criteria set forth in WAC 173- 26 and this program. 16. LIABILITY 16.1. Liability for any adverse impacts or damages resulting from work performed in accordance with a permit issued on behalf of the City within the City limits, shall be the sole responsibility of the owner of the site for which the permit was issued. 16.2 No provision of or term used in the Master Program is intended to impose any duty upon the City or any of its officers or employees that would subject them to damages in a civil action. SMP Public Review Draft Clean 54 8/21/2019 126 NOTE: Shaded text denotes changes made after the August 13, 2019 Community Development and Neighborhoods Committee meeting. Seepages3 8, 16, 2, 2, 3, 42, 45, 84, 93 and 94. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON; REPEALING VARIOUS DEFINITIONS AS CODIFIED IN TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) CHAPTER 18.06, "DEFINITIONS"; REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2346 AND 2549 §23; REENACTING TMC CHAPTER 18.44, "SHORELINE OVERLAY," TO ESTABLISH NEW REGULATIONS RELATED TO SHORELINE USES; AMENDING VARIOUS ORDINANCES AS CODIFIED IN TMC SECTIONS 18.52.030, 18.60.050 AND 18.104.010 TO UPDATE ZONING REGULATIONS RELATED TO SHORELINE USES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, RCW 90.58 finds that shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that unrestricted construction on privately and publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and WHEREAS, RCW 90.58 establishes a hierarchy of preference for uses in shorelines of state-wide significance: recognizing and protecting the state-wide interest over local interest; preserving the natural character of the shoreline; resulting in long term over short term benefit; protecting the resources and ecology of the shoreline; increasing public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; increasing recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; and providing for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary; and WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.080 directs local governments to develop and administer local shoreline master programs for regulation of uses on shorelines of the state; and WHEREAS, the Green/Duwamish River, a shoreline of the state regulated under RCW 90.58, runs through the entire length of the City of Tukwila; and WHEREAS, Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout have been listed as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and the Green/Duwamish River throughout Tukwila is a critical resource for these species, making shoreline habitat protection and restoration crucial, particularly in the Transition Zone portion of the river that extends from the East Marginal Way South bridge through the north City limits; and W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 1 of 94 127 WHEREAS, Tukwila's current Shoreline Master Program was adopted in 2009 and revised per Department of Ecology comments in 2011; and WHEREAS, the City is conducting a required periodic update of its Shoreline Master Program per RCW 90.58.080 (4)(b)(i) using the joint review process with the Department of Ecology; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Public Outreach Plan that incorporated a variety of methods to notify the general public and property owners along the shoreline of the proposed Shoreline Master Program update including an open house, mailings to property owners and tenants, notice in a stormwater bill, postings on the City's web site, creation of a broadcast e-mail group who received updates of the shoreline review process and articles in the City's newsletter "The Hazelnut;" and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed a public review draft Shoreline Master Program, held a public hearing on March 28, 2019, and recommended adoption of a revised Shoreline Master Program to the City Council on April 25, 2019; and WHEREAS, an environmental checklist was prepared for the draft Shoreline Master Program update as recommended by the Planning Commission and a Determination of Non -Significance was issued May 15, 2019; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on June 24, 2019, to review the Planning Commission recommended draft Shoreline Master Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed written and verbal testimony and approved revisions to the Planning Commission recommended draft Shoreline Master Program to address issues raised by interested parties, individual councilmembers, staff and the Department of Ecology; and WHEREAS, notice has been provided to the Washington State Department of Commerce pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," Amended. Ordinance No. 2347 §8, as codified in Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," under the subparagraph entitled "Development, Shoreline," is hereby amended to read as follows: Development, Shoreline "Development, shoreline" means, when conducted within the Shoreline Jurisdiction on shorelands or shoreland areas as defined herein, a use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; construction of bulkheads; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature that interferes with the normal public use of the waters overlying lands subject to the Shoreline Management Act at any stage of W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 2 of 94 128 water level. "Deyelooment. Shoreline" does not include dismantling or removing structures if there is no other associated development or re -development Section 2. TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," Amended. Ordinance No. 2347 §15, as codified in TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," under the subparagraph entitled "Floodway," is hereby amended to read as follows: Floodway nr.el .2f -rr-r eV,Icr '„..,,,Tlefocurcze -r+d-the daer4-d 4, Irk, a e•r. k 7.7 r41 .1,11,--y, 1111 11,+;1, I ;7"-77.77 s r-E-4 e-1Q,4„,-, sr% rr, r-,4-4Q414--sr-, sr, else, ;rod —A Floodway" means the area that has been established in effective federal emergency management agency flood insurance rate maps or floodwav mans. -Fhe .floodway does pot include lands that can reasonably be ex ected to be_protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state. Section 3. TMC Section Adopted. A new section is hereby added to TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," as follows: Nonconforming Structure, Sh re onconformina Structure, Shoreline" means a shucture eqaflv ustabhshed nno the effective date of the Shoreline Master Program. but which does not -n to presen regulations or standards of the program. Section 4. TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," Amended. Ordinance No. 1758 §1 (part), as codified in TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," under the subparagraph entitled "River Channel," is hereby amended to read as follows: River Channel "River Channel" means that area of the river high water mark. F-14 lying riverward of the mean Section 5. TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," Amended. Ordinance No. 2347 §33, as codified in TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," under the subparagraph entitled "Shoreline Areas," is hereby amended to read as follows: Shorelines or Shoreline Areas "Shorelines" or "Shoreline areas" means all "shorelines of the state" and "shorelands" as defined in RCW 90.58.030. Section 6. TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," Amended. Ordinance No. 2347 as codified in TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," under the subparagraph entitled •Substantial Developmunt," is hereby amended to read as follows: W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 3 of 94 129 Substantial Development "Substantial development" means any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds$C- $ 7 , 0 ,4 7' 00 or any development that materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. The dollar threshold established in this definition must be adjusted for inflation by the Office of Financial Management every five years, beginning July 1, 2007, based upon changes in the Consumer Price Index during that time period. "Consumer Price Index" means, for any calendar year, that year's annual average Consumer Price Index, Seattle, Washington area, for urban wage earners and clerical workers, all items, compiled by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, United States Department of Labor. In accordance with WAC 173- 27-040, as it now reads and as hereafter amended, the following shall not be considered developments which require a shoreline substantial development permit, although shall still comply with the substantive requirements of the Shoreline Master Program: 1. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including repair of damage caused by accident, fire, or elements. 2. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. 3. Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelands, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures including but not limited to head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels. A feedlot of any size, all processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, and alteration of the contour of the shorelands by leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations. 4. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys. 5. Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single family residence for his own use or for the use of his or her family, which residence does not exceed a height of 35 feet above average grade level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to this chapter. 6. Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private non-commercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single and multiple family residences. This exception applies if either: (a) In salt waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed $2,500; or (b) in fresh waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed 130 W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 4 of 94 $121.0,000 for docks that are constructed to replace existInd docks, a si are of enual or lesser sauare footage than the existinq dock being replaced: or ii) $10 000 for all other docks constructed on fresh 4et However, if subsequent construction b---,-a-k-l-n-g-a—fxr $2,500 occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, and the combined fair market value of the subsequent and prior construction exceeds the amount specified above, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development for the purpose of this chapter. 7. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored groundwater for the irrigation of lands. 8. The marking of property lines or corners on state owned lands, when such marking does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water. 9. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system. 10. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization under this chapter, if: a. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters; b. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including, but not limited to, fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values; c. The activity does not involve the installation of a structure, and upon completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity; d. A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the local jurisdiction to ensure the site is restored to preexisting conditions; and e. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550 (Oil and Natural Gas exploration in marine waters). 11. The process of removing or controlling an aquatic noxious weed, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the Department of Agriculture or the department jointly with other state agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW. 12. Watershed restoration projects, which means a public or private project authorized by the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or a part of the plan and consists of one or more of the following activities: W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/Malojs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 5 of 94 131 a. A project that involves less than 10 miles of stream reach, in which less than 25 cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported, disturbed or discharged, and in which no existing vegetation is removed except as minimally necessary to facilitate additional plantings. b. A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that employs the principles of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water,; or c. A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or reduce impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource available for use by all of the citizens of the state, provided that any structure, other than a bridge or culvert or instream habitat enhancement structure associated with the project, is less than 200 square feet in floor area and is located above the ordinary high water mark of the stream. 13. Watershed restoration plan, which means a plan, developed or sponsored by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Ecology, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Transportation, a federally recognized Indian tribe acting within and pursuant to its authority, a city, a county or a conservation district that provides a general program and implementation measures or actions for the preservation, restoration, re-creation, or enhancement of the natural resources, character, and ecology of a stream, stream segment, drainage area or watershed for which agency and public review has been conducted pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act. 14. A public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply: a. The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife; b. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to Chapter 77.55 RCW; and c. The local government has determined that -the project is substantially consistent with the local Shoreline Master Program. The local government shall make such determination in a timely manner and provide it by letter to the project proponent. Additional criteria for determining eligibility of fish habitat projects are found in WAC 173-27-040 2 (p) and apply to this exemption. 15. The external or internal retrofitting of an existin structure f r the exclusive pose of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et sect.) or to otherwise rovide physical access to the strict re by individuals with disabilities. Section 7. Section Numbers within TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," Amended. As a result of amendments contained herein, the section number for some definitions in TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," may be changed as part of codification of this ordinance including, but not limited to, the following: W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 132 Page 6 of 94 Current Section Number Definition 18.06.330 Floodplain 18.06.472 Large Woody Debris (LWD) 18.06.590 Nonconforming Use 18.06.591 Non -Water -Oriented Uses 18.06.592 Office 18.06.593 Open Record Appeal 18.06.594 Open Record Hearing 18.06.595 Open Space Section 8. Repealer. Ordinance No. 1758 §1 (part), as codified in TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," under the subparagraph entitled "High -Impact Environment," is hereby repealed. 48,06,425 High n-t ervt rwr++ u-,+" r���,..'� °mac the _�h t % .ry Fhe4€ '... C":�;ree�a.. 'not `% ee — n word from h m•w-e n _ i Section 9. Repealer. Ordinance No. 2347 §19, as codified in TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," under the subparagraph entitled "Levee, Minimum Profile," is hereby repealed. i4 4L494-t Section 10. Repealer. Ordinance No. 1758 §1 (part), as codified in TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," under the subparagraph entitled "Low -Impact Environment," is hereby repealed. =180 r Section 11. Repealer. Ordinance No. 1758 §1 (part), as codified in TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," under the subparagraph entitled "River Environment," is hereby repealed. 4-8,0 .ir95 W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 7 of 94 133 Section 12. Repealer. Ordinance No. 1758 §1 (part), as codified in TMC Chapter 18.06, "Definitions," under the subparagraph entitled "Shoreline," is hereby repealed. n ac°rn„'z necns the -inc atrn,-„:anhgh waEwfeun4g bbbb 1,11 t 20 t rs, sx2 ,^1r, /rei4--7go Section 13. Repealer. Ordinance No. 2346 as codified at Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.44 is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 14. Repealer. Ordinance No. 2549 §23), as codified at Tukwi Code Section 18.44.150, "Enforcement and Penattles " is hereby repealed. Section 15. TMC Chapter 18.44 Reenacted. Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.44, "Shoreline Overlay," is hereby reenacted to read as follows: Sections: 18.44010 18.44.020 18.44.030 18.44.040 IQ AA oRn 10 AA nan 18.44.07-0050 18.44.030060 18.44.090070 18.44.100080 18.44.4-1-0090 18.44.- 0100 18.44.1-3-0110 18.44.140120 18.44.1-r 130 18.44.160140 CHAPTER 18.44 SHORELINE OVERLAY Puroose and Anolicabilitv Shoreline Environment Designations Principally Permitted Uses and Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix Env __Shoreline B !LI r.--c.orynnay-F4-44-1„4:64-14--rnr4--- liGeS „ ,e_PrWrereM/;1'r'll. AqiatIc-Envronmcr;t UCOG Development Standards Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Environmentally 0er UveCrtcal Areas within the Shoreline Jurisdiction Public Access to the Shoreline Shoreline Design Guidelines Shoreline Restoration Administration Appeals Enforcement and Penalties Liability Section 16. TMC Section 18.44.010 is hereby follows: established to read as W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 134 Page 8 of 94 8.440 0 PurDose and ADDhcabilitv A. The purpose of this chanter is to implement the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, as amended, and the rules and regulations thereunder as codified in the Washington Administrative Code; and to provide for the regulation of development that affects those areas of the City under the iurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, i .icular, the purpose9fthis chapter is to: Recognize and protectshorelines of State-wide siqnificance, 2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; 3. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; 4. Increase public access to publicly -owned areas of the shoreline; 5. Increase recreational opportunities for the public ;in the shoreline: 6. Protect and create critical Chinook salmon habitat in the Transition Zone of the Green River, B. Applicability of Amended Zoning Code. After the effective date of this ordinance, Chapter 18.44 of the Zoning Code, as hereby amended, shall apply to all properties subject to the shoreline overlay, provided that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to override any vested rights or require any alteration of a non -conforming use or non -conforming structure, except as specifically provided in Chapter 18.44 of the Zoning Code, as amended. C. Pursuant to WAC 173-26-191 (2)(c), this chapter, together with the Shoreline the Gomorehensive Plan, constitutes the City f Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program. Any modifications to these documents will be processed as a Shoreline Master Program Amendment and require approval by the, Department of Ecology. Section 17. TMC Section 18.44.020 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 18.44.020 Shoreline Environment Designations All shoreline within the City is designated "urban" and further identified as follows: 1. Shoreline Residential Environment. All lands zoned for residential use as measured 200 feet landward from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). 2. Urban Conservancy Environment. All lands not zoned for residential use upstream from the Turning Basin as measured 200 feet landward from the OHWM. 3. High Intensity Environment. All lands downstream from the Turning Basin as measured 200 feet landward from the OHWM. 4. Aquatic Environment. All water bodies within the City limits and its potential annexation areas under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. The Aquatic Environment includes the water surface together with the underlying lands and the water column. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 9 of 94 135 Section 18. TMC Section 18.44.030 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 18.44.030 Principally Permitted Uses and Shoreline Use and odification Matrix A. TMC Section 18.44.030(A), including the Use Matrix (Figure 18-1), specifies the uses that are permitted outright, permitted as a Conditional Use or prohibited altogether for each Shoreline Environment. Also included are special conditions and general requirements controlling specific uses. These regulations are intended to implement the purpose of each Shoreline Environment designation. B. In the matrix, shoreline environments are listed at the top of each column and the specific uses are listed along the left-hand side of each horizontal row. The cell at the intersection of a column and a row indicates whether a use may be allowed in a specific shoreline environment and whether additional use criteria apply. The matrix shall be interpreted as follows: 1. If the letter "P" appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use may be allowed within the shoreline environment if the underlying zoning also allows the use. Shoreline (SDP, CUP and Variance) permits may be required. 2. If the letter "C" appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use may be allowed within the shoreline environment subject to the shoreline conditional use review and approval procedures specified in TMC Section 18.44.4, -)4;110(E), 3. If the letter "X" appears in the box at the intersection of the column and the row, the use is prohibited in that shoreline environment. C. In addition to the matrix- eve, the following general use requirements also apply to all development within the shoreline jurisdiction. Additional requirements controlling specific uses are set forth for each Shoreline Environment designation, to implement the purpose of the respective Shoreline Environment designations. 1. The first priority for City -owned property, other than 6(1Bit-of-way, within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be reserved for water -dependent uses including but not limited to habitat restoration, followed by water -enjoyment uses, public access, passive recreation, passive open space uses, or public educational purposes. 2. No hazardous waste handling, processing or storage is allowed within the SMA shoreline jurisdiction, unless incidental to a use allowed in the designated shoreline environment and adequate controls are in place to prevent any releases to the shoreline/river. 3. Overwater structures, shall not cause a net loss of ecological function, interfere with navigation or flood management, or present potential hazards to downstream properties or facilities. They shall comply with the standards in the Overwater Structures Section of TMC Section 18.44.07-0050(K). W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 10 of 94 136 substances Dredging for maintenance of established navigational channel Other dredging for navigation 4. Parking as a primary use is not permitted, except for existing Park and Ride lots, where adequate stormwater collection and treatment is in place to protect water quality. Parking is permitted only as an accessory to a permitted or conditional use in the shoreline jurisdiction. 5. All development, activities or uses, unless it is an approved overwater, flood management structure or shoreline restoration project, shall be prohibited waterward of the OHWM. SHORELINE USE MATRIX* P = May be kwd prted subject to development standards•dmi#41..g • forth C = May be a we ,.E41,ermitted as a Shoreline Conditional Use. X = p ohbcd Not • Allowed in Shoreline Jurisdiction AGRICULTURE Farming and farm -related activities Aquaculture COMMERCIAL (41) General lAutomotive services, gas (outside pumps allowed), washing, body and engine repair shops (enclosed within a building) Contractors storage yards Water -oriented uses Water -dependent uses Stora e CIVIC/INSTITUTIONAL General DREDGING Shoreline Residential Urban Conservancy High Intensity Aquatic Environment Buffer+1-) X X X X -PC P P x Non - Buffer Buffer X X X P PC P(5) pjL.1-1 PL5J P Non - Buffer P P P X X P (82) P (3) C (42) X C (82) X P PC Buffer 42—)- Non- Buffer X I X X X PC P Dredging for remediation of contaminated C (21 NA C (11 NA C (7) NA C (7), NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Dredgtjialjspgsal X X X Dredging for fill ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY (Water Dependent) NA NA NA P (8) NA NA NA C (9) X X X NA NA NA CP CP CP CP CP CP P (5-) ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY (Nonwater Dependent) (3310) C C C C C C C W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 11 of 94 137 P=May bea4e*+ed_ pq:i?-r�itted_sutjec1to deve|opmentstandand +esff�e*ne��zcz�fn��i:_ S444R. C=May bea4mwvem-1pprgifttadasaShoreline Conditional Use. X Not Mowed inShoreline Jurisdiction �cnwirennneM. Fill for nemcdiodon.hood hazard reduction Shoreline Residential Urban Conservancy � � Non' � Buffer Buffer [<W Non' Buffer High Intensity Buffer Non - Buffer | Aquatic Environment P(I FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT Flood hazard reduction_(14). P P p p P p P Shoreline stabilization (15), |NDWSTRIAl(z67-) P | | P | P General Animal rendering Cement manufacturing �Hazardous substance processing and handling & hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities (on or off -site) (617) Rock crushing, asphalt mconcrete batching ormixing, stone cutting, brick manufacture, marble works, and the assembly ofproducts �from the above materials Salvage and wrecking operations Tow -truck operations, subject toall additional State and local regulations iTruck terminals Water -oriented uses Wger-clenendentuses (l7' MINING General Q\ERWATfRSTRUCTURES (1FV Piers, docks, and other overwater structur Vehicle bridges (oyb|id Vehide b1idges/orivate> Public oedeut/ianbhdoes ~ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X | � p(_!�i) X X X X X X PC P(4) p [ [ X [ [ C p p X X p(19) � N4 P<2O> ' � Cc NA [ f X X X X X X X PC p(4), P X X [(g2) � X X X � X P(�L2) X � p(9L2) X X X 20 p(31, � 4) � -�� C' � P NA � p(3l) PC X �_L2 Q2, D p(JI) vv Legislative Code changes n-2O 19 NG/MD,bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 138 Page 12ofQ4 P=May bee444*ee4 pc�q�mited subject to �deve|opmentstandard nz; �Hc5[8� C=May bea4aee4-permittedasaShoreline Conditional Use. X & =I Wlb a j Noi �fU�owed-nShoreline Jurisdiction PARK|NG-ACCESSORY Parking areas limited tothe minimum necessary tosupport permitted or conditional uses RECREATION Recreation facilities (commercial -indoor) Recreationfad|itieskommerda|-outdoor Recreation facilities, including boat launching ,:PYbUc and private promenades, footpath trails Shoreline Residential Urban Conservancy Buffer (2) X X � p(12�) RESIDENTIAL -SINGLE FAM|LY/MU[TI-FAK8|LY Dwelling Houseboats p X Non' Buffer X p P p X X [[Z32�4 -12- P(Zb X X Non' Buffer P C(Z4) C p High Intensity Buffer f� X Non - Buffer p Aquatic Environment � � X Pi��I) X XO23` X]24) X 24) P(23) p � PV5_q) j � P(26 P X X X X X Patios and decks 5mns(3O1 % X X X X X X X X P(-14_2L28) X X Shoreline Restoration TRANSPORTATION General Park & ride lots Levee maintenance roads Railroad UTILITIES General (9J.0) 'PrgYbi�n,...db�i..byho9`gQUelctiol transmission, ordisoosa|ofrefuse Hydroelectric and private utility power generating plants Wireless towers Sunnortfacilities, such asou'LfaUs .ReRiona|detention facilities USES NOT SPECIFIED P � P [ X X X u C X P(32) X C C | / P X [(9) X P(32) | P(52\ | P<3Z} | P(32) | NA X � P(3]) p X X X p p X *This matrix is@summary. Individual notes modify standards in this matrix. Detafledu&e �tJ Orconditional uses listed herein may also require a shoreline substantial development permit and other permits. Ll «���~r�` - uo�ofa+*�� T11APCS.� C X C vuLegislauve Code changes o-2s49 Page 13 of 94 139 | / | / (41)Cmmmeroio| uses mean those uses that are involved in who/eoa|e, retail, service and business trade. Examples include office, restauranto, brew pube, medical, dental and veterinary clinics, hote|n, retail ea/ee, hotel/motels, and warehousing. (82) Nonwater-oriented uses may be allowed as a permitted use where the City determines that water -dependent or water -enjoyment use of the shoreline is not feasible due to the configuration ofthe shoreline and water body. (§J) Permitted only if water dependent. ,L4Q _8truct4reSQreaterthan 35feet tall reouire a conditional use permit. (5) Permitted _if located to the mostupland Foloerty and adeou@telv sc[een-d an landscapedaccordance vv0lthe Veaet tectionand LandscGoina.sectin� (6) Outdoor storacie within the shoreline buffer is on|Y permitted inconiunctiQ vv@ter- dePendent uSe. (7) allowed when �n compliance with all federal and state _Legutations (B) Mainfenanc*_dn9doinQ Of 8sJab|iShed_naviqatiVn _channe|s and basinsiis restricted_h} maintaining location, depth and width, (9) COnd0OnaUyGUOvved when siqnfficant eco|VqiCa|.irnpactsare minimized �andIO�oatiDn JS k910\ Allowed in shoreline iuhsdiction when it is demonstrated that there alternative iO|Ocat 0 1) The maximum heiqht of the fence along the shoreUne shall not'lexceed four feet in residential areas ursix feet in commercial areas where there js e demonstrated need to enSUre public safetv and securitv of [DroDertv. The fence shall not extend vyatemvarU beVond the too of the bank. Chain -link fences must beyinYhcoated. (12)Fill rninirn8||yneCessarytoSur)oort water-deoendentuses, public orfor the alteration 2rexr)ansipn of a tnansp{rtation.faoRy of statewide siq,Q,ificance ourrent|y located on the shoreline when it is demonstrated that alternatives to fill are not feasible is condiiionaUy allowed. 13) Landfill as part of an approved rernediation plan for the uroo3eofcaopinq contaminated sedirnents is. permitted. /14>AnVnew orredeveloped levee shall meet the 05)_Pern1ttedwhen consistent n 18.44.050(F). (7-16) Industrial uses mean those uses that are facilities for nlanufmciuhng, prooeoeing, assembling and/or storing of finished or semi -finished goods with supportive office and oonnnneroim| uses. Examples include manufacturing processing and/or assembling such items as electrical or mechanical equiprnent, previously manufactured metals, chemicals, light nneta|o, p|aetice, eo|vento, ooepn, vvood, nnachinea, food, phannoceudcm|o, previously prepared materials; warehousing and wholesale distribution; sales and rental of heavy machinery and equipment; and internetdeta centers. A617 Subject to compliance with state siting criteria RCVV Chapter 70.105 (See also Environmental Regulations, T&. Section S'8K8P). (1E)Pernnitted when associated with water -dependent usee, public access, recreation, flood control or channel nnaneVern9.nt` 140 v« Legislative Code changes 8-28-19 Page 14 of 94 (19) Permitted when the applicant ha demonstrated a need for moorage and that the following alternatives have been investigated and are not available or feasible; (a) commercial or marina moorage; (b) floating mooracle buoy (c) Joint use moorage pier/dock (20) Permitted if associated with water -dependent uses public access, recreation, flood control, channel management or ecological restoration. (21) Boats nay only be moored at a dock or marina. No boats may be moored on tidelands or in the river channel. (4-1-22) Limited to athletic or health clubs. (23) Recreation structures such as benches, tables, viewpoints. and picnic shelters ed in the buffer provided no such structure shau block views to the shoreline from adjacent properties. (4-224)Permitted only if water oriented. (25) Parks, recreation and open space facilities operated by public aper)cies and non-profit organizationsarepermitted. (26) Plaza connectors between buildings and levees, not exceeding the height of t.l e levee, are permitted for the purpose of providing and enhancing pedestrian access along the river and for landscaping purposes. 27) Additional development may be allowed consistent with TMC Section 18.44.130•EG.2.f. A shoreline conditional use permit is required for water oriented accessory structures that exceed the height limits of the Shoreline Residential Environment. (28) Permitted in only in the Aquatic Envir,nment...and subiect to the criteria in TMC Section 18.44._050(K. (29) Patios and decks are permitted within the shoreline buffer so long as they do not exceed 18 inches in height and are limited to a maximum of 200 square feet and 50% of the width of the river frontage, whichever is smaller. Decks or patios must be located landward of the top of the bank and be constructed to be pervious and of environmentally -friendly materials. If a deck or patio will have an environmental impact in the shoreline buffer, then, commensurate mitigation shall be required. (30) Permitted when consistent with TMC Section 18.44.050(L). (31) Permitted only if connecting public rights of way. (32) May be co -located with fire lanes. 33) Allowed if they require a physical connection to the shoreline to provide their support function, (.. provided feasible. ( 4) Regional detention facilitie below grade and as far from the ©HWM as technically that meet the City's Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards along with their ortina elements such as ponds, piping, filter systems and outfalls vested as of the effective date of this program or if no feasible alternative location exists. Any regional detention facility located in the buffer shall be designed such that a fence is not required, planted with native vegetation, designed to blend with the surrounding environment. and ovide design features that serve both public and private use, such as an access road that can also serve as a trail. The facility shall be designed to locate access roads and other impervious surfaces as far from the river as practical. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 15 of 94 141 Section 19. TMC 18.44.040 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 1 44.040 Shoreline Buffers Buffer idths. The following shoreline buffer widths apoty in sshorelie iurisdi Lion. Environment Shoreline Residential High Intensity Aquatic Areas without levees Buffer width (1)(2) Modification 50 feet OR the area needed to achieve a slope no steener than 2.5:1, measured from the toe of the bank to the to of the hank, talus 20 linear feet measured from the too of the bank landward. whichever is gLeater, 100 feet Areas with levees 125 feet 100 feet Not A ,, li able (4) (5) 1) Unless otherwise noted. all buffers are measured landward from the OHWM. (2) In any shoreline environment where an existing improved street or road runs parallel to the river throuah the buffer, the buffer ends on the river side of the edge of the improved right- ( -way. Removal of invasive species and replanting with native species of high habitat value voluntary unless triggered by requirement for a Shoreline Substantial Development hermit. (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) Reslone bank from, toe to be- no steeper than ' „ :` 1 in the Urban Conservancy Environment or reslope bank from OHWM (not toe) to be no steeper than 3:1 in the High Intensity Environment, using bioengineering techniques (b) Minimum 20-foot buffer landward from top of bank. (c) ank and remaining buffer to be planted with native species with high habitat value. Maximum slope is reduced due to measurement from OHWM and to recognize location in the Transition Zone where pronounced tidal influence makes work below OHWM difficult, Any buffer reduction proposal must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that it will not result in direct, indirect or long-term adverse impacts to the river. In all cases a buffer enhancement plan must also be approved and implemented as a condition of the reduction. The plan must include using a variety of native vegetation that improves the functional attributes of the buffer and provides additional protection for the shoreline ecological functions. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 142 Page 16 of 94 5) Upon reconstruction of levee to the levee standards of this chanter, the Director may reduce the buffer to actual width reuuired for the levee. Af illl is placed. alone the back slope of a new buffer _.. levee, the ma�bercder�ced reduced to the point where the round Mane intersects the hack slope of the levee. If the nrooedy owner provides a levee maintenance easement landward from the landward toe of the levee or levee wall which: 1) meets the width reauired by the agency providing maintenance: ?) prohibi is the construction of any structures: and 3) allows the City to_access the area to inspect the levee and make any necessary repairs, then that area I lav be outside of the shoreline buffer and allow incidentaluses such as narking,. IR RH sttrUOtur—, ,- E R9maRnn v4 ardcc ..p es W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 17 of 94 143 C. �An �Hnvr r h +g"PO f ;PA.; nr n+hnr Conditio al—Umow. re e-1;+; rain : r,, ta; .n.,�ra+nreor oo ,drf^arJ mo,r,+ ar,a g +" I + nw^arP 9ren1a"aaaa a^mmi aa-aai e55%ry P.�v,roPvv yG »..s m.nrc e..w. 16611!4.61 ;✓, rra as airrarrr, ,0-m#rr „rm,,, G rPa mre-N `^ s:nr,4^,P nl h,s TNAIr` ! h ZrBn_r i o A rP 6 ,.N,f,^H3 r�,ro , r7 through garery +rarnaeg,i+.ro".""9� ar ,Jnc cffP..'nn+ S� rv. nnl„�+enr� of ver}q ..,�..` i ire, r,�v ad a o- and +h r, I,y +o e.,ti a.a W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 144 Page 18 of 94 nor*a^-ws 5 r for #•4^^a ate, tom. ,a lea Earn rrs Inm-s�ak�^„ni �' , � e �. .�1 b ro-e �, ry 5�,1F a-��F � .-1 A= Iry � f #�,•, r ra -� °F; e ✓1-,� -rtinB River r Cn-441:4OP;3R 22-i,nyc da r rer:',ro vae,Rt-s o-n- ,cod aros—ar4CnfE tiens.es h l-s-he,1 arcs �JY f fn "a '% Uce P-rre.,_.rcquir ; ,, C n&cr ncjr`--E-n' affor c�anRf r+ra ra E to O. fornon- s V wry,r w F !erv+, #f n (1x G1A/OVA f I er JI a.. a�Fer^ nc raf +1-c,ee rio cr rsJ`� + :.. A oL.������.f"": wii ���" �� �� � ... , . vra. e-r:' cy R e i.r! L.ct1 9 r'c v ect e fnnl rn '±c TEA(' Se" f-,Ao.•. ra hl v or4 D`*kij a k3 4a vs 4 A A fl7rllV\ W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 19 of 94 145 s voter aay caw, istin r„ I tl+'�"+ + orb . r7 +ai r •1Y +�to a.aow11,... w,.. ��a e:, o wo-..e ,,..,_.. oven nu'e�aw w.w.o a4w o f +h n 8 w„ 6. �s3 "'A nc c YntlAr,rr +R` ,,,,e; v,7c,,, ,e�rY f.,r1"47 N Yc ry ? iir� v i�rre mproved. a,.07day v of +6-xi h,a a-o+nr + f 9 s f r-, o -a f rr 9 IV rwrac.+ r a¢s ; .a.� ..a±. !tier, c�ic.o+i if perrr.4,:r� w, ry - 44 kr, 4,- ®,%a r+ R puhfic fac i+o both r hnxi� nry Y h +y J os of +12c, cf'cct rr doh, rgf Lr*jn W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 146 Page 20 of 94 wr r" I-1 U,; ,rl N-ctA reg # G "19 awe/,r � q'th , s .9 °c TMry Oh te'r ? .' w 24-T 4 �r A € , he �:r±=r r'r�a.s -� eatnh!ech-ed by" 'GG �..r �� F.r�� � ThaI' orcntor may Fe,t;.- he W Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 21 of 94 147 , avr-I;,g,�r�^4c r�,rrtiw�mnle�r8, ;•-• njuRc et 4ho reduce., A. High in'ten w ronme * c �AArd Rh r 4 �7n rtffr8r Th • -C4 m r u-,_ re.on Permute U-sec, C. g nr M1 4t...o-)-- '°" a41. �A,Ih a,+ can+ m._a-D. `,.3,..�m rr , I�ro r?nlae ate,nFr#._frr �+^n the r o artv nu ner irrmR set r-mr*yr t-E cc 8tro .an I ara,ryr yr t 0..d 8 R M"'"& II R d^e IYR �`fi iY"0.f 4:. Ye.:..t ✓w k`$,�..�. *^ ,+1_r- r . ""N Y" rI r.9 r rrrr, ee-f-fer f m the .I l,aq r lava r,-.l tr, ref tft^ae 6,^,a rr,s W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 148 Page 22 of 94 1 AA c7/w/A.=\ --7-: A 7 in A. t . � h-A.. C h. w r^ I i,n v a. re ed ures-aZd-- Q W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 23 of 94 149 flr�i-d rw srA re fra.rv-�,,.„"� yr II a rran+^e&flat rd ra,„sa6„rer} ro ',in__es r r, a *anae a ro^a ,elf C=. Shor e-U-rbo I mq: aru:. 2Aor+t o. re iF, n4�ii �,�,?-nn +I��er, #Y-e �w�fl^n �er�+flirn� II--ligh flvaf rv� 14 oa f tJ-a r° . 44ed U'soa.-,� 11_ 4r°qy rerY y r�wrowe r.�r"eke whc,r,, a-t d:R mvnter is TM(' r'hapter ` 4. A S rc)^".ne D. crAgroarrterit- ffr €lho 1+3rr N teeper" thn , 3 1 or vh'y,ry t{-- rt epe A rt, e..1J tkle aALt->r rsrsil werare rV .P_'WI foot ,c,44-....r 4i .�r� r1 ,-J I Ic nv a .a.e, X:L.Q .. ilJthare rh, r�Oir, Rrmeo�o,rre r�nn� _ ;dth oAj i bid. ho or+wc R ao �•rl-��, M A b-k4. ra m r T"e �y� rwi.n 4ceor r arf,n ✓fin °R;n !r,r-J ngcaddtC, rid W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 150 Page 24 of 94 ': of "-a a, laa r-aa araa,,,, a A / I ,ar• afaaea,__c_ta, a..,a rya, •-e A Now cno5,1•3k;Na7nai-a",,-, alaija--7;Ine,a to "-lea ,r,:;fraaaaNr.ale.ral+ ta•a+aalan eaain .; 'Pak, C•Pa,,aaata- ,Q+,k;C-aarsaal eraea,fea‘rao 0,4 eir,u arc! 0,..,1442:aa, 4-, ;47 a, a 4- 11 4r,4b,rill /1,, jrai-r-aea4 fr° G. Q",aLtra or n-th.--4-4yer--oh-ni4p!. r 7 EM f"aaa or,raalle,eal;eraa,0 rio No bota bomoofd r". fjcio!a-F-.„ A Pik; ost, 4y this program: re ; W • •-• prose& Toe-ar--id a,ararzl„,,,,raa a a aaaaaraart 4, 1F-FO (-1n; 14 00 sin!i; a,f eat+, •-•ala LOU -co, mn• ".7o,;:a '''—we crrit4 vaa,,,ara ar_41rA eara ,-.‘f eaaa++,,,,,,, raraa ana+ca ra na fe, rth raoc r`•.ca n n Ak A nr 1.5 ,Al+A t. e;+k ed-ero! ad ...Awn arar-r,t-411., 11,••••• feasible, • thr' rhore!,- r;o3 re,g-u#41-orl-- r do c, a=aa. ca• „ 0 0 fa•-aa,;Gah laaa'ade Oraaraa.;can — ''"-r244 RA' A+ Section 20. TMC 18.44.050 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 18.44.070050 Development Standards A. Applicability. The development standards of this chapter apply to work that meets the definition of substantial development except for vegetation removal per TMC Section 18.44.040060, which applies to all shoreline development. The term "substantial development" applies to non -conforming, new or re -development. Non -conforming uses, structures, parking lots and landscape areas, will be governed by the standards in TMC Section 18.44.480110(EG), "Non -Conforming Development." B. Shoreline Residential Development Standards. A shoreline substantial development permit is not required for construction within the Shoreline Residential Environment by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single family residence for his/her own use or for the use of a family member. Such construction and all normal appurtenant structures must otherwise conform to this chapter. Short subdivisions and subdivisions are not exempt from obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 1. Shoreline Residential Environment Standards. The following standards apply to the Shoreline Residential Environment: W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 25 of 94 151 a. The development standards of the applicable underlying zoning district (Title 18, Tukwila Municipal Code) shall apply. b. New development and uses must be sited so as to allow natural bank inclination of - -1-3:1 slope with a 20-foot setback from the top of the bank. The Director may require a riverbank analysis as part of any development proposal. c. Utilities such as pumps, pipes, etc., shall be suitably screened with native vegetation per the standards in the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. d. New shoreline stabilization, repair of existing stabilization or modifications to the river bank must comply with the standards in the Shoreline Stabilization Section, TMC Section 18.44.070050(F). e. Short plats of five to nine lots or formal subdivisions must be designed to provide public access to the river in accordance with the Public Access Section, TMC Section 18.44.0804-00. Signage is required to identify the public access point(s). f. Parking facilities associated with single family residential development or public recreational facilities are subject to the specific performance standards set forth in the Off -Street Parking Section, TMC Section 18.44.070050(1). g. Fences, freestanding walls or other structures normally accessory to residences must not block views of the river from adjacent residences or extend waterward beyond the top of the bank. Chain link fencing must be vinyl coated. h. Recreational structures permitted in the buffer must provide buffer mitigation. i. The outside edge of surface transportation facilities, such as railroad tracks, streets, or public transit shall be located no closer than 50 feet from the OHWM, except where the surface transportation facility is bridging the river. j. Except for bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water - dependent uses and their structures, the maximum height for structures shall be 30 feet. For bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water -dependent uses and their structures, the height limit shall be as demonstrated necessary to accomplish the structure's primary purpose. Bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water -dependent uses and their structures greater than 35 feet in height require approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. 2. Design Review. Design review is required for non-residential development in the Shoreline Residential Environment. C. High Intensity, Urban Conservancy and Aquatic Environment Development Standards. 1. Standards. The following standards apply in the High Intensity, Urban Conservancy and Aquatic Environments. a. The development standards for the applicable underlying zoning district (Title 18, Tukwila Municipal Code) shall apply. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 26 of 94 152 b. All new development performed by public agencies, or new multi- family, commercial, or industrial development shall provide public access in accordance with the standards in the Public Access Section. c. Development or re -development of properties in areas of the shoreline armored with revetments or other hard armoring other than levees, or with non - armored river banks, must comply with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section, TMC Section 18.44.0060. d. Any new shoreline stabilization or repairs to existing stabilization must comply with Shoreline Stabilization Section, TMC Section 18.44.N-0050(F). e. Over -water structures shall be allowed only for water -dependent uses and the size limited to the minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use and shall result in no net loss to shoreline ecological function. Over -water structures must comply with the standards in the Over -water Structures Section, TMC Section 18.44. 050(K). 2. Setbacks and Site Configuration. a. The yard setback adjacent to the river is the buffer width established for the applicable shoreline environment. b. A fishing pier, viewing platform or other outdoor feature that provides access to the shoreline is not required to meet a setback from the OHWM. 3. Height Restrictions. Except for bridges, approved above ground utility structures, and water -dependent uses and their structures, to preserve visual access to the shoreline and avoid massing of tall buildings within the shoreline jurisdiction, the maximum height for structures shall be as follows: a. 15 feet where located within the River Buffer; b. 6545 feet between the outside landward edge of the River Buffer and 200 feet of the OHWM. c. Provid.4d no p-wormit sho ho ov-bool for bny now r etFucturo of mere than-35 feet above average grade level on shorelines of the State that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines. For any building that is proposed to be greater than 35 feet in height in the shoreline jurisdiction, the development proponent must demonstrate the proposed building will not block the views of a substantial number of residences. The Director may approve a 15 foot% increase in height for structures within the shoreline iurisdiction if the project proponent provides a —restoration and/or enhancement of the entire shoreline buffer —beyond what may otherwise be required including, but not limited to, caved areas no longer in use on the orooertv in accordance with the standards of TMC Section 18.44.0 060, "Vegetation Protection and Landscaping." If the required buffer has already been restored, the project proponent may provide a 20% wider buffer, planted in accordance with TMC Section 18,44.060 ,"Vegetation Protection and Landscaping, andier onane4in order to obtain the 15-44-foot increase in height. in accordance with TMC Qecticn 143.14.080, "Vegetation Proteetn ohn" andrbooping" W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 27 of 94 153 4. Lighting. In addition to the lighting standards in TMC Chapter 18.60, "Board of Architectural Review," lighting for the site or development shall be designed and located so that: a. The minimum light levels in parking areas and paths between the building and street shall be one -foot candle. b. Lighting shall be designed to prevent light spillover and glare on adjacent properties and on the river channel to the maximum extent feasible, be directed downward so as to illuminate only the immediate area, and be shielded to eliminate direct off -site illumination. c. The general grounds need not be lighted. d. The lighting is incorporated into a unified landscape and/or site plan. D. Surface Water and Water Quality. The following standards apply to all shoreline development. 1. New surface water systems shall not discharge directly into the river or streams tributary to the river without pre-treatment to reduce pollutants and meet State water quality standards. 2. Such pre-treatment may consist of biofiltration, oil/water separators, or other methods approved by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department. 3. Shoreline development, uses and activities shall not cause any increase in surface runoff, and shall have adequate provisions for storm water detention/infiltration. 4. Stormwater outfalls must be designed so as to cause no net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adverse impacts where functions are impaired. New stormwater outfalls or maintenance of existing outfalls must include shoreline restoration as part of the project. 5. Shoreline development and activities shall have adequate provisions for sanitary sewer. 6. Solid and liquid wastes and untreated effluents shall not be allowed to enter any bodies of water or to be discharged onto shorelands. 7. The use of low impact development techniques is required, unless such techniques conflict with other provisions of the SMP or are shown to not be feasible due to site conditions. E. Flood Hazard Reduction. The following standards apply to all shoreline development. 1. New structural flood hazard reduction structures shall be allowed only when it can be demonstrated by a Riverbank Analysis that: a. They are necessary to protect existing development; b. Non-structural measures are not feasible; and c. Impacts to ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully mitigated so as to assure no net loss. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD.bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 28 of 94 154 2. Flood hazard structures must incorporate appropriate vegetation restoration and conservation actions consistent with the standards of the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. 43. Publicly -funded structural measures to reduce flood hazards shall improve public access or dedicate and provide public access unless public access improvements would cause unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public, inherent and unavoidable security problems, or significant ecological impacts that cannot be mitigated. 4. Rehabilitation or replacement of existing flood control structures, such as levees, with a primary purpose of containing the 1% to . 2% annual chance flood event, shall be allowed where it can be demonstrated by an engineering analysis that the existing structure: a. Does not provide an appropriate level of protection for surrounding lands; or b. Does not meet themmhhmum4eveo p r a 3 riverside slope or other appropriate engineering design standards for stability (e.g., over -steepened side slopes for existing soil and/or flow conditions); and c. Repair of the existing structure will not cause or increase significant adverse ecological impacts to the shoreline. 65. Rehabilitated or replaced flood hazard reduction structures shall not extend the toe of slope any further waterward of the OHWM than the existing structure. 76. New structural flood hazard reduction measures, such as levees, berms and similar flood control structures shall be placed landward of the floodway as determined by the best information available. 7. New, redeveloped or replaced structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be placed landward of associated wetlands, and designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. . No commercial, industrial, office or residential development shall be located within a floodplain without a Flood Control Zone Permit issued by the City. No development shall be located within a floodway except as otherwise permitted. . New, redeveloped or replaced flood hazard reduction structures may diete frnw 0^o nrofild only as foil— -must have an overall waterward slope no steeper thane1 unless it is not physically possible to achieve such as slope. A floodwall may be substituted for all or a portion of a levee back slope --where necessary to avoid encroachment or damage to a structure legally constructed prior to if structure has not lost its oration development. ovide 4-0-15 feet of the date of adoption of this subsection, nonconforming status, or to allow area ,for wat The floodwall shall be designed to t °1e-irl°nit clearance between the levee and the building, or then l l um to preserve access needed for building functionality while meeting all engineering safety standards. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 29 of 94 155 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. rtfielri a miziar +1,11¢, 1^. + 1", gLi..1),/ 1,-,kvcs'N'es,dh,/ me,c,c-,;kieA +Oh 06",k iplae, "vol J.ke, MT" V per u 0°°77Clo00d y “0, ero a. a. n n w r w -1-c-- to 2,511:1V ce-1. phyai-a°1‘,,' F. Shoreline Stabilization. The provisions of this section apply to those structures or actions intended to minimize or prevent erosion of adjacent uplands and/or failure of riverbanks resulting from waves, tidal fluctuations or river currents. Shoreline stabilization or armoring involves the placement of erosion resistant materials (e.g., large rocks and boulders, cement, pilings and/or large woody debris (LWD)) or the use of bioengineering techniques to reduce or eliminate erosion of shorelines and risk to human infrastructure. This form of shoreline stabilization is distinct from flood control structures and flood hazard reduction measures (such as levees). The terms "shoreline stabilization," "shoreline protection" and "shoreline armoring" are used interchangeably. 1. Shoreline protection shall not be considered an outright permitted use and shall be permitted only when it has been demonstrated through a riverbank analysis and report that shoreline protection is necessary for the protection of existing legally established structures and public improvements. 2. New development and re -development shall be designed and configured on the lot to avoid the need for new shoreline stabilization. Removal of failing shoreline stabilization shall be incorporated into re -development design proposals wherever feasible. 3. Replacement of lawfully established, existing bulkheads or revetments are subject to the following priority system: a. The first priority for replacement of bulkheads or revetments shall be landward of the existing bulkhead. b. The second priority for replacement of existing bulkheads or revetments shall be to replace in place (at the bulkhead's existing location). 4. When evaluating a proposal against the above priority system, at a minimum the following criteria shall be considered: a. Existing topography; b. Existing development; c. Location of abutting bulkheads; d. Impact to shoreline ecological functions; and, e. Impact to river hydraulics, potential changes in geomorphology, and to other areas of the shoreline. 5. Proponents of new or replacement hard shoreline stabilization (e.g. bulkheads or revetments) must demonstrate through a documented river bank analysis that bioengineered shoreline protection measures or bioengineering erosion control designs will not provide adequate upland protection of existing structures or would pose W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 30 of 94 156 a threat or risk to adjacent property. The study must also demonstrate that the proposed hard shoreline stabilization will not adversely affect other infrastructure or adjacent shorelines. 6. Shoreline ar oring such as riprap 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. 7. Shoreline armoring shall be designed to the minimum size, height, bulk and extent necessary to remedy the identified hazard. 8. An applicant must demonstrate the following in order to qualify for the RCW 90.58.030(30(e)(iii)(ii) exemption from the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit for a proposed single family bulkhead and to insure that the bulkhead will be consistent with the SMP: a. Erosion from currents or waves is imminently threatening a legally established single family detached dwelling unit or one or more appurtenant structures; and b. The proposed bulkhead is more consistent with the City's Master Program in protecting the site and adjoining shorelines and that non-structural alternatives such as slope drainage systems, bioengineering or vegetative growth stabilization, are not feasible or will not adequately protect a legally established residence or appurtenant structure; and c. The proposed bulkhead is located landward of the OHWM or it connects to adjacent, legally established bulkheads; and d. The maximum height of the proposed bulkhead is no more than one foot above the elevation of extreme high water on tidal waters as determined by the National Ocean Survey published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 9. Bulkheads or revetments shall be constructed of suitable materials that will serve to accomplish the desired end with maximum preservation of natural characteristics. Materials with the potential for water quality degradation shall not be used. Design and construction methods shall consider aesthetics and habitat protection. Automobile bodies, tires or other junk or waste material that may release undesirable chemicals or other material shall not be used for shoreline protection. 10. The builder of any bulkhead or revetment shall be financially responsible for determining the nature and the extent of probable adverse effects on fish and wildlife or on the property of others caused by his/her construction and shall propose and implement solutions approved by the City to minimize such effects. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 31 of 94 157 11. When shoreline stabilization is required at a public access site, provision for safe access to the water shall be incorporated in the design whenever possible. 12. Placement of bank protection material shall occur from the top of the bank and shall be supervised by the property owner or contractor to ensure material is not dumped directly onto the bank face. 13. Bank protection material shall be clean and shall be of a sufficient size to prevent its being washed away by high water flows. 14. When riprap is washed out and presents a hazard to the safety of recreational users of the river, it shall be removed by the owner of such material. 15. Bank protection associated with bridge construction and maintenance may be permitted subject to the provisions of the SMP and shall conform to provisions of the State Hydraulics Code (RCW 77.55) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer regulations. G. Archaeological, Cultural and Historical Resources. In addition to the requirements of TMC 18.50.110, Archaeological/Paleontological Information Preservation Requirements, the following regulations apply. 1. All land use permits for projects within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be coordinated with affected tribes. 2. If the City determines that a site has significant archaeological, natural scientific or historical value, a substantial development that would pose a threat to the resources of the site shall not be approved. 3. Permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources require a site inspection or evaluation by a professional archaeologist in coordination with affected Indian tribes. The City may require that development be postponed in such areas to allow investigation of public acquisition potential, retrieval and preservation of significant artifacts and/or development of a mitigation plan. Areas of known or suspected archaeological middens shall not be disturbed and shall be fenced and identified during construction projects on the site. 4. Developers and property owners shall immediately stop work and notify the City of Tukwila, the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected Indian tribes if archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation. 5. In the event that unforeseen factors constituting an emergency, as defined in RCW 90.58.030, necessitate rapid action to retrieve or preserve artifacts or data identified above, the project may be exempted from any shoreline permit requirements. The City shall notify the Washington State Department of Ecology, the State Attorney General's Office and the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office of such an exemption in a timely manner. 6. Archaeological excavations may be permitted subject to the provision of this chapter. 7. On sites where historical or archaeological resources have been identified and will be preserved in situ, public access to such areas shall be designed and managed so as to give maximum protection to the resource and surrounding environment. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 32 of 94 158 8. Interpretive signs of historical and archaeological features shall be provided subject to the requirements of the Public Access Section when such signage does not compromise the protection of these features from tampering, damage and/or destruction. H. Environmental Impact Mitigation. 1. 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. 2. To the extent Washington's State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, is applicable, the analysis of environmental impacts from proposed shoreline uses or developments shall be conducted consistent with the rules implementing SEPA (TMC Chapter 21.04 and WAC 197-11). 3. For all development, mitigation sequencing shall be applied in the following order of priority: a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts. c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations. e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. f. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. 4. In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to shoreline development, lower priority measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined by the City to be infeasible or inapplicable. 5. When mitigation measures are appropriate pursuant to the priority of mitigation sequencing above, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and in the immediate vicinity of the impact. However, if mitigation in the immediate vicinity is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves or other factors, then off -site mitigation within the Shoreline Jurisdiction may be allowed if consistent with the Shoreline Restoration Plan. Mitigation for projects in the Transition Zone must take place in the Transition Zone. In the event a site is not available in the Transition Zone to carry out required mitigation, the project proponent may contribute funds equivalent to the value of the required mitigation W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 33 of 94 159 to an existing or future restoration project identified in the CIP to be carried out by a public agency in the Transition Zone. I. Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements. In addition to the parking requirements in TMC 18.56, the following requirements apply to all development in the shoreline jurisdiction. 1. Any parking, loading, or storage facilities located between the river and any building must incorporate additional landscaping in accordance with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section, or berming or other site planning or design techniques to reduce visual and/or environmental impacts from the parking areas utilizing the following screening techniques: a. A solid evergreen screen of trees and shrubs a minimum of six feet high; or b. Decorative fence a maximum of six feet high with landscaping. Chain link fence, where allowed, shall be vinyl coated and landscaped with native trailing vine or an approved non-native vine other than ivy, except where a security or safety hazard may exist; or c. Earth berms at a minimum of four feet high, planted with native plants in accordance with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. 2. Where a parking area is located in the shoreline jurisdiction and adjacent to a public access feature, the parking area shall be screened by a vegetative screen or a built structure that runs the entire length of the parking area adjacent to the amenity. The landscape screening shall comply with the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. 3. Where public access to or along the shoreline exists or is proposed, parking areas shall provide pedestrian access from the parking area to the shoreline. 4. Parking facilities, loading areas and paved areas shall incorporate low impact development techniques wherever feasible, adequate storm water retention areas, oil/water separators and biofiltration swales, or other treatment techniques and shall comply with the standards and practices formally adopted by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department. J. Land Altering Activities. All land altering activities in the shoreline jurisdiction shall be in conjunction with an underlying land development permit, except for shoreline restoration projects. All activities shall meet the following standards: 1. Clearing, Grading and Landfill. a. Land altering shall be permitted only where it meets the following criteria: (1) The work is the minimum necessary to accomplish an allowed shoreline use; (2) Impacts to the natural environment are minimized and mitigated; (3) Water quality, river flows and/or fish habitat are not adversely affected; W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 34 of 94 160 (4) Public access and river navigation are not diminished; (5) The project complies with all federal and state requirements; (6) The project complies with the vegetation protection criteria of the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section; (7) The project will achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from an otherwise allowed land altering project are unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this section. In that event, the "no net loss" standard is met; and (8) Documentation is provided to demonstrate that the fill comes from a clean source. b. Clearing, grading and landfill activities, where allowed, shall include erosion control mechanisms, and any reasonable restriction on equipment, methods or timing necessary to minimize the introduction of suspended solids or leaching of contaminants into the river, or the disturbance of wildlife or fish habitats in accordance with the standards in TMC Chapter 16.54, "Grading." 2. Dredging. a. Dredging activities must comply with all federal and state regulations. Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels and basins must be restricted to maintaining previously dredged and/or existing authorized location, depth, and width. b. Where allowed, dredging operations must be designed and scheduled so as to ensure no net loss to shoreline ecological functions or processes. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from allowed dredging are unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this section; in that event, the "no net loss" standard is met. K. Marinas, Boat Yards, Dry Docks, Boat Launches, Piers, Docks and Other Over -water Structures. 1 General Requirements. a. A dock may be allowed when the applicant h s demonstrated a need for moora to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Develop ent, and that the ated and are not available or feasible: (1) commercial or marina moorage:, (2) floating moorage buoys: (3) joint use moorage pier/dock. ab. Prior to issuance of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for construction of piers, docks, wharves or other over -water structures, the applicant shall present approvo.!s fromproof of application submittal to State or Federal agencies, as applicable. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:Ns Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 35 of 94 161 bc. Structures must be designed by a qualified engineer and must demonstrate the project will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function and will be stable against the forces of flowing water, wave action and the wakes of passing vessels. Gd . In -water structures shall be designed and located to minimize shading of native aquatic vegetation and fish passage areas. Removal of shoreline, riparian and aquatic vegetation shall be limited to the minimum extent necessary to construct the project. All areas disturbed by construction shall be replanted with native vegetation as part of the project. de. New or replacement in -water structures shall be designed and located such that natural hydraulic and geologic processes, such as erosion, wave action or floods will not necessitate the following: (1) reinforcement of the shoreline or stream bank with new bulkheads or similar artificial structures to protect the in -water structure; or (2) dredging. ef. No structures are allowed on top of over -water structures except for properties located north of the Turning Basin. fg. Pilings or other associated structures in direct contact with water shall not be treated with preservatives unless the applicant can demonstrate that no feasible alternative to protect the materials exists and that non -wood alternatives are not economically feasible. In that case, only compounds approved for marine use may be used and must be applied by the manufacturer per current best management practices of the Western Wood Preservers Institute. The applicant must present verification that the best management practices were followed. The preservatives must also be approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. gh. All over -water structures shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition. Abandoned or unsafe over -water structures shall be removed or repaired promptly by the owner. Accumulated debris shall be regularly removed and disposed of properly so as not to jeopardize the integrity of the structure. Replacement of in -water structures shall include proper removal of abandoned or other man-made structures and debris. M. Boat owners who store motorized boats on -site are encouraged to use best management practices to avoid fuel and other fluid spills. 2. Marinas, Boat Yards and Dry Docks. a. All uses under this category shall be designed to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. In cases where impacts to shoreline ecological functions from uses allowed under this category are unavoidable, those impacts shall be mitigated according to the provisions of this chapter; in that event, the "no net loss" standard is met. b. Commercial/industrial marinas and dry docks shall be located no further upriver than Turning Basin #3. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 36 of 94 162 c. Marinas shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, water quality, native shoreline vegetation, navigation, public access, existing in -water recreational activities and adjacent water uses. d. Marinas shall submit a fuel spill prevention and contingency plan to the City for approval. Haul -out and boat maintenance facilities must meet the City's stormwater management requirements and not allow the release of chemicals, petroleum or suspended solids to the river. e. Marinas, boat yards and dry docks must be located a minimum of 100 feet from fish and wildlife habitat areas-eeSthz,-S-h-4,6,41,':#e" Map 5). f. New marinas, launch ramps and accessory uses must be located where water depths are adequate to avoid the need for dredging. 3. Boat Launches and Boat Lifts. a. Boat launch ramps and vehicle access to the ramps shall be designed to not cause erosion; the use of pervious paving materials, such as grasscrete, are encouraged. b. Boat launch ramps shall be designed to minimize areas of landfill or the need for shoreline protective structures. c. Access to the boat ramp and parking for the ramp shall be located a sufficient distance from any frontage road to provide safe maneuvering of boats and trailers. d. Launching rails shall be adequately anchored to the ground. e. Launch ramps and boat lifts shall extend waterward past the OHWM only as far as necessary to achieve their purpose. f. Boat lifts and canopies must meet the standards of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional General Permit Number 1 for Watercraft Lifts in Fresh and Marine/Estuarine Waters within the State of Washington. 4. Over -water Structures. Where allowed, over -water structures such as piers, wharves bud es and docks shall meet the following standards: a. The size of new over -water structures shall be limited to the minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use and to provide stability in the case of floating docks. Structures must be compatible with any existing channel control or flood management structures. b. Over -water structures shall not extend waterward of the OHWM any more than necessary to permit launching of watercraft, while also ensuring that watercraft do not rest on tidal substrate at any time. c. Adverse impacts of over -water structures on water quality, river flows, fish habitat, shoreline vegetation, and public access shall be minimized and mitigated. Mitigation measures may include joint use of existing structures, open decking or piers, W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 37 of 94 163 replacement of non-native vegetation, installation of in -water habitat features or restoration of shallow water habitat. d. Any proposals for in -water or over -water structures shall provide a pre - construction habitat evaluation, including an evaluation of salmonid and bull trout habitat and shoreline ecological functions, and demonstrate how the project achieves no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. e. Over -water structures shall obtain all necessary state and federal permits prior to construction or repair. f. All over -water structures must be designed by a qualified engineer to ensure they are adequately anchored to the bank in a manner so as not to cause future downstream hazards or significant modifications to the river geomorphology and are able to withstand high flows. g. Over -water structures shall not obstruct normal public use of the river for navigation or recreational purposes. h. Shading impacts to fish shall be minimized by using grating on at least 30% of the surface area of the over -water structure on residential areas and at least 50% of the over -water structure on all other properties. 'This standard may be modified for bridoes if necessary to accommodate the oro osed use The use of skirting is not permitted. i. If floats are used, the flotation shall be fully enclosed and contained in a shell (such as polystyrene) that prevents breakup or loss of the flotation material into the water, damage from ultraviolet radiation, and damage from rubbing against pilings or waterborne debris. j. Floats may not rest on the tidal substrate at any time and stoppers on the piling anchoring the floats must be installed to ensure at least 1 foot of clearance above the substrate. Anchor lines may not rest on the substrate at any time. k. The number of pilings to support over -water structures, including floats, shall be limited to the minimum necessary. Pilings shall conform to the pilings standards contained in the US Army Corps of Engineers Regional General Permit No. 6. I. No over -water structure shall be located closer than five feet from the side property line extended, except that such structures may abut property lines for the common use of adjacent property owners when mutually agreed upon by the property owners in an easement recorded with King County. A copy of this agreement shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and accompany an application for a development permit and/or Shoreline Permit. 5. Live-Aboards. New over -water residences are prohibited. Live-aboards may be allowed provided that: a. They are for single-family use only. b. They are located in a marina that provides shower and toilet facilities on land and there are no sewage discharges to the water. c. Live-aboards do not exceed 10 percent of the total slips in the marina. W. Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MIlbjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 38 of 94 164 d. They are owner -occupied vessels. e. There are on -shore support services in proximity to the live-aboards. L. Signs in Shoreline Jurisdiction. 1. Signage within the shoreline buffer is limited to the following: a. Interpretative signs and restoraton sionaae. Ind ding restoration soonsor acknowledgment. b. Signs for water -related uses. c. Signs installed by a government agency for public safety along any public trail or at any public park. d. Signs installed within the rights of way of any public right-of-way or bridge within the shoreline buffer. 6-h-ca!! 2 et the -f th- M-2nt.,1-4-a! tlI in r‘rry-t " IF1,-...“`C +re-,e,+r, L-11;,Vikthdie in rNrill'Cle,, L6,-Oli k 1 R •—• ...von.", M1,1.1 b,11 n n e. Signs installed on utilities and wireless communication facilities denoting danger or other safety information, including emergency contact information. 2. Billboards and other off -premise signs are strictly forbidden in the shoreline buffer. Section 21. TMC 18.44.060 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 18.44. 060 Vegetation Protection and Landscaping A. Purposer t' 1. The purpose of this section is to: a. Regulate the protection of existing trees and native vegetation in the shoreline jurisdiction; b. Establish requirements for removal of invasive plants at the time of development or re -development of sites; c. Establish requirements for landscaping for new development or re- development; d. Establish requirements for the long-term maintenance of native vegetation to prevent establishment of invasive species and promote shoreline ecosystem processes. 2. The City's goal is to: a. Preserve as many existing trees as possible and increase the number of native trees, shrubs and other vegetation in the shoreline because of their importance to shoreline ecosystem functions as listed below: (1) Overhead tree canopy to provide shade for water temperature control; W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 39 of 94 165 (2) Habitat for birds, insects and small mammals; (3) Vegetation that overhangs the river to provide places for fish to shelter; (4) Source of insects for fish; (5) Filtering of pollutants and slowing of stormwater prior to its entering the river; and (6) A long-term source of woody debris for the river. b. In addition, trees and other native vegetation are important for aesthetics. It is the City's goal that unsightly invasive vegetation, such as blackberries, be removed from the shoreline and be replaced with native vegetation to promote greater enjoyment of and access to the river. c. The City will provide information an,-44e€44F+iaa4-aatarrs-a to property owners for improving vegetation in the shoreline jurisdiction and will work collaboratively with local citizen groups to assist property owners in the removal of invasive vegetation and planting of native vegetation, particularly for residential areas. B. Applicability. 1. This chapter sets forth rules and regulations to control maintenance and clearing of trees within the City of Tukwila for properties located within the shoreline jurisdiction. For properties located within a critical area or its associated buffer, the maintenance and re oval of trees shall be governed by TMC Chapter 18A5. TMC. Chapter 18.54, "Urban Forestry and Tree Regulations" chapter shall govern tree removal on any undeveloped land and any land zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) that is developed with a single family residence. TMC Chapter 8.52, "Landscape Regui e ents," shall govern properties that are zoned commercial, industria , or multifamily, and on properties located in the LDR zone that are developed with a non -single family residential use. The most thgflQulaonssjllannlvy in case of a conflict. 32. With the exception of residential development/re-development of 4 or fewer residential units, all activities and developments within the shoreline environment must comply with the landscaping and maintenance requirements of this section, whether or not a shoreline substantial development permit is required. Single family residential projects are not exempt if implementing a shoreline stabilization project or overwater structure. 43. The tree protection and retention requirements and the vegetation management requirements apply to existing uses as well as new or re -development. C. Minor Activities Allowed without a Permit or Exemption. a. The following activities are allowed without a permit or exemption: aintenance of existing, lawfully established areas of crop vegetation. landscaping (including paths and trails) or gardens within shoreline jurisdiction. Examples include, mowing lawns, weeding. harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning, and planting of non-invasive ornamental vegetation or indigenous W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 166 Page 40 of 94 native species to maintain the general condition and extent of such areas. Cutting down trees and shrubs within the shorelinem jurisdiction is not covered under this nrovisAo,n. 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 shoreline jurisdiction, iF work is selective only for noxious species; is done by hand removal/spraying of individual plants; li .._ , r (with the required aquatic endorsements spraying is conducted by a licensed applicator 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 be approved under other provisions of this chapter. SD. Tree P-r 6-tkn -Retention and Replacement. 1. Retention. a. As many significant trees and as much native vegetation as possible are to be retained on a site proposed for development or re -development, taking into account the condition and age of the trees. As part of aIand use applic.tion such as but not limited to subdivision or short plat, design review, or development permit review, the Director of Community Development or the Board of Architectural Review may require alterations in the arrangement of buildings, parking or other elements of proposed development in order to retain significant non-invasive trees, particularly those that provide shading to the river. Treece cat d p p.om senct uns!er-g- d "-teler��n rw�. ry$ � .'�.,er ^ be r" _'o .oven`: d.exr. FN� H.�*5 air ay^� ra.1 L'nnp -hec niF ! thate-i$ 3�th 5OC€ S rove IFoal rr rfeAo wn.,$e�e ",,,,,�.i` or .,.F.C'IT'�S'�Yn.��m.�:T�i'<".�.�". :". a"` .+".."'"a'tt'e cs! Qb. Topping of trees is prohibited unlocc k y r css ypr—e oo ut; y i nos. Torrin of trios end will be regulated, as removal at -Id -with tree required. Trees may only be pruned to srevent interference with an overhead utility line with prior approval by the Director. The pruning must be carried out under the direction of a Qualified Tree Professional or performed by the utility provider under the direction of a Qualified Tree Professional. The crown shall be maintained to at least 2/3 the height of the tree prior to pruning. Pruning more than 25%® of the canopy in a 36 month period shall be regulated as removal with tree replacement required. replacement W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 41 of 94 167 22. Permit Require ents. Prior to any tree removal or site clearing, a Type 2 Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit application must be submitted to the Department of Community Development (DCD) containing the following information: a. A vegetation survey on a site plan that shows the diameter, species and location of all significant trees and all existing native vegetation. b. A site plan that shows trees and native vegetation to be retained and trees to be removed and provides a table showing the number of significant trees to be removed and the number of replacement trees required. c. Tree protection zones and other measures to protect any trees or native vegetation that are to be retained for sites undergoing development or re -development. d. Location of the OHWM, river buffer, Shoreline Jurisdiction boundary and any s ritica areas with their buffers. e. A landscape plan that shows diameter, species name, spacing and planting location for any required replacement trees and other proposed vegetation. f. An arborist evaluation justifying the removal of hazardous trees if required by DCD. g. An application fee per the current Land Use Permit Fee resolution. 3. Criteria for Shoreline Tree Removal. A Type 2 Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit shall only be a roved by the Director of Community Development if the proposal c es with the following criteria as applicable: a. The site is undergoing development or redevelopment; b. Tree poses a risk to structures: c. There is im Hnent potential for root or canopy interference with utilities: d. Trees interfere with the access and passage on public trails: e. Tree condition and health is poor, the City may require an evaluation by an International Society of Arborists (ISA) certified arborist: f. Trees present an imminent hazard to the pubthe hazard is not readily apparent, the City may require an evaluation by an jnterrjational Society of Arborists (ISA) certified arborist: and g. The pro osal complies with tree retentioft replacement, maintenance and monitorina requirements of this Chapter. 4. Tree Replacement Requirements. a. Whores per-rntte.c.{,--sSignificant trees that are removed, illegally topped, or pruned by more than 25 percent in 36 month period within frem—the shoreline jurisdiction shall be replaced pursuant to the tree replacement requirements shown below, up to a density of 100 trees per acre (including existing trees). W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 168 Page 42 of 94 b. Significa t tieesjhat are Dart of an approved landscape plan on a deveboed site are subiect to replacement per TMC Chapter 18.52, Dead or dying trees removed from developed or landscaped areas shall be replaced 1:1 in the next appropriate season for planting. c. Dead or dying trees located within the buffer or undeveloped upland_ ortion of the Shoreline Jurisdiction shall be left in place as wildlife snags, unless they present a hazard to structures, facilities or the public. Re oval of non -hazardous trees as defined by TMC Chapter 18.06 in non -developed areas are subiect to the tree replacemente uirements listed in the table below. d. The Director or Planning Commission may require additional trees or shrubs to be installed to mitigate any potential impact from the loss of this vegetation as a result of new development. Tree Replacement Requirements Diameter* of Tree Removed (*measured at Number of Replacement height of 4.5 feet from the ground) Trees Required 4-6 inches (single trunk); 3 2 inches (any trunk of a multi -trunk tree) Over 6 - 8 inches Over 8 - 20 inches Over 20 inches 8 5o. The property owner is required to ensure the viability and long-term health of trees planted for replacement through proper care and maintenance for the life of the project. Replaced trees that do not survive must be replanted in the next appropriate season for planting. f. If all required replacement trees cannot be reasonably accommodated on the site, off -site tree replacement within the shoreline jurisdiction may be allowed at a site approved by the City. Priority for off -site tree planting will be at locations within the Transition Zone. If no suitable off -site location is available, the applicant shall pay a fee into a tree replacement fund per the adopted fee resolution The fed shall Po P2sed vuLte -f th.Q r94ane-rn,Q4st uul:vory, f-r oft- prep r -nd plant and stk s-upplies. 75. Large Woody Debris (LWD). When a tree suitable for use as LWD is permitted to be removed from the shoreline buffer, the tree trunk and root ball (where possible) will be saved for use in a restoration project elsewhere in the shoreline jurisdiction. The applicant will be responsible for the cost of moving the removed tree(s) to a location designated by the City. If no restoration project or storage location is available at the time, the Director may waive this requirement. Trees removed in the shoreline jurisdiction outside the buffer shall be placed as LWD in the buffer (not on the bank), if feasible. Priority for LWD placement projects will be in the Transition Zone. ef the Qhore44r.,.. vvlthir uvffref,:--or und-velnpued upland pert'+n :ot$4 s eftwp4ace ns wi!Aff-e-srra — r --s-tructur .141 W. Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/M13:13,is Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 43 of 94 169 GE. Tree Protection During Development and Redevelopment. AU trees not proposed for removal as part of,a project or development shall be protected using Best Management Practices and the standards below. The Critical Root Zones (CRZ) for all trees designated for retention, on site or on adjacent property as applicable, shall be identified on allconstruction plans, including demolition, grading, civil and landscape site plans. 2. Any roots within the CRZ exposed during construction shall be covered ediately and kept moist with appropriate materials. The City may reauire a third -party Qualified Tree Professional to review longterm viability of the tree. 3, Physical barriers, such as 6-foot chailink fence or plywood_ or,other approved equivalent, shall be placed around each individual tree or grouping at the CRZ. 4. Minimum distances from the trunk for the eec-istr-u.et r physical barriers shall be based on the approximate age of the tree (height and canopy) as follows: a. Young trees trees which have reached less than 20% of life expectancy): 0.75 per inch of trunk diameter. b. Mature trees (trees which have reached 20-80% of life expectancy): 1 foot per inch of trunk diameter. c. Over mature trees (trees which have reached greater than 80% of life expectancy): 1.5 feet per inch of trunk diameter. 5. Alternative protection methods ay be used that provide enual or greater tree protection if approved by the Director. 6. A weatherproof sign shall be installed on the fence or barrier that reads: "TREE PROTECTION ZONE — THIS FENCE SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR ENCROACHED UPON. No soil disturbance, parking, storage. dumping or burning of materials is allowed within the Critical Root Zone. The value of this tree is $ [insert value of tree as determined by a Qualified Tree Professional herel. Damage to this tree due to construction activity that results in the death or necessary removal of the tree is subject to the Violations section of TMC Chapter 18.44." 7. All tree ,retection measures installed shall be inspected by the City and, if deemed necessary a Qualified Tree Professional, prior to beginning construction or earth moving. 8. Any branches or limbs that are outside of the CRZ and might be damaged by machinery shall be pruned prior to construction by a Qualified Tree Professional. No construction personnel shall prune affected limbs except under the direct supervision of a Qualified Tree Professional. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 170 Page 44 of 94 , The CRZ shall be covered with 4 to 6 riches of wood chip mulch, Mulch shall ot be placed direc y against the trunk, A 6-inch area around the trunk shall be free of mulch, Additional measures, such as fertilization or supplemental water, shall be carried out prior to the start of construction if deemed necessary by the Qualified Tree Professional's report to D re pa re the trees for the§tre§s,of,constructiorlactiyAies. 10. No storage of equipment or refuse,parkind of vehicles, dumping of materials or che ',Gals, or placement of permanent heavy structures or items shall occur (thin the CRZ. 11. No grade chan es or soil disturbance, including enchin , shall he allowed within the CRZ, Grade changes within prior to implementation. 12. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that the CRZ of trees on adiacent Properties are not impacted by the proposed development. 13. A pre -construction inspection shall be conducted by the City to finalize tree protection actions. 14, Post -construction inspection of otected trees shall be conducted by the City and, if deemed necessary by the City, a Qualified Tree Professional. All corrective or reparative pruning will be conducted by a Qualified Tree Professional. Cf. Landscaping. This,„c-4---.0r, Jpri-do+i-p ary-'4,--"°.;c1P--'4 in, anri for th- 0 feet of the CRZ shall be approved by the City ° nhiscaping ,..-42-ndards for for Pnch toi4heRvcr 11 tl 1. General Requirements. For any new development or redevelopment in the Shoreline Jurisdiction, except single family residential development of 4 or fewer lots, invasive vegetation must be removed and native vegetation planted and maintained in the River Buffer, including the river bank. a. The landscaping requirements of this subsection apply for any new development or redevelopment in the Shoreline Jurisdiction, except: single family residential development of 4 or fewer lots. The extent of landscaping required will depend on the size of the proposed project. New development or full redevelopment of a site will require landscaping of the entire site. For smaller projects, the Director will review the intent of this section and the scope of the project to determine a reasonable amount of landscaping to be carried out. Tice -es other vogota'jp b. Invasive vegetation must be removed as part of site preparation and native vegetation planted, including the river bank to OFIWM. c. On properties located landward of publicly maintained levees, an applicant is not required to remove invasive vegetation or plant native vegetation on the levees, however the remaining uffer landward!)f the levee shall be improved and invasive vegetation planted. •d. 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 a Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit and show how the W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 45 of 94 171 slope stability of the bank will be maintained, an4-1 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. Trees and other vegetation shading the river shall be retained or replanted when riprap is placed, as specified in the approved tree permit if a permit is required. f. Removal of invasive vegetation may be phased over several years prior to planting, if such phasing is provided for by a plan approved by the Director to allow for alternative approaches, such as sheet mulching and goat grazing. The method selected shall not destabilize the bank or cause erosion. g. A combination of native trees, shrubs and groundcovers (including grasses, sedges, rushes and vines) shall be planted. The plants listed in the Riparian Restoration and Management Table of the 2004 Washington Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington, as amended) shall provide the basis for plant selection. Site conditions, such as topography, exposure, and hydrology shall be taken into account for plant selection. Other species may be approved if there is adequate justification. h. Non-native trees may be used as street trees or in approved developed landscape areas+n- where conditions are not appropriate for native trees (for example where there are space or height limitations or conflicts with utilities). i. Plants shall meet the current American Standard for Nursery Stock (American Nursery and Landscape Association — ANLA). j. Plant sizes in the non -buffer areas of all Shoreline Environments shall meet the following minimum size standards: Deciduous trees 2-inch caliper Conifers 6 — 8 foot height Shrubs 24-inch height Groundcover/grasses 4-inch or 1 gallon container k. Smaller plant sizes (generally one gallon, bareroot, plugs, or stakes, depending on plant species) are preferred for buffer plantings. Willow stakes must be at least 1/2-inch in diameter. I. Site preparation and planting of vegetation shall be in accordance with best management practices for ensuring the vegetation's long-term health and survival. m. Plants may be selected and placed to allow for public and private view corridors and/or access to the water's edge. n. Native vegetation in the shoreline installed in accordance with the preceding standards shall be maintained by the property owner to promote healthy growth and prevent establishment of invasive species. Invasive plants (such as blackberry, ivy, knotweed, bindweed) shall be removed on a regular basis, according to the approved maintenance plan. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 46 of 94 172 o. Areas disturbed by removal of invasive plants shall be replanted with native vegetation where necessary to maintain the density shown in TMC Section 18.44.4E44060.6.4. and must be replanted in a timely manner, except where a long term removal and re -vegetation plan, as approved by the City, is being implemented. p. Landscape plans shall include a detail on invasive plant removal and soil preparation, pg. The following standards apply to utilities and loading docks located in the shoreline jurisdiction. (1) Utilities such as pumps, pipes, etc. shall be suitably screened with native vegetation; (2) Utility easements shall be landscaped with native groundcover, grasses or other low -growing plants as appropriate to the shoreline environment and site conditions; (3) Allowed loading docks and service areas located waterward of the development shall have landscaping that provides extensive visual separation from the river. 2. River Buffer Landscaping Requirements in all Shoreline Environments. The River Buffer in all shoreline environments shall function, in part, as a vegetation management area to filter sediment, capture contaminants in surface water run-off, reduce the velocity of water run-off, and provide fish and wildlife habitat. a. A planting plan prepared by a--tic&...-d--Iat-+cds-s_° _r an approved biologist shall be submitted to the City for approval that shows plant species, size, number and spacing. The requirement for a landsc:7,pc arch'----4-ar-biologist may be waived by the Director for single family property owners (when planting is being required as mitigation for construction of overwater structures or shoreline stabilization)5-4-the frf-Non, r`ofet b. Plants shall be installed from the OHWM to the upland edge of the River Buffer unless the Director determines that site conditions would make planting unsafe. c. Plantings close to and on the bank shall include native willows, red osier dogwood and other native vegetation that will extend out over the water, to provide shade and habitat functions when mature. Species selected must be able to withstand seasonal water level fluctuations. d. Minimum plant spacing in the buffer shall follow the River Buffer Vegetation Planting Densities Table shown in TMC Section 18.44. 060.C.2. Existing non-invasive plants may be included in the density calculations. e. Irrigation for buffer plantings is required for at least two dry seasons or until plants are established. An irrigation plan is to be included as part of the planting plan. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 47 of 94 173 f. In the event that a development project allows for setback and benching of the shoreline along an existing levee or revetment, the newly created mid -slope bench area shall be planted and maintained with a variety of native vegetation appropriate for site conditions. a. The Director, in co sultatior h the Citv's environmentalist, may approve the use of shrub planting and installation of willow stakes to be counted toward the tree replacement standard in the buffer if proposed as a measure to control invasive olants and increase buffer function. River Buffer Vegetation Planting Densities Table Plant Material Type Stakes/cuttings along river bank (willows, red osier dogwood) Shrubs Planting Density 1 - 2 feet on center or per bioengineering method 3 - 5 feet on center, depending on species Trees 15 — 20 feet on center, depending on species Groundcovers, grasses, sedges, rushes, other herbaceous plants Native seed mixes 1 — 1.5 feet on center, depending on species 5 - 25 lbs per acre, depending on species 3. Landscaping Requirements for the Urban Conservancy and High Intensity Environments — Outside of the River Buffer. For the portions of property within the Shoreline Jurisdiction landward of the River Buffer the landscape requirements in the General section of this chapter and the requirements for the underlying zoning as established in TMC Chapter 18.52 shall apply except as indicated below. a. Parking Lot Landscape Perimeters: One native tree for each 20 lineal feet of required perimeter landscaping, one shrub for each 4 lineal feet of required perimeter landscaping, and native groundcovers to cover 90% of the landscape area within 3 years, planted at a minimum spacing of 12 inches on -center. b. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: Every 300 square feet of paved surface requires 10 square feet of interior landscaping within landscape islands separated by no more than 150 feet between islands. c. Landscaping shall be provided at yards not adjacent to the river, with the same width as required in the underlying zoning district. This standard may be reduced as follows: (1) Where development provides a public access corridor between off - site public area(s) and public shoreline areas, side yard landscaping may be reduced by 25 percent to no less than 3 feet; or (2) Where development provides additional public access area(s) (as allowed by the High Intensity and Urban Conservancy Environment Development Standards) equal in area to at least 2.5% of total building area, front yard landscaping may be reduced by 25 percent. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 48 of 94 174 EG.Vegetation Management in the Shoreline Jurisdiction. The requirements of this section apply to all existing and new development within the shoreline jurisdiction. 1. Trees and shrubs may only be pruned for safety, to maintain views or 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 and is subiect to replacement ratios of this chanter. This type of pruning is exempt from any permit requirements. Topping of trees is prohibited and shall be regulated as removal with tree replacemet reauired except where absolutely necessary to avoid interference with existing utilities. 2. Plant debris from removal of invasive plants or pruning shall be removed from the site and disposed of properly. 3. Use of pesticides. a. Pesticides (including herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) shall not be used in the shoreline jurisdiction except where: (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 r"'h, rr, 4 i€44y4he Department of Ecology or Washington Department of Agriculture. b. Self-contained rodent bait boxes designed to prevent access by other animals are allowed. c. Sports fields, parks, golf courses and other outdoor recreational uses that involve maintenance of extensive areas of turf shall provide and implement an integrated turf management program or integrated pest management plan designed to ensure that water quality in the river is not adversely impacted. 4. Restoration Project Plantings: Restoration proiects may ovenolant the site as a way to discourage the re-establishment of invasive species. Thinning of vegetation to improve plant survival and heath without a separate shoreline vegetation removal permit may be permitted five to ten years after planting if this approach is approved as part of the restoration projects maintenance and monitoring !Dian. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 49 of 94 175 �.Maintenance and onitorin The properly owriei is r uu doe ee the viahiiityand long ter health of veg etation planted for renlacement or n it ation through prover care and ,,ma ntenance for the rife of the project subject to the per requireri ems as follows: Tree Replacement and Vegetation Clearing Permit Req r°ements: a. Schedule an in spection with the_Urban Environmentalist to docume rt plantin of the correct number and type of plants. b. Submit annual documenl:afio of tree andvvegetation health Jor three ears: �; .... Restoratio �� �, a��,d 1111itiatiot°a Pr�iect quire tints: F���'c a, A five: -year maintenance and ,monitoring plan njustbe approved b _the City prior to permit issuance. The monitoring period will bepir when the restoration is accepted by the City and as -built plans have been submitted. b. Monitoring reports shall be submitted annually for City review up until the er ad of the monitorincr%erid. Reports shall measure survival rates against project gpalsand present continrae cy mans to meet project goals. c. cation will be complete after nroiec ted by City environmentalist. oats have bee d. A performance bond or financial ; curity epr oal to 150% of the cost implementation andmaterialsrequiredo�f the ptantinc�.:�rlain�tenance an labor for ..- monitoringr shall e submitted prior to City acceptance of project. d Section 22. TMC 18.44.070 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 18.44.090070 Environmentally e Critical Areas within the Shoreline Jurisdiction • thes1-a,reas- 4 W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 're Page 50 of 94 176 o hcoo:rl, o +d-�-,, ill v+n. r: +4 s; k n,.;9 -'I,reRif' 3rw rA W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 51 of 94 177 4 .. cC rFi. the mm➢ S�rm,G,,--pme ab .; �u,F �..a r� re�NWR.,-m �v4onv+,_RR-.Rno f „° �.,,�gnb�- .➢ ir�� .J r,_eira� RR-. $9e T4 4 „, Ph'SS,,,, 4 L -1 w-ve e t o't f +h,4-,. p-re •�nc p' spar"r.5 b*, VT Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 178 Page 52 of 94 thhC r s v r t o � 're r� s ° o ci gootech,ns` a' o �.v of 0,1 ^ 1^1r 1 qR a-georder=�^... „'oth.sidy}."',�f� e..'_4 fir, .^1�.M.,,Sv`.-..-.._0F +F_0•+.,b •�: .T E..7,. fore. r.�a kle t4at+Gns k:caticn S'cr may „ 4.-the 76 �> rnr MrF Mi�GI 9ng necr in A.',kvrvl�-..w.�. •A,F,r�^',wmr"•,s-,4'^ylhW W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 53 of 94 179 A. Applicable Critical Areas Regulations, The follow in critical areas shall be rec ulated in accordance with the provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance TMC Chapter 18.45, (Ordinance #, date), which is herein incorporated by reference into this SMP, except as provided in TMC Section 18.44.070(B). Said provisions shall apply to any use, alteration, or development within s shoreline juridiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. Unless otherwise stated, no development shall be constructed, located, extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided without full compliance with the provisions adopted by reference and the Shoreline Master Program. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of TMC Chapter 18.,45 shall be liberally construed together with the Shoreline Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. If there is a conflict or inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline Master Prodi, . the most restrictive provisions shall prevail. 1. Wetlands Watercourses (Type F, Type No Type � ) 3. Areas of potential geologic instability 4. Abandoned mine areas 5. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas B. The following provisions in TMC Chanter 18.45 do not apply„ 1, Critical Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC Section 8.45.160) 2 Reasonable Use Exception (TMC Section 18.45.180). Exceptions within shoreline iurisdiction shall require a shoreline variance based on the variance criteria listed in TMC Section 18.44.110(F) and WAC 173-27-170. 3. Permitting, Appeals, and Enforcement Procedures (TMC 18.45.195) 4. Activities and alterations to shorelines of the state and their buffers shall be subject to the .revisions of this,Master Program. 5 Shoreline buffer widths are defined in TMC Section 18.44.040 . 6. Future amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance require Depa Ecology approval of an amendment to this Master Program to incorporate updated language. 7. If provisions of the Critical AreasOrdinanceconflict with provisions of this Master Program, the provisions that are the most protective of the ecological resource shall ap Iv. as determined by the Director. 8. If there are provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance that are not consistent with the Shoreline Management Act„ Cha ter 90.58 RCW, and supporting Washin ton Administrative Code chapters. those provisions shall not apply, W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 180 Page 54 of 94 C. Areas of seismic instability are also defined as c areas. These areas are regulated by the Washington State Building Code, rather than by Section 18.44.070 of this chanter. Additional building standards applicable to entiv flooded areas are included in the Flood Zone Management Code (T CChante . - roo IA r� caar^e g°^n r^a.r °r a_a CV,orV ��°�u;�o�.n �a r„ any otho.r 6 ax,e�^,_ irksrar�x.wr t� t ...a ..,A.,..�,.�A .a� �,� ..��o,,,a o�� �.a��a� °®.."�."h Eiry :r'cVopneo, O,r f°, ,turro construction, e-lCwr.ito:.,„.n,; vjr ;a-Aas=-�r.+ of a14 ��,`n.,u���;t'" �weo=e °G-. rrn 9d$,.; °�. "� e9' gut°«. „4"r"."o Pl rn�tr r df+firr..,: Froo-a r Io or t')nts Cf tho dav©c me tcrMV7 trmL ti?s�.Ral. 6^: ice_ ar-;:,.c and its .b pufl soncrreto... or m^,tcl shah be as fo91G,;, 0÷16- VVetE,andcz nd the hi ° iiw Tar ono' Dclineatir,-r, !!Mn • 7 ware e'nr+e t^ 7('tA 17F /17l.,.11,r41, lJ �plir�r>rt+a �n W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG(MD'bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 55 of 94 181 uA c.. ^a r^a era k,J,i fR nea,nrA^a obr.o r 's ,,, ,tea,R A in 7n A 6C�, I�"YrCi c^ ^'r R�Aa��iF� +kk IA/�p--- R� (WasR-141 � a n-��'� �-"A •F:n� !� /1'>e \ �c ('�f4vwor , 0 RR U R I t o J�� s ROctc�r;l k,a� +kc-, w.:2 "-y „e /b) t / it-nn c th f r,3rfP ram, fn �x.. �r^.t.�.". .rocw�_'"'�.,..�e,v.���+y-y, —� IAFo -tcrra I, "4 bn�ntEnn-p�� F,a¢?--,, c"Cfr`r,1 a.,;t1, rn r a" air`? r rx2ss rat_ .e-el of f, V ter? points gcn re^s" rf•+„,=„s c^.a0-�e,^,tir7 fwre,r s^^re, W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 182 Page 56 of 94 f� a ta.... ,Al are m + sc d h „ e r�r r a i Fic„,k sedgy .. R thc ex. c Thr cn ,a+©,-r �� .-.....��n Q�6..,a^ > �a m oth a t e a^^. h nms pd aC R"".° •"".� °"° y�e f h I! M t c Y'1 ...e- . 'P"' "m "r a -Rd A ro.r,s I fP , o Y v o e e + ,r + I —arprnvu:e o n . . .u. + . nr f a ^+.f_ ,w R nnnsCrn +i.�ra arr'as ntjf.'er ,_aIr,n, o A, SeRo e+' h 4a+ vw�hanoe ®,ear A rr+ shnwn... ay. W t CO iraOO. f'^rc ,rn rn+it7sr. A rn.x., fvr +hn vai�,n the �, v" r o-"*^n..;21 ?-a+A.L"L,C. reu.o.rrn �-a cm Cnc V°o aev r^d lAlelr-lRefy� the Juris.Jea+Jn vh n . s 3 C`vh 7.LV�Y9 v o LJ�he}N± nM"Mea-S w th th-a. Sd*r. fi_. ._..ass..mSol ,24-ateria+r.r-ccu-r es and ct!andc and h R Y` ""G: !\runs I\/77) arti + rr Be +anr Ph„ f~r /rlio r+ ich ,....: r ,...L:�',a.�..�;� W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 57 of 94 183 D;Igesr -n r+." r , -27 1-aX m„rc*le' awr'T' u a i rQ, ;. Wet. Bl'ffef&o +'. c.a .. i� f.- .4.nia+;,-.�, o a��.U11°f o ;�. d . 1. o .. f7\ D —J Lin\Q�r d cf A _8• fartnk -,,rV a,ei d! f, fl, A ran LA nab ray i oe A YAM i th t re W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 184 Page 58 of 94 I Al TA e re Ate, A n M Fhv h wFf r a_'WR h0 to n of Standard Buffer IV4th. u: wlerz for :.ab, 2 tr r +; eks the bc7."is for o°? hi �ffor •4tirJ}h w,l.o� hn rer,r roace w'Ath. from the whn.,V 1,0 T - or -the, ark th - nA,irlth � v 'w d 1 r +. rryse yr: W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 59 of 94 185 removed froy., +h h FFyr v rye�r,+ NMmma�L etc klkarn +41 G ff o r b. Roar#°, ass • on an B offer , TR�m f,ndRr,uy��nra m y t r,, Ifldr„��W�am, R,q#r ,olde, be eve-Fse reee..rs raatc, —er thu sr..rx, .RS.�ro ."}o, cc b nZ,.✓ „ au w.. rie e4sRt4ai.4s-4 1...3! a„+den •',r.r,R'r*n.�,+ Mnnr • es+ ri, r.„rchnr, W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 186 Page 60 of 94 noernmer,r^dataor, w„�,,Y RR,,.�e.��a�ff�. o 'tatili±, w 4k2 r^con.frn.t A ev-if ,,k ra;r, Lrar L.:)\ Ore, I71 ,/ D D arwr� r,f r1 St -at kWh/ °ar 444rfk rc4a 4444 nntnt---1rz�&�°n C � aa° to the nropecir'...AC r .^,ern R. pree or cs pr.:, um w4i+ ahiAit D 'c rxt t r-0 fo-„r fi fa or , Adtht - r- s W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 61 of 94 187 1�.icr,_ia ora�a h n r. r' n'a c" 4Yn Furth r-P ,CLQ,Caarlia a-x r Pw s l r., c-n i a"a r a 6-°a, ra „„COLVC41, A r"*:i,:d:44r4..ii....:..fr rc p rre ,.y,..,n.w�..e r. . era od ooy ra .�u-a4 46 n r I: f PNai o 47 t, rar n xnr mi . e,e,-rr . a,.741c•nr11,0,1 har +ht, rvnia4ra e^ ILA +hnrc hr, CO"Fn4gnr+ eviI ne wree nr+ fnr fna au-.r4rm+a • hn r a. icza., M _ r...-.---„m<`..ruf3+i.CS. nhrs11„rkeNetifesr r+nry I ex0a at e.t W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 188 Page 62 of 94 4h.0 re.tri4r cc+h, C.n.O _u-s`AC at S�Ch +r„- +h.-, .0.4,nM � �co+en 7 .ar.r� ��c.+oi h +dre+a4i!° $ M1 v h an i r- s pir^a e°a rnr ThC b; ,� r..,,,c+�rne of^. ra,e- r. or* P.1 n$q .�:....s oQ^;z „s,_,.„: MP C.+.^ai4irw.rm , ","�s,d .? ,tn +iev�, „a^�a„ dA.,2i, a„ k s �� �,: maw �, ,,, .obseru ap �F thco o�. rvr,, M, .nf +hry tarn i rca°+ems rr nwn'f-.IV ; rdeva nq nva.ar +a~,at th ; '4ev dd-ee'prab!^O Ff8' .'N rnr+ohli her1 nrg+ivo_+rnco +9t e 6 :edf�.re io in few +hr, unre,nr :end A BA 11 •Snran+ o egetatFCr. The i£m,av^� of s444.7r tTT , + _ W:. Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 63 of 94 189 &.. l/essrwra+ A +hin es nhkrn+nri 14--11.4zek ;4.4es L�rec.f., kOnia,g--Vsa rd Aid rno4 re„r +hr �nv.IN 04. k,s C" +Les, rer i`a+ gor^ rw III„ +l Yrl. over+ h� Rr n js alcv,Le- A, 4-4,� �� rr�aaoed tli, +i. 044 h o n O re,rw a.r+*sa W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 190 Page 64 of 94 /.A \ A 0ko• -, Fe .-,� +, oc ,a • W,3# jrrrv� oa re as :mod e•'a tan.,. eiv+ h G0 emu° �t rams elope h-, r r nr A �Ati n�V� F6 n..^t; Y d dons of a roerrt€Q v t must co-, p! y ar, r;i W� 6-�n o•nr?i r✓u hnry -F W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 65 of 94 191 pJ B ,ram°" recrvvae0°rd `a*vim f.c to '^•o elvnrt op E Furl �,v A Y �Y'd !�\ flow,.. .. �, ..... �... o„ .. .�,�,... .. o:., a ....�. —4. 'C: O �,a, ➢ 1I�i Y,nl ifct Fi&i nd ar. lAlol.drfi_/„�r__„p_e� cif ..h;B,o+,y,.-,1_-are : Z. • �rAlx,f 1 ,o 2r, �ro.V 6...ff � l/11hn9 on I1-00ro U 9 B^e W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 192 Page 66 of 94 arid. Thin a ter. t„ n,xa G ,, aroc r r^aSC, Cow^ tlnwyd t#N1 not, s 9a a es« do �.+w� As.unF✓aM to A *tfie ra Rif Bh oxtYrei-fin, keve rows,-p ... aa rut th epct ,.J W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 67 of 94 193 G1Aw$o e.+;.ems nP.,�To�.�+,r elan R +a"u'o'.v'"'u'v'�"a ante rnir Ti wn aao'rar�iine.v"`a""`""w""&, eva w�i A h r+�n.r*ro r�+a ro kS. .ref ... equence 3 rnd. c Rotructio.�.:' ,,m+k C. .1 P n+�c-J_3rpra re:, b n Ong"s r-0r rp rV rC77 .J ft ..r W. Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 194 Page 68 of 94 ra n e-rrv, µ ra m,-,fig,±! e a _4it r Rb .�,?'�F r�r n,r�?'r�✓T+�n� +- i e p�4 the aer,siti `e n air htV: a-e C - u nr V•R��;.r '�..e ff•er r2 r,w+R-enr &^R a nL+c� Rw a c: , e,•kiakn /..01 .rv,n rr+ dry dn. ivF C��nrorrJr'..'Tr,r4 I°. ,c),. %%ann r nr A,14 rr+nn ra••-•o Air +he, wenrert &err^ra of the_c rove IR r�9CA C'CA J nwtand2rds a C+nnr4'r t v1a,+r..,ue,., 5 i ro�r+:n rrva3flOC rxvevi f yrTi79f+ and • W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 69 of 94 195 Lox, elfzcz,z.,-; est tir_n+ + tet, tel e•rt +In tell re, es. +est re ;rt. est npri.-1:-.4 rvn uo ,u • b_ersk tet-stes+ e-se rteNt+te-s,„,ft‘sstet V,74 C.• t 1,4`d "ht r+t, ‘11,11V „ a rer 44±,nnninoe corronii laitnnt cfnfinotn Of4efiGireARCI`7"-;--r -tin& tee, fl Section 23. TMC 18.44.080 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 18.44.100080 Public Access to the Shoreline A. Applicability. 1. Public access shall be provided on all property that abuts the Green/Duwamish River shoreline in accordance with this section as further discussed below where any of the following conditions are present: a. Where a development or use will create increased demand for public access to the shoreline, the development or use shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. For the purposes of this section, an "increase in demand for public access" is determined by evaluating whether the development reflects an increase in the land use intensity (for example converting a warehouse to office or retail use), or a significant increase in the square footage of an existing building. A significant increase is defined as an increase of 3,000 square feet. b. Where a development or use will interfere with an existing public access way, the development or use shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. Impacts to public access may include blocking access or discouraging use of existing on -site or nearby accesses. c. Where a use or development will interfere with a public use of lands or waters subject to the public trust doctrine, the development shall provide public access to mitigate this impact. d. Where the development is proposed by a public entity or on public lands. e. Where identified on the Shoreline Public Access Map in the Shorehne Master Pro ram. f. Where a land division of five or greater lots, or a residential project of five or greater residential units, is proposed. 2. For tho (-c c do-t-rmincnt by c\,°o.ki gwhothor ;'‘+'"'+‘' for exompo convert°ng 3-wrPhnuq-.., to off°oor r2taL*+se - j-Q.tiring ma-4-4ng. A signifinon+ °.. as-anincrc= - The extent of public access required will be proportional to the amount of increase in the demand for public access. For smaller projects, the Director will review the intent of this section and the scope of the project to determine a reasonable amount of public access to be carried out. Depending on the amount of increase, the project may utilize the alternative provisions for meeting public access in TMC Section 18.44.440080(F). The terms and conditions of TMC Sections nest telif.L-lar_± B11^1 W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/Mabjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 196 Page 70 of 94 18.44.1-0-0080(A) and (B) shall be deemed satisfied if the applicant and the City agree upon a master trail plan providing for public paths and trails within a parcel or group of parcels. 3. The provisions of this section do not apply to the following: a. Short plats of four or fewer lots; b. Where providing such access would cause unavoidable health or safety hazards; c. Where an area is limited to authorized personnel and providing such access would create inherent and unavoidable security problems that cannot be mitigated through site design or fencing; or d. Where providing such access would cause significant ecological impacts that cannot be mitigated. An applicant claiming an exemption under items 3(b) - (d) above must comply with the procedures in TMC Section 18.44.1- 080(F). B. General Standards. 1. To improve public access to the Green/Duwamish River, sites shall be designed to provide: a. Safe, visible and accessible pedestrian and non -motorized vehicle connections between proposed development and the river's edge, particularly when the site is adjacent to the Green River Trail or other approved trail system; and b. Public pathway entrances that are clearly visible from the street edge and identified with signage; and c. Clearly identified pathways that are separate from vehicular circulation areas. This may be accomplished through the use of 'al -distinct paving materials s--h p_cost ,r4a, changes in color or distinct and detailed scoring patterns and textures. d. Site elements that are organized to clearly distinguish between public and private access and circulation systems. 2. Required public access shall be fully developed and available for public use at the time of occupancy in accordance with development permit conditions except where the decision maker determines an appropriate mechanism for delayed public access implementation is necessary for practical reasons. Where appropriate, a bond or cash assignment may be approved, on review and approval by the Director of Community Development, to extend this requirement for 90 days from the date the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3. Public access easements and related permit conditions shall be recorded on the deed of title or the face of the plat, short plat or approved site plan as a condition tied to the use of the land. Recording with the County shall occur prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit or final plat approval. Upon re -development of such a site, the easement may be relocated to facilitate the continued public access to the shoreline. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 71 of 94 197 4. Approved signs indicating the public's right of access and hours of access, if restricted, shall be constructed, installed and maintained by the applicant in conspicuous locations at public access sites. Signs should be designed to distinguish between public and private areas. Signs controlling or restricting public access may be approved as a condition of permit approval. 5. Required access must be maintained in per et itythr-pgh-mt "4-of the - projeet. 6. Public access features shall be separated from residential uses through the use of setbacks, low walls, berms, landscaping, or other device of a scale and materials appropriate to the site. 7. Shared public access between developments is encouraged. Where access is to be shared between adjacent developments, the minimum width for the individual access easement may be reduced, provided the total width of easements contributed by each adjacent development equals a width that complies with Fire Department requirements and/or exceeds the minimum for an individual access. 8. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest public area (e.g., street, public park, or adjoining public access easement). Where connections are not currently possible, the site shall be designed to accommodate logical future connections. C. Requirements for Shoreline Trails. Where public access is required under TMC Section 18.44.40-0080(A)1-abov-e, the requirement will be met by provision of a shoreline trail as follows: 1. Development on Properties Abutting Existing Green River Trail. An applicant seeking to develop property abutting the existing trail shall meet public access requirements by upgrading the trail along the property frontage to meet the standards of a 44 12-foot-wide trail with 2-foot shoulders on each side. If a 12-foot-wide trail exists on the pro erty it shall mean public access re uirements have been met if access to the trail exists within 1,000 feet of the property. 2. Development on Properties Where New Regional Trails are Planned. An applicant seeking to develop property abutting the river in areas identified for new shoreline trail segments shall meet public access requirements by dedicating an 1-8 16- foot-wide trail easement to the City for public access along the river. 3. On -site Trail Standards. Trails providina access within a property, park or restoration site shall be developed at a width appropriate to the expected usage and environmental sensitivity of the site. D. Publicly -Owned Shorelines. 1. Shoreline development by any public entities, including but not limited to the City of Tukwila, King County, port districts, state agencies, or public utility districts, shall include public access measures as part of each development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security, impact to the shoreline environment or other provisions listed in this section. 198 W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD,Iojs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 72 of 94 2. The following requirements apply to street ends and City -owned property adjacent to the river. a. Public right-of-way and "road -ends," or portions thereof, shall not be vacated and shall be maintained for future public access. b. Unimproved right-of-ways and portions of right-of-ways, such as street ends and turn -outs, shall be dedicated to public access uses until such time as the portion becomes improved right-of-way. Uses shall be limited to passive outdoor recreation, Gar - hand can boat launching, fishing, interpretive/educational uses, and/or parking-; 41 that accommodates these uses, and shall be designed so as to not interfere with the privacy of adjacent residential uses. c. City -owned facilities within the Shoreline Jurisdiction shall provide new trails and trail connections to the Green River Trail in accordance with approved plans and this SMP. d. All City -owned recreational facilities within the Shoreline Jurisdiction, unless qualifying for an exemption as specified in this chapter, shall make adequate provisions for: (1) Non -motorized and pedestrian access; (2) The prevention of trespass onto adjacent properties through landscaping, fencing or other appropriate measures; (3) Signage indicating the public right-of-way to shoreline areas; and (4) Mechanisms to prevent environmental degradation of the shoreline from public use. E. Public Access Incentives. 1. The minimum yard setback for buildings, uses, utilities or development from non-riverfront lot lines may be reduced as follows: a. Where a development provides a public access corridor betveen that connects off -site areas or public shoreline areas to public shoreline areas, one side yard may be reduced to a zero lot line placement; or b. Where a development provides additional public access area(s) equal in area to at least 2.5% of total building area, the front yard (the landward side of the development) may be reduced by 50%. 2. The maximum height for structures within the shoreline iurisdiction may be increased by 15%-feet when: a. Development devotes at least 5% of its building or land area to public shoreline access; or b. Development devotes at least 10% of its land area to employee shoreline access. Thr‘ r,.(170,C..3. and CO," cif OcC ofOCCO flo LOVA; C OPIc C X PrIpffitU,' M f 2 C/Off lif,VIOCCOCC Ppd OP 9 PPP W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 73 of 94 199 TMC 10 A A nra r: 9 b,----T-haL-i-2,-T-A-1,aan-t-a-s-t-nr-e-s ortha iJe-op,-,-,-,-.-,-propecty to -ifs-, ,„ + - r‘. c Jr, if-Init.:\dot 0 Pk( rr", . r No onmbinotion act:-4 ,r,+a I, te.Feq, r rtr,IN pr-h' rt fth kkk+r, tha 3 "750,/,‘: t,t31 43. The maximum height for structures within the shoreline iurisdiction may be increased by 15 feet for properties that construct a 1-4 12-foot-wide paved trail with a 2- foot-wide shoulder on each side for public access along the river in areas identified for new shoreline trail segments, or where, in the case of properties containing or abutting existing public access trails, the existing trail either meets the standard of a 1-4 12-foot- wide trail with 2-foot-wide shoulders on either side or the property owner provides any necessary easements and improvements to upgrade the existing trail to that standard along the property frontage. 4. During the project review, the proiect proponent shall inoreaco.d hoight be affirmatively demonstrated -to that the increased height will: a. Not block the views of a substantial number of residences; b. Not cause environmental impacts such as, 13-i-A-net-44-nted to, sh2-ing of th_ river hffe r light impacts adversely affecting the river corridor; and c. Achieve no net loss of ecological function' and, d. Not co bine incentives to increase the allowed building height above the rnxmurn height n the parcel's zoning district. !r1 r rg--c-4-n--11-the-n,."n4nn hnini g foot pat t-o th F. Exemptions from Provision of On -Site Public Access. 1. Requirements for providing on -site general public access, as distinguished from employee access, will not apply if the applicant can demonstrate one or more of the following: a. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist such as active railroad tracks or hazardous chemicals related to the primary use that cannot be prevented by any practical means. b. The area is limited to authorized personnel and I -inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the application of alternative design features or other solutions. c. The cost of providing the access, easement or other public amenity on or off the development site is unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term cost of the proposed development. d. Unavoidable environmental harm or net loss of shoreline ecological functions that cannot be adequately mitigated will result from the public access. 200 W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 74 of 94 e. Access is not feasible due to the configuration of existing parcels and structures, such that access areas are blocked in a way that cannot be remedied reasonably by the proposed development. f. Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between the proposed access and adjacent uses would occur and cannot be mitigated. g. Space is needed for water -dependent uses or navigation. 2. In order to meet any of the above -referenced conditions, the applicant must first demonstrate, and the City determine in its findings through a Type II decision, that all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted including, but not limited to: a. Regulating access by such means as maintaining a gate and/or limiting hours of use; b. Designing separation of uses and activities through fencing, terracing, hedges or other design features; or c. Providing access on a site geographically separate from the proposal such as a street end cannot be accomplished. 3. If the above conditions are demonstrated, and the proposed development is not subject to the Parks Impact Fee, alternative provisions for meeting public access are required and include: a. Development of public access at an adjacent street end; or b. Protection through easement or setbacks of landmarks, unique natural features or other areas valuable for their interpretive potential; or c. Contribution of materials and/or labor toward projects identified in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Shoreline Restoration Plan, or other City adopted plan; or d. In lieu of providing public access under this section, at the Director's discretion, a private applicant may provide restoration/enhancement of the shoreline jurisdiction to a scale commensurate with the foregone public access. Section 24. TMC 18.44.090 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 18.44.410090 Shoreline Design Guidelines The Green/Duwamish River is an amenity that should be valued and celebrated when designing projects that will be located along its length. If any portion of a project falls within the shoreline jurisdiction, then the entire project will be reviewed under these guidelines as well as the relevant sections of the Design Review Chapter of the Zoning Code (TMC Chapter 18.60). The standards of TMC Chapter 18.60 shall guide the type of review, whether administrative or by the Board of Architectural Review. A. The following standards apply to development, uses and activities in the Urban Conservancy and High Intensity Environments and non-residential development in the Shoreline Residential Environment. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 75 of 94 201 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. Development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall demonstrate compliance with the following: a. Reflect the shape of the shoreline; b. Orient building elements to site such that public river access, both visual and physical is enhanced; c. Orient buildings to allow for casual observation of pedestrian and trail activity from interior spaces; d. Site and orient buildings to provide maximum views from building interiors toward the river and the shoreline; e. Orient public use areas and private amenities towards the river; f. Clearly allocate spaces, accommodating parking, vehicular circulation and buildings to preserve existing stands of vegetation or trees so that natural areas can be set aside, improved, or integrated into site organization and planning; g. Clearly define and separate public from non-public spaces with the use of paving, signage, and landscaping. 2. Building Design. Development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall demonstrate compliance with the following: a. To prevent building mass and shape from overwhelming the desired human scale along the river, development shall avoid blank walls on the public and river sides of buildings. b. Buildings should be designed to follow the curve of the river and respond to changes in topography; buildings must not "turn their back" to the river. c. Design common areas in buildings to take advantage of shoreline views and access; incorporate outdoor seating areas that are compatible with shoreline access. d. Consider the height and scale of each building in relation to the site. e. Extend site features such as plazas that allow pedestrian access and enjoyment of the river to the landward side of the buffer's edge. f. Locate lunchrooms and other common areas to open out onto the water - ward side of the site to maximize enjoyment of the river. g. Design structures to take advantage of the river frontage location by incorporating features such as: (1) plazas and landscaped open space that connect with a shoreline trail system; (2) windows that offer views of the river; or (3) pedestrian entrances that face the river. h. View obscuring fencing is permitted only when necessary for documentable use requirements and must be designed with landscaping per the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. Other fencing, when allowed, must be W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 76 of 94 202 designed to complement the proposed and/or existing development materials and design; and i. Where there are public trails, locate any fencing between the site and the landward side of the shoreline trail. 3. Design of Public Access. Development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall demonstrate compliance with the following: a. Public access shall be barrier free, where feasible, and designed consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act. b. Public access landscape design shall use native vegetation, in accordance with the standards in the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section. Additional landscape features may be required where desirable to provide public/private space separation and screening of utility, service and parking areas. c. Furniture used in public access areas shall be appropriate for the proposed level of development, and the character of the surrounding area. For example, large urban projects should provide formal benches; for smaller projects in less - developed areas, simpler, less formal benches or suitable alternatives such as boulders are appropriate. d. Materials used in public access furniture, structures or sites shall be: (1) Durable and capable of withstanding exposure to the elements; (2) Environmentally friendly and take advantage of technology in building materials, lighting, paved surfaces, porous pavement, etc, wherever practical; and (3) Consistent with the character of the shoreline and the anticipated use. e. Public -Private Separation. (1) Public access facilities shall look and feel welcoming to the public, and not appear as an intrusion into private property. (2) Natural elements such as logs, grass, shrubs, and elevation separations are encouraged as means to define the separation between public and private space. 4. • esi • n of Flood alls. The exposed new floodwalls should be designed to incorporate brick or stone facingtextured concrete block. desi n elements formed into the concrete or veaetation to cover the wall within 3 years of, plantina. Section 25. TMC 18.44.100 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 18.44. -0100 Shoreline Restoration A. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Not Required. Shoreline restoration projects shall be allowed without a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 77 of 94 203 when these projects meet the criteria established by WAC 173-27-040(o) and (p) and ROW 90.58.580. B. Changes in Shoreline Jurisdiction Due to Restoration. 1. Relief may be granted from Shoreline Master Program standards and use regulations in cases where shoreline restoration projects result in a change in the location of the OHWM and associated Shoreline Jurisdiction on the subject property and/or adjacent properties, and where application of this chapter's regulations would preclude or interfere with the uses permitted by the underlying zoning, thus presenting a hardship to the project proponent. a. Applications for relief, as specified below, must meet the following (1) The proposed relief is the minimum necessary to relieve the (2) After granting the proposed relief, there is net environmental benefit from the restoration project; and (3) Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the shoreline restoration project and with the Shoreline Master Program. (4) Where a shoreline restoration project is created as mitigation to obtain a development permit, the project proponent required to perform the mitigation is not eligible for relief under the provisions of this section. b. The Department of Ecology must review and approve applications for criteria: hardship; relief. c. For the portion of property that moves from outside Shoreline Jurisdiction to inside Shoreline Jurisdiction as a result of the shoreline restoration project, the City may consider the following, consistent with the criteria in TMC Section 18.44.120100.6.1.a. (1) permitting development for the full range of uses of the underlying zoning consistent with the Zoning Code, including uses that are not water oriented; (2) waiving the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit if it is otherwise exempt from the requirement for a substantial development permit; (3) waiving the provisions for public access; (4) waiving the requirement for shoreline design review; and (5) waiving the development standards set forth in this chapter. d. The intent of the exemptions identified e-in sbphsTMC Section 18.44.100.sP h_B.1.c.(1) to B.1.c.(5) is to implement the restoration projects of the Shoreline Master Program Restoration Plan, which reflects the projects identified in the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Plan pursuant to Goals and Policies Policy 5.2 of the S P Tukvvila Comprehensive Plan. W Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:Ns Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 204 Page 78 of 94 8,1 2. Cors Pn0 I f't V Cnn, fl n oect^,orop-e-Pr h rohnc hffo,„ V4' 'nf _De-Nc,+,,nrryl-nnersr, r.rn, ,nrserkfr.r rne.v boLecocd vn-CrW „ 8—rfr +he r' rorn," giccjrni ;rr, A A clan "1, An,NriLenyn , trn ,n1erte4 r Q0.-12H ;11,"—nh rnmov-)1. of th re. of unr.cA +nr. r, nnr,4-nr, firr.I n7.7 nr, n ..r,rnr :!+:7nt " 2. Consistent with the provisions of cub,p---uee-u.... TMC Section 18A4.100.B.1.a, 1.b and 1.c axv, the Shoreline Residential Environment4 ifar, High Intensity, or -Urban Conservancy Environment Shoreline Buffer width may be reduced to no 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 as a result of the shoreline restoration project, subject to the following standards: a. The 25-foot buffer area must be vegetated according to the requirements of the Vegetation Protection and Landscaping Section or as otherwise approved by the City; and b. The proponents of the restoration project are responsible for the installation and maintenance of the vegetation. 34. The habitat restoration project proponents must record with King County a survey that identifies the location of the OHWM location prior to implementation of the shoreline restoration project, any structures that fall within the Shoreline Jurisdiction, and the new location of the OHWM once construction of the shoreline restoration project is completed. 45. Shoreline restoration projects must obtain all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife approvals as well as written approval from the City. C. Shoreline Restoration Building Height Incentive. 1. Consistent with provisions in TMC Section 18.44.050.0, building heights within shoreline jurisdiction may be increased if the project proponent provides additional restoration and/or enhancement of the shoreline buffer, beyond what may otherwise be required in accordance with the standards of TMC Section 18,44.060, "Veqe ation Protection and Landsca incl." Additional Restoration and/or enhancement shall include: a. creation of shallow -water (maximum slope 5H:1V) off channel rearing habitat and/or b. removal of fish passage barriers to known or potential fish habitat, and restoration of the barrier site. IN; Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD;bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 79 of 94 205 Section 26. TMC 18.44.110 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 18.44. 110 Administration A. Applicability of Shoreline Master Program and Substantial Development Permit. 1. Development in the Shoreline Jurisdiction. Based on guidelines in the SMA for a Minimum Shoreline Jurisdiction, Tukwila's Shoreline Jurisdiction is defined as follows: The Tukwila Shoreline Jurisdiction includes the channel of the Green/Duwamish River, its banks, the upland area which extends from the OHWM landward for 200 feet on each side of the river, floodways and all associated wetlands within its floodplain. The floodway shall not include those lands that have historically been protected by flood control devices and therefore have not been subject to flooding with reasonable regularity. 2. Applicability. The Tukwila SMP applies to uses, change of uses, activities or development that occurs within the above -defined Shoreline Jurisdiction. All proposed uses and development occurring within the Shoreline Jurisdiction must conform to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the SMA, and this chapter whether or not a permit is required. B. Relationship to Other Codes and Regulations. 1. Compliance with this Master Program does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local ations and permft requirements that may apply. The applicant is responsible for complying with all other a icable reauirements. 2. Where this Master Program makes reference to any RCW. WAC, or other state or federal law or reuulation. the most recent amendment or current edition shaD apply. 3 In the case of any conflict between any other federal, state, or local law and this Master Program, the provision that is most protective of shoreline resources shall prevail, except when constrained by federal or state law, or where specifically provided in this Master Program, 4. Relationship to Critical Areas Reg ulations. For otection of critical areas where they occur in shore neurisdction, this Master Progr he City's Critical Areas Ordinance, which is incorporated into this Master Program with specific exclusions and modifications in TMC Section 18.44.070. (b) All references to the Critical Areas Ordinance are for the version adopted [CAO adoption date]. Pursuant to WAC 173-26-191(2)(b). amending the referenced regulations in the Master Program for those critical areas under shoreline jurisdiction wifl require,,an amendment to the Master Program and approval by, the Department of Ecology, (c) Within shoreline (urisdiction, the Critical Areas Ordinance, shall be liberally construed together with this Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and Purposes of the provisions of this Master Program and Chapter 90.58 RCW, 206 W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 80 of 94 C. Developments not required to obtain shoriine permrts or oca revie Requirements to obtain a substantial development permit, conditiona use nermft variance, letter of exemption, or other review to implement the Shoreline Management Act do not apply to the following as described in WAC 173-27-044 a id WAC 173-27-045: 1. Re edial actions. Pursuant to ROW 90.58.355, any person conductinga remedial action at a facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued ursuant to Chapter 70.105D ROW, or to the Department of Ecology when it conducts a remedial action under Chapter 70.105D 2. oatvard improvements to meet NPDES permit require ents. Pursuant to ROW 90.58.355, any person installing site improvements for storm water treatment in an existing boatyard facility to meet requirements ©f a nationaD ant discharge e imination system stor water eneral permit 3. WSDOT facility mai tenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to ROW 90.58.356. Washington State Department of Transportation projects and activities 'heating the conditions of ROW 90 58.356 are not required to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other local review. 4. Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant to RCW 90.58.045. 5. Projects authorized through the Enemy Facility Site Evaluation Council process, pursuant to chapter 80.50 ROW GD. Substantial Development Permit Requirements. 1. Permit Application Procedures. Applicants for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall comply with permit application procedures in TMC Chapter 18.104. 2. Exemptions. a. To qualify for an exemption, the proposed use, activity or development must meet the requirements for an exemption as described in WAC 173-27-040, except for properties that meet the requirements of the Shoreline Restoration Section, TMC Section 18.4440100. The purpose of a shoreline exemption is to provide a process for uses and activities which do not trigger the need for a Substantial Development Permit, but require compliance with all provisions of the City's SMP and overlay district. b. The Director may impose conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses as necessary to assure compliance of the project with the SMA and the Tukwila SMP, per WAC 173-27-040(e). For example, in the case of development subject to a building permit but exempt from the shoreline permit process, the Building Official or other permit authorizing official, through consultation with the Director, may attach shoreline management terms and conditions to building permits and other permit approvals pursuant to RCW 90.58.140. 3. A substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with: W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 81 of 94 207 . The policies and procedures of the Shoreline aria erne t Act: b. The provisions of Chanter 173-27 WAC, and c. This - Shoreline Master Program. DE. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. 1. Purpose. As stated in WAC 173-27-160, the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is to allow greater flexibility in the application of use regulations of this chapter in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the City or the Department of Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or assure consistency of the project with the SMA and the City's SMP. Uses which are specifically prohibited by the Shoreline Master Program r yshali not be authorized with approval of a CUP. 2. Application. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits are a Type 4 Permit processed under TMC Chapter 18.104. 3. Application requirements. Applicants must meet all requirements for permit application and approvals indicated in TMC Chapter 18.104 and this chapter. 4. Approval Criteria. a. Uses classified as shoreline conditional uses may be authorized, provided that the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (1) The proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the policies of the Tukwila Shoreline Master Program; (2) The proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; (3) The proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and this chapter; (4) The proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and (5) The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. b. In the granting of all Conditional Use Permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if Conditional Use Permits were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.58 RCW and all local ordinances and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. F. Shoreline Variance Permits. 1. Purpose. The purpose of a Shoreline Variance Permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this chapter where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the physical W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 82 of 94 208 character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of this chapter will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the Shoreline Management Act policies as stated in RCW 90.58.020. Reasonable use requests that are located in the shoreline must be processed as a variance, until such time as the Shoreline Management Act is amended to establish a process for reasonable uses. Variances from the use reuftitions of this chapter are prohibited 2. Application requirements. Applicants must meet all requirements for a Type 3 permit application and approvals indicated in TMC Chapter 18.104. 3. Shoreline Variance Permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the -a ,permit would result in inconsistencies with the policies of the Shoreline Mnagement Act a thwo rting of t!l-a, •policy ehotorroratort in LRCW 90.58.0201. In all instances, the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist and the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 4. Approval Criteria. A Shoreline Variance Permit for a use, activity or development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark and/or landward of any wetland may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: a. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in this chapter preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by this chapter. b. The hardship s'ha,Qhri'hss' in TMC Sastigh 1°.11.1.1."Thht-for which the applicant is seeking the variance is specifically related to the property and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of this chapter, and not from the owner's own actions or deed restrictions; and that the variance is necessary because of these conditions in order to provide the owner with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. c. The design of the project will be compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and SMP and will not cause adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. d. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area. e. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief. f. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. q. In the grantinst of all variance permits. consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional reauests for like actions in the area such that the total of the variances would remain consistent with RCW 90.58 020 and not cause substanfial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 83 of 94 209 5. Shoreline Variance Permits Waterward of OHWM. a. Shoreline variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located either waterward of the ordinary high water mark or within any #ritica area may be authorized only if the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (1) The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in this Master Program preclude all reasonable permitted use of the property; (2) The proposal is consistent with the criteria established under TMC Section 18.44.130110DF.4., "Approval Criteria;" and (3) The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. fTh g of a!! ‘,r'arLiaci-pets, °,-,r‘noir'e-Jation 'c'hafl be g,,iP.r1 to the d^,1 to rscdd ; runic 9 ; 0,01, •reAran %ag'44, IV TV ••-/••••• • b, Et 4. g drv'ronrnont. IV clf) Fo non 0,14 ff,/^4 ,,11 C`R IlkIn+n,+1/21 fr„,,,4h,,u so f G. Non -Conforming Development. 1. Non -Conforming Uses. Any non -conforming lawful use of land that would not be allowed under the terms of this chapter may be continued as an allowed, legal, non -conforming use, defined in TMC Chapter 18.06 or as hereafter amended, so long as that use remains lawful, subject to the following: a. No such non -conforming use shall be enlarged, intensified, increased, moved or extended to occupy a greater use of the land, structure or combination of the two, than was occupied at the effective date of adoption of this chapter except as authorized in TMC Section 18.66.120 or upon approval of a conditional use permit. bit_ KI., ,e-", nr,ence,r,--tr-., 0 N ,,_a ja..,, il C., pr. ..., „ A rA Vi I t '' li e-- ''S ''' 4,'.='',.. .4.,..,r, p ...,,,,,,......,“"RN 1.,,,,,e ....equ•-ml n...,, yi,,,,,, q , tp......F.._, r: r+i,s, "; +kr, ct ..-., ...---,,,p ,,,,,,,...-i€3,-J t.y.,..,_,s, ....,: “ ,.„..,,,....e.„,r, tlo,-÷c,..% 4:affrs,:-.;4.i1;e5 .-1,-5.1-, n; ',Hel,+; ,....r,. be. If any such non -conforming use ceases for any reason for a period of more than 24 consecutive months, the non -conform ma rights shall expire and any subsequent use shall conform to the regulations specified by -in this chapter for the shoreline environment in which such use is located, unless re-establishment of the use is authorized through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, which must be applied for within the o-yea eriod when the non-conformin use ceases to e?(ist. Water -dependent ed when they are inactive due to dormancy, or where the use is typically seasonal. Upon request of the owner, prior to the end of the 24 consecutive months and upon reasonable cause shown, the City Council may grant an extension of time beyond the 24 consecutive months using the criteria set forth in TMC Section 48,42,1 EC-.4 1 8.44. 1 1 0.GA. uses shou d no be cons dered discon in 210 W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 84 of 94 dc. If a change of use is proposed to a use determined to be non -conforming by application of provisions in this chapter, the proposed new use must be a permitted use in this chapter or a use approved under a Type 2 permit with public notice process. For purposes of implementing this section, a change of use constitutes a change from one permitted or conditional use category to another such use category as listed within the Shoreline Use Matrix. ed. A structure that is being or has been used for a non -conforming use may be used for a different non -conforming use only upon the approval of a Type 2 permit subject to public notice. Before approving a change in non -conforming use, the following findings must be made: (1) No reasonable alternative conforming use is practical. (2) The proposed use will be at least as consistent with the policies and provisions of the SMP and as compatible with the uses in the area as the non -conforming use. (3) The use or activity is enlarged, intensified, increased or altered only to the minimum amount necessary to achieve the intended functional purpose. (4) The structure(s) associated with the non -conforming use shall not be expanded in a manner that increases the extent of the non -conformity. (5) The change in use will not create adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions and/or processes. (6) The applicant restores and/or enhances the entire shoreline buffer, including but not limited to, paved areas no longer in use on the property, to offset the impact of the change of use per the vegetation management standards of this chapter. This may include the restoration of paved areas to vegetated area if no longer in use. 17\ \ ° / 144 Pe-s +k 41-11,e, '„,„2 an,f TR Ars r4, r FM' 6 6 9.6• H H69, (-87)-The preference is to reduce exterior uses in the buffer to the maximum extent possible. 2. Non -Conforming Structures. Where a lawful structure exists on the effective date of adoption of this chapter that could not be built under the terms of this chapter by reason of restrictions on height, buffers or other characteristics of the structure, it may be continued as an allowed, legal structure so long as the structure remains otherwise lawful subject to the following provisions: a. Such structures may be repaired, maintained, upgraded and altered provided that: (1) The structure may not be enlarged or altered in such a way that increases its degree of nonconformity or increases its impacts to the functions and values of the shoreline environment except as authorized in TMC Section 18.66.120; and (2) 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 W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 85 of 94 211 potential outside the shoreline buffer, Tthe cost of the alterations may not exceed an aggregate cost of 50% of the value of the building or structure in any 3-year period based upon its most recent assessment, unless the amount over 50% is used to make the building or structure more conforming, or is used to restore to a safe condition any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. tal Maintenance or repair of an existing private bridne is allowed without a conditional use permit when it does not involve the use of hazardous substances, sealants or other liquid oily substances. b. Should such structure be destroyed by any accidental means, the structure may be reconstructed to its original dimensions and location on the lot provided application is made for permits within 12 nio4hstwo 'ears of the date the damage occurred and all reconstruction is completed within two years of permit issuance. In the event the property is redeveloped, such redevelopment must be in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. c. Should such structure be moved for any reason or any distance, it must be brought as closely as practicable into conformance with the applicable master program and the act.v, var., it 4hcrooftcr o nfam' ta#hee tet& of thic chaer3ft,r 44E; d. When a non -conforming structure, or structure and premises in combination, is vacated or abandoned for 24 consecutive months, the structure, or structure and premises in combination, shall thereafter be required to be in conformance with the regulations of this chapter. Upon request of the owner, prior to the end of the 24 consecutive months and upon reasonable cause shawn-rtne,la—ut! Cadunaimay grant an extension of time beyond the 24 consecutive months may be Granted using the criteria in TMC Section 1 8.44.='Ir3-C)1 1 0. EG.4. e. Residential structures located in any Shoreline Residential Environment and in existence at the time of adoption of this chapter shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of height, residential use, or location provisions of this title. Such buildings may be rebuilt after a fire or other natural disaster to their original dimensions, location and height, but may not be changed except as provided in the non -conforming uses section of this chapter. f. Single-family structures in the Shoreline Residential Environment that have legally non -conforming setbacks from the OHWM per the SMP buffer shall be allowed to expand the ground floor only along the existing building line(s) as long as the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the OHWM is not reduced and the square footage of new intrusion into the buffer does not exceed 50% of the square footage of the current intrusion. As a condition of building permit approval, a landscape plan showing removal of invasive plant species within the entire shoreline buffer and replanting with appropriate native species must be submitted to the City. Plantings should be maintained through the establishment period. A .-0,..are 6vits; int r+...ion- of st. 11 6 stru-tur,, shall r..„ W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 86 of 94 212 3. For the purposes of this section, altered or partially reconstructed is defined as work that does not exceed 50% of the assessed valuation of the building over a three- year period. 4. Requests for Time Extension —Non -conforming Uses and Structures. a. A property owner may request, prior to the end of the el or.,=acutA4:.) - h.stwo—vear period, an extension of time beyond the 24 .-2-=pr,s.ao° '-'11k!-- two year period. Such a request shall be considered as a Type 2 permit under TMC Chapter 18.104 and may be approved only when: (1) For a non -conforming use, a finding is made that no reasonable alternative conforming use is practical. (2) For a non -conforming structure, special economic circumstances prevent the lease or sale of said structure within 24 months. (3) The applicant restores and/or enhances the shoreline buffer on the property to offset the impact of the continuation of the non -conforming use. For non- conforming uses, the amount of buffer to be restored and/or enhanced will be determined based on the percentage of the existing building used by the non -conforming use for which a time extension is being requested. Depending on the size of the area to be restored and/or enhanced, the Director may require targeted plantings rather than a linear planting arrangement. The vegetation management standards of this program shall be used for guidance on any restoration/enhancement. For non -conforming structures, for each six-month extension of time requested, 15% of the available buffer must be restored/enhanced. b. Conditions may be attached to the permit that are deemed necessary to assure compliance with the above findings, the requirements of the Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act and to assure that the use will not become a nuisance or a hazard. 5. Building Safety. Nothing in this SMP shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any non -conforming building or part thereof declared to be unsafe by order of any City official charged with protecting the public safety. a. Alterations or expansion of a non -conforming structure that are required by law or a public agency in order to comply with public health or safety regulations are the only alterations or expansions allowed. b. Alterations or expansions permitted under this section shall be the minimum necessary to meet the public safety concerns. 6. Non -Conforming Parking Lots. a. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to require a change in any aspect of a structure or facility covered thereunder including, without limitation, parking lot layout, loading space requirements and curb -cuts, for any structure or facility which existed on the date of adoption of this chapter. W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 87 of 94 213 b. If a change of use takes place or an addition is proposed that requires an increase in the parking area by an increment less than 100%, the requirements of this chapter shall be complied with for the additional parking area. c. If a property is redeveloped, a change of use takes place or an addition is proposed that requires an increase in the parking area by an increment greater than 100%, the requirements of this chapter shall be complied with for the entire parking area. An existing non -conforming parking lot, which is not otherwise subject to the requirements of this chapter, may be upgraded to improve water quality or meet local, state, and federal reg ulations. d. The area beneath a non -conforming structure may be converted to a contiguous arking lot area if the non -conforming structure is demolished and only when the contiguous parking is accesso to a legally established use. The converted parking area must be located landward of existing parking areas. 7. Non -Conforming Landscape Areas. a. Adoption of the vegetation protection and landscaping regulations contained in this chapter shall not be construed to require a change in the landscape improvements for any legal landscape area that existed on the date of adoption of this chapter, unless and until the property is redeveloped or alteration of the existing structure is made beyond the thresholds provided herein. b. At such time as the property is redeveloped or the existing structure is altered beyond the thresholds provided herein and the associated premises does not comply with the vegetation protection and landscaping requirements of this chapter, a landscape plan that conforms to the requirements of this chapter shall be submitted to the Director for approval. GH, Revisions to Shoreline Permits. Revisions to previously issued shoreline permits shall be reviewed under the SMP in effect at the tine of submittal of the revision, and not the SMP under which the original shoreline permit was approved and processed in accordance with WAG 173-27-100. HI. Time Limits on Shoreline Permits. 1 Consistent with VVAC 173-27-090, shoreline permits are valid for two years, and the work authorized under the shoreline permit must be completed in five years. Construction activity must begin within this two-year period. If construction has not begun within two years, a one-time extension of one year may be approved by the Director based on reasonable factors. The permit time period does not include the time during which administrative appeals or legal actions are pending or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the project. 2 Upon a finding of good cause, based on the requirements and circumstances of a proposed proiect, and consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, the City may adopt a different time limit fora shoreline substantial deveLppment permit as part of an action on a shoreline substantial development permit. 214 W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 88 of 94 Section 27. TMC 18.44.120 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 18.44. 120 Appeals 1""C ko, 44,4, --„Q SIth,--f,4714,41141 16,‘,112222-P222,2 onditie,P=1-14-ce-pf-Shorelinc Vapiance- mdstche ap'-imcaled othe-Blyor,e2ine Hcarlryg Eammardyikny person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline., Conditional Use Permit, or Shoreline Variance av seek review fror the Shorelines Hearings Board by firma a petition for review within 21 days of the date of filing of the decision as provided in RUN 90.58.140(6). Section 28. TMC 18.44.130 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 18.44. 130 Enforcement and Penalties A. Violations. The following actions shall be considered violations of this chapter: 1. To use, construct or demolish any structure, or to conduct clearing, earth - moving, construction or other development not authorized under a Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit or Variance Permit, where such permit is required by this chapter. 2. Any work which is not conducted in accordance with the plans, conditions, or other requirements in a permit approved pursuant to this chapter, provided that the terms or conditions are stated in the permit or the approved plans. 3. To remove or deface any sign, notice, complaint or order required by or posted in accordance with this chapter. 4. To misrepresent any material fact in any application, plans or other information submitted to obtain any shoreline use or development authorization. 5. To fail to comply with the requirements of this chapter. B. Enforcement. This chapter shall be enforced subject to the terms and conditions of TMC Chapter 8.45. C. Inspection Access. 1. For the purpose of inspection for compliance with the provisions of a permit or this chapter, authorized representatives of the Director may enter all sites for which a permit has been issued. 2. Upon completion of all requirements of a permit, the applicant shall request a final inspection by contacting the planner of record. The permit process is complete upon final approval by the planner. D. Penalties. 1. Any violation of any provision of the SMP, or failure to comply with any of the requirements of this chapter shall be subject to the penalties prescribed in TMC Chapter W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 89 of 94 215 8.45 of the Tukwila Municipal Code ("Enforcement") and shall be imposed pursuant to the procedures and conditions set forth in that chapter. 2. Penalties assessed for violations of the SMP shall be determined by TMC Chapter 8.45.I8 120, Penalties. 3. It shall not be a defense to the prosecution for failure to obtain a permit required by this chapter, that a contractor, subcontractor, person with responsibility on the site, or person authorizing or directing the work, erroneously believed a permit had been issued to the property owner or any other person. 4. Penalties for Tree Removal: a. Each unlawfully removed or damaged tree shall constitute a se arate violation. b. The amount of the penalty shall be $1.000 per tree or up to the marketable value of each tree removed or damaged as determined by an IISA certified arborist, The Director may elect not to seek penalties or reduce the penalties if he/she determines the circumstances do not warrant imposition of any or all of the civil penalties, C. Any illegal removal of rewired trees shall be subiect to obtaining a tree permit and replacement with trees that meet or exceed the functional value of the removed trees. In addition, any shrubs and groundcover removed without City approval shall be replaced. d. To replace the tree canopy lost due to the tree removal, additional trees must be planted on -site. Payment may be made into the City'Tree Fund if the number of replacement trees cannot be accommodated on -site. Thepumber of re lacement trees required will be based on the size of the tree(s) removed as stated in TMC Section 18.44.060 B 4. E. Remedial Measures Required. In addition to penalties provided in TMC Chapter 8.45, the Director may require any person conducting work in violation of this chapter to mitigate the impacts of unauthorized work by carrying out remedial measures. 1. Remedial measures must conform to the policies and guidelines of this chapter and the Shoreline Management Act. 2. The cost of any remedial measures necessary to correct violation(s) of this chapter shall be borne by the property owner and/or applicant. F. Injunctive Relief. 1. Whenever the City has reasonable cause to believe that any person is violating or threatening to violate this chapter or any rule or other provisions adopted or issued pursuant to this chapter, it may, either before or after the institution of any other action or proceeding authorized by this ordinance, institute a civil action in the name of the City for injunctive relief to restrain the violation or threatened violation. Such action shall be brought in King County Superior Court. 216 W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:lajs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 90 of 94 2. The institution of an action for injunctive relief under this section shall not relieve any party to such proceedings from any civil or criminal penalty prescribed for violations of the Master Program. G. Abatement. Any use, structure, development or work that occurs in violation of this chapter, or in violation of any lawful order or requirement of the Director pursuant to this section, shall be deemed to be a public nuisance and may be abated in the manner provided by the TMC Section 8.45.105100. Section 29. TMC 18.44.140 is hereby reenacted to read as follows: 18.44.1 140 Liability A ;kW CAA- nm ;rr, rer fff_c_ err , from porforrTad 1PP,, NAN 03, (6,149 v rysrArrrrr.r, vr.rarr,r R ly;+k arnr,;+ LinP ,(7 -r11 kph H .11,011m r`i4,,, "444,4, +k,-, c-k.,111 14,ra arra r to, A.P. & rar. sror r rr.orr wre rrrr oar, r r\r, rrr.7 err r, grursar rrrrarr, rra ,c,„.0jrn rQ_ rArrirt r,'Nf‘r rff + r f ;+ Afr trAnrAfk :kir D, er'Or r .M1.0" A S.,1 rr,rrrernrjr rr.rx nr,r, rcr r rs.ar rrrerr v var., ear. Iry B—No provision of or term used in this chapter is intended to impose any duty upon the City or any of its officers or employees that would subject them to damages in a civil action. Section 30. TMC 18.52.030 Amended. Ordinance Nos. 2580 §6, 2523 §8, 2442 §1, 2251 §61, 2235 §13, and 1872 §14 (part), as codified in the first paragraph at TMC Section 18.52.030 (above TABLE A — Perimeter and Parking Lot Landscaping Requirements by Zone District), are hereby amended for the first paragraph to read as follows: 18.52.030 Perimeter and Parking Lot Landscaping Requirements by Zone District In the various zone districts of the City, landscaping in the front, rear and side yards and parking lots shall be provided as established by the various zone district chapters of this title. These requirements are summarized in the following table (Table A), except for Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) requirements, which are listed in TMC Chapter 18.28. Additional landscape readirements apply in the Shoreline Overlay District, as directed by TMC Section 18.44.060, Vedeta,tion_Protection and Landscaping, W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 91 of 94 217 Section 31. TMC 18.60.050 Amended. Ordinance Nos. 2580 §7 and §8, 2442 §5, 2368 §62, 2235 §16 and §17, 2199 §20, 1986 §16, 1865 §51, and 1758 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 18.60.050, are hereby amended to add Section H to read as follows: 18.60.050 Board of Architectural Review H. Shoreline esicin Criteria. The criteria nc)ntained in the Si horeline Desian Guidelines (TMC Section 18.44.090) snail be used whenever the previsiens of this title reaufte a de an review decision on a proposed or modified development n the Shorefine Overlay District Section 32. TMC 18.104.010 Amended. Ordinance Nos. 2442 §6, 2368 §70, 2294 §1, 2251 §75, 2235 §19, 2135 §19, and 2119 §1, as codified at TMC Section 18.104.010, "Classification of Project Permit Applications," subparagraph 3, "Type 3 Decisions," are hereby amended to read as follows: 3. TYPE 3 DECISIONS are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner following an open record hearing. Type 3 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court, except for shoreline variances and shoreline conditional uses that may be appealed to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. TYPE 3 DECISIONS TYPE OF PERMIT Resolve uncertain zone district boundary Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk, land alteration, sign) TSO Special Permission Use (TMC Section 18.41.060) Conditional Use Permit INITIAL DECISION MAKER Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner APPEAL BODY (closed record appeal) Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court Modifications to Certain Parking Hearing Standards Examiner (TMC Chapter 18.56) Reasonable Use Exceptions under Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC Section 18.45.180) Variance for Noise in excess of 60 days (TMC Section 8.22.120) Variance from Parking Standards over 10% (TMC Section 18.56.140) Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court Superior Court W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton 218 Page 92 of 94 Subdivision - Preliminary Plat with no associated Design Review application (TMC Section 17.14.020) Wireless Communication Facility, Major or Waiver Request (TMC Chapter 18.58) Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Hearing Exam rt Superior Court Superior Court State Shvorelines Hearings Board NOTE: Shaded area below is duplicative of Repealers on page 7 and will be deleted. 4 E 46,, "Definitions, hcrcby rcpcalcd. Lander tho cubpgraph retitled "High impact Envircrir W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 93 of 94 219 "ShoirelineaniQ lino „ 29 fOrd,148 Section 338. Codification Clarification. Due to amendments to TMC Chapter 18.44 as stated in this ordinance, TMC sections formerly numbered 18 44 OP,5, 18.44.150 and 18.44.160 no longer exist. Section 349. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/subsection numbering. Section 3540. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 3644 . Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force upon approval of the Shoreline Master Program by the Washington State Department of Ecology and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2019. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Rachel B. Turpin, City Attorney Allan Ekberg, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: W: Legislative Development\SMP-Zoning Code changes 8-26-19 NG/MD:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 94 of 94 220 City of Tukwila City Council Community Development & Neighborhoods Committee COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes August 13, 2019 - 5:30 p.m. - Hazelnut Conference Room, City Hall Councilmembers: De'Sean Quinn, Chair; Kathy Hougardy, Verna Seal Staff: Brandon Miles, Minnie Dhaliwal, Laurel Humphre Guests: Mike Pruitt, Segale Properties, LLC; Nicole De on, Cairn'cross & Hemplemann CALL TO ORDER: Chair Quinn called the meeting to orderat 5:30 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS Chair Quinn requested a moment of silence for the oss Amr Parks and Recreation employee. II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Ordinances: Shoreline Master Program Staff is seeking Council approval of ordinances that will update the Shoreline Master Progam and associated regulations in accordance with the Shoreline Management Act, Department of Ecology (DOE) guidelines, and legislative rules. Tukwila has adopted three policy documents related to the teen/Duwamish River, which is categorized as a Shoreline of the State: Shoreline Master Progr m horeline Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and zoning regulations in TIvMC ,Chapter 18.44 Shoreline Overlay. State law requires cities to periodically rew and update their SMPs every eight years. The main areas of change in this.update are additional flexibility for the levee profile and floodwalls, increased height incentives, public access & recreation, non -conforming structures, and vegetation manag ment. TechnicalTechnicat edits include consistency with state regulations, streamlining, eliminatingAuplication and renumbering. i Uribe Beltran, who was a The Committee viewed Attachment A, staff's response to comments submitted at the June 24, 2019 Public Hearing and made the following recommendation: TMC 18.44.110.G.2.a.(2) (referenced in Attachment A, Item 4(1) Councilmembers Robertson and Seal spoke in favor of deleting the proposed added language. Councilmember Quinn stated he needed additional examples. The added language will be left for Committee of the Whole review with additional examples from staff. 221 Community Development & Neighborhoods Minutes August 13, 2019 The Committee reviewed Attachment B, staff's response to Department of Ecology's comments and made no changes. Staff distributed and the Committee reviewed a handout reflecting some of Councilmember Robertson's questions and comments submitted ahead of time. Following discussion, the Committee made the following recommended changes: 4.5 Conclusions Add phrase "and restore habitat," after "protect existing development from flood hazards." 7.2 Key Findings of the Shoreline Inventory 1 Characterization Report and Restoration Plan The Green/Duwamish River throughout Tukwila is a critical habitat resource for salmonids and other species. Adult salmon heading upstream to spawn require cool water: and juveniles heading downstream require food and refuge from high flows, particularly in tThe Transition Zone portion of the river which that etends from river mile 10 upstr am from theate 5 bridge downstream through thenorthern City(see Map2), where g limits .:.... juvenile salmon adjust from fresh to salt water habitat (osmoregulate), is of critical importance because of significant habitat losses over the years. Additionally, tThe river provides migratory habitat for numerous fish species, aswl as riparian habitat for a variety of wildlife. Table 3. Summary of Buffer Widths for Land Use Zonestnd Shoreline Ecological Conditions and Section 7.7(C), Urban Conservancy Environment, Establishment of River Buffers Revert to 3:1 slope everywhere except Low Density Residential (LDR), which will be 2.5:1. • TMC 18.44.050(C) Keep the phrase "beyond wha TMC ,.4.050(K). (renumbered) Addanguage that the Direc dock alternatives. equired." Community Development will review feasibility of the TMC 18. 4. 10(G)(1)(b) (renumbered) Add phrase 'when non -conforming use ceases to exist" after "the two-year period." The Committee f`ed to forward the ordinances to the August 26, 2019 Committee of the Whole. Staff will expand the comment matrix to include the Committee comments. Staff pointed out that the Department of Ecology will not approve the Shoreline Master Program until the City's Critical Areas update is also completed. Chair Quinn asked that staff present a proposed schedule to the Committee of the Whole. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AS AMENDED. FORWARD TO AUGUST 26, 2019 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 222 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date 08/26/19 Prepared Gy RB I Mayor's review Council review 09/03/19 RB ITEM INFORMATION STAFF SPONSOR: RACHEL BIANCHI ITEM NO. 3.C. ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 08/26/19 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Interlocal agreement with City of SeaTac for Justice Center frontage improvements CATEGORY [1 Discussion Meg Date �J Motion Mtg Date 9/3/19 C Resolution Mtg Date E Ordinance Meg Date SPONSOR Council ®Mayor HR f }DCD C I inance TI.Fire rSPONsoR's SUMMARY U Bid Award Meg Date TS PIP&R Public Hearing Mtg Date Police ® Other Mtg Date 08/26/19 PIV El Cowl The City of Tukwila is building the Justice Center abutting Military Road, which is the City of SeaTac's right of way. In order to address the frontage improvements needed on the Military Road side of the Justice Center, the cities need to enter into an interlocal agreement. REVIEWED BY I I C.O.W. Mtg. fl CDN Comm n Trans &Infrastructure n Arts Comm. DATE: 8/ 19/ 19 Finance Comm. C Parks Comm. ® Public Safety Comm. n Planning Comm. COMMII'1EE CHAIR: ROBERTSON RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONsoR/ADMIN. Administrative Services COMMITI'EE Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED 'Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE 8/26/19 09/03/19 APPROPRIATION REQUIRED RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 8/26/19 Informational memo dated August 13, 2019. SeaTac Interlocal Agreement for Frontage Improvements Minutes from the 8/19 Public Safety Committee Meeting 09/03/19 223 224 Allan Ekberg, Mayor TO: Public Safety CO[nnnitt88 CC: Mayor Ekberg FROM: Rachel Bi3nChi, Deputy City Administrator DATE: August 13.2O19 SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement with City of SeaTac for Justice Center frontage ISSUE The City of Tukwila is building the Justice Center abutting Military Road, which is the City of Ge8T@c'sright Ofway. |Dorder t0address the frontage improvements needed Onthe Military Road side of the Justice Center, the cities need to enter into an interlocal agreement. DISCUSSION The City Of3eGT8C is currently completing improvements On Military Road from S. 150mtn TUkvv|o International Boulevard. Frontage improvements (ou[b, gutter, sidevv8|hS. landscaping, lighting, etC.) throughout this corridor are being required bySeaTac |ncoordination meetings between the two cities, it became clear that it rn8keS the most sense for the City VfTukwila to use Justice Center funds to pay GeaTnCtO install these improvements, rather than have the Qty'SGCCMinstall them. The project be|iev8SitvviUs8vebothtinle8ndrnOn8y8SGeaTaC'S contractors are installing all of the frontage improvements throughout the corridor. The cost for these improvements ia$238.553. The Justice Center can absorb this cost inthe contingency budget. RECOMMENDATION The Council is being asked to approve the interlocal agreement. ATTACHMENTS 225 226 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEATAC AND THE CITY OF T0KW8LA FOR FEE IN LIEU OF MITIGATION RELATED TO CONSTRUCTING FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS UN MILITARY ROAD SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TCJKWXLAJ08TICE CENTER This Agreement iubetween the City of3soTuo('5EATAC") in King County, amunicipal corporation, organized under the |own of the State of Washington, and the City of Tukwila ("TDKWlLA`) in King County, a municipal corporation, organized under the |uv/o of the State of Washington, for fee in lieu of mitigation ofconstructing frontage irnpvovonuents in Military Road South rigbi'of-vvayfor the development o[the Tukwila Justice Center project. RECITALS WHEREAS, TUKWILA owns or is in the process of acquiring the 15000 block of Tukwila International Boulevard, located inthe City o[Tukwila, County ofKing, State ofWashington, for the purposed ofconstructing the Tukwila Justice Center; and WHEREAS, four ofthese parcels owned byTDKWILA,identified mKing County Parcel Numbers 004|00-05l4,0U4|0O'05lh,0O4|0O-04O0,and OO4|00-0494abut Military Road South, which ininthe public dght-of-waylocated inthe SE/\IAC("Ahutting Property"); and WHEREAS, TUKWILA is making certain improvementsioassociation with the development of the Tukwila Justice Center on the above -referenced property ("Proposed [)cvc}oprocn1"); and WHEREAS, in oon000|inn with the Proposed Development and as o condition, TUKYV|LA is constructing certain fimniogc innprovenncnto, including curb, gutter, xidovu|k landscaping, street lighting, and surface water management infrastructure along Military Road South ("Frontage Improvements") at TUKWILA's cost; and WHEREAS, the construction of the Frontage Improvements is required to mitigate a direct impact that has been identified as a consequence of the Proposed Development; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCYY 82.02.020, TD}{W|LA desires to enter into a vo|oniory agreement with 8Ef\T/\C, inwhich TUKWOL&will make oone-time payment 1oSB/\T&Cinlieu of constructing improvements needed to mitigate the direct impoo1 of the Proposed Development ("Mitigation Payment"); and WHEREAS, SDy\T}\C and TOKVV[[A agree that u one-time payment made by TDl{YVlL/\to SOATA.0 will be used to mitigate the Proposed Development's direct impacts on Military Road South; and WHEREAS, SEA7ACugreen that once payment has been made to 8B/\TAC, and the payment has been utilized to mitigate impacts on Military Road 3nud`, TUKWlLA will not be responsible for constructing Frontage Improvements along Military Road South adjacent Wthe Abutting Property; and 227 WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this fee in lieu agreement so that SEATAC may apply the Mitigation Payment to SEATAC's Military Road South and South 152nd Street Capital Improvement Project that meets or exceeds the mitigation goals required of the Proposed Development, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants of the parties contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. PAYMENT IN LIEU OF MITIGATION 1.2. Pursuant to RCW 82.02.020 as a voluntary agreement, TUKWILA hereby agrees and covenants to make a one-time Mitigation Payment to SEATAC, in the sum of Two Hundred Thirty -Eight Thousand Five Hundred Fifty -Three and zero cents ($238,553.00), in consideration of SEATAC agreeing that acceptance of the above - referenced Mitigation Payment is in lieu of TUKWILA constructing frontage improvements along Military Road South, adjacent to TUKWILA's Abutting Property, as a condition of the Proposed Development. The Mitigation Payment shall be remitted no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the date of execution of this Agreement. 2. FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG MILITARY ROAD SOUTH 2.1. SEATAC agrees that the Mitigation Payment identified in this Agreement mitigates direct impacts of the Proposed Development, and that any frontage improvements later constructed in Military Road South, adjacent to TUKWILA's property, will not be borne by TUKWILA. 3. USE OF MITIGATION PAYMENT BY THE CITY TUKWILA and SEATAC agree that the payment identified in Paragraph I above may be used by SEATAC for improvements on SEATAC's Military Road South and South 152nd Street Capital Improvement Project, and that such improvements will mitigate direct impacts that have been identified as a consequence of the Proposed Development. 4. AGREEMENT APPURTENANT AND BINDING ON SUCCESSORS 4.1. This Agreement and the covenants, conditions, and terms hereof shall be appurtenant to, and shall run with, the real property described in this Agreement, and shall be binding on the heirs, assigns, and successors in interest of TUKWILA. 5. CHOICE OF LAW 5.1. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In the event of any litigation regarding construction or effect of this Agreement, or the rights of the parties to this Agreement, it is agreed that venue shall be King County, Washington. 2 228 6. COSTS TO PREVAILING PARTY 6.1. In the event that either party initiates any action to enforce the terms and conditions ofthis Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to nouunnab|c costs and uttorncy'sh:cs. 7. ENTIRE INSTRUMENT 7,1. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the matter set forth and herein and any prioroccontcnnporanoouxunderstandings are ouc[gcd bcccio. This /\go:cnoent shall not be modified oxocp| by written Agreement executed hytile parties hereto. 0' ENFORCEMENT 0,1. This Agreement is uo|c]y for the benefit oFthe pat -ties hereto and gives no third - party right to any other entity or person. No joint venture is formed as o result of this Agreement. 9. AMENDMENT 9,1, This Agreement may not bcnnoundoiexcept bvuwritten instrument signed bvboth 10' COUNTERPARTS 10.1. This Agreement may bcexecuted in Counterparts, each n[which shall be deemed an original ogcccnuont, and all of which oho|| constitute one agreement. The execution of one counterpart by a party shall have the same force and effect as if that party had signed all other counterparts. 11. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS 11.1. The Recitals contained in this Agreement, and the Preamble paragraph preceding the Recitals, are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if ftilly set forth herein. 12' NO THIRD -PARTY BENEFICIARIES l%.l. This Acrecnoeu1 is for the benefit ofthe podioa hereto only and is not intended to benefit any other person or entity, and no person ocentity not u signatory <othis Agreement shall have any third -party beneficiary orother right whatsoever under this Agreement. No other person or entity not u party to this Agreement may enforce the terms and provisions of this Agreement. 229 13. SEVERABILITY 13.1. The provisions of this Agreement are separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion or the invalidity of the remainder of this Agreement, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. 14. HEADINGS 14.1. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit, or otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby enter into this Agreement as of the latest date written below. CITY OF SEATAC CITY OF TUKWILA Name: Carl C. Cole Name: David Cline Title: City Manager Title: City Administrator Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Name: Mark S. Johnsen Name: Rachel Turuin Title: Senior Assistant City Attorney Title: City Attorney 4 230 City of Tukwila City Council Public Safety Committee PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes August 19, 2019 - 5:30 p.m. - Hazelnut Conference Room, City Hall Councilmembers: Dennis Robertson, Chair; Kate Kruller, Zak Idan Staff: David Cline, Hari Ponnekanti, Brandon Miles, Laurel Humphrey CALL TO ORDER: Chair Robertson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. I. ANNOUNCEMENT II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Interlocal Agreement: Justice Center Frontage Staff is seeking Council approval of an interlocal agreement with the City of SeaTac for constructing frontage improvements in Military Road South right-of-way associated with the development of the Tukwila Justice Center. SeaTac is completing improvements on Military Road South from South 150th to Tukwila International Boulevard. During coordination meetings between Tukwila and SeaTac it was determined that Tukwila should use Justice Center funds to pay for frontage improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, etc.) being installed by SeaTac's contractors. The total cost is $238,553 and funds are available from the contingency budget. Councilmember Kruller asked how using contingency results in cost savings. Chair Robertson also asked for clarification on why contingency is being used, and staff will return with that information. Councilmember ldan asked how far back the meetings with the City of SeaTac were held. Staff has been coordinating with SeaTac for over a year. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO AUGUST 26, 2019 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. III. MISCELLANEOUS Adjourned 5:36 p.m. Committee Chair Approval Summary by LH 231 232 Upcoming Meetings and Events August - September 2019 AUG 26 MONDAY AUG 27 TUESDAY AUG 28 WEDNESDAY AUG 29 THURSDAY AUG 30 FRIDAY AUG 31 SATURDAY Finance Committee 5:30 PM Hazelnut Conference Room p City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting 7:00 PM Council Chambers 'fr, Community Development & Neighborhoods Committee 5:30 PM Hazelnut Conference Room . Public Meetin: ,'', ' on the King County Hazard Mitigation Plan. This plan identifies hazards and projects to reduce negative impacts. There will be an opportunity for questions and comments. Hosted by the Cities of Kent, SeaTac, Covington, Tukwila and Puget Sound Fire Authority, 6:30 PM — 8400 PM Puget Sound Fire Station 73 26512 Military Rd S, Kent For information, call 253-856-4440 or email KentOEM@pugetsoundfire. org ..., Arts Commission 6:00 PM Community Center tria et Hosted by Food Innovation Network. Wednesdays (July 17 — Oct 16) 4:00 PM — 7:00 PM Tukwila Village Plaza 14350 Tukwila International Blvd . , '3, ,,,'' MAL BLV Ar.t,on a , „, Ilmill=a,, 0. Tukwila International Boulevard Action Committee Trash Pick -Up Day For more information, call Sharon Mann at 206-200-3616. k/ ,°:': Ili, I 1,2N‘ 1 4 4r1,1 144 044414^144r1'140444 ** Rescheduled to Aug 29 Join the Tukwila Artists in Residence for a night of fun and games, while 2 teams battle for the crown of irriprov Champion! 7:00 PM Community Center For more information, contact ()Ilse at olisa ennoo- johnson(StukvolawaLlov SEP 2 MONDAY SEP 3 TUESDAY SEP 4 WEDNESDAY SEP 5 THURSDAY SEP 6 FRIDAY SEP 7 SATURDAY .. * 1 0 IR fig Ink 'y' City offices and Community Center closed. Library Advisory Board 5:30 PM Community Center 'fr, Public Safety Committee 5:30 PM Hazelnut Conference Room fr- City Council Regular Meeting 7:00 PM Council Chambers .,, Transportation & Infrastructure Committee 5:30 PM Hazelnut Conference Room ar ars' et Hosted by Food Innovation Network. Wednesdays (July 17 — Oct 16) 4:00 PM —7:00 PM Tukwila Village Plaza 14350 Tukwila International Blvd fr. Equity & Social Justice Commission 5:15 PM Hazelnut Conference Room SEP 8 SUNDAY A culturalevent in honor of the water, the Duwarnish River, the salmon, and the change of the seasons. 2:00 PM — 6:00 PM Community Center For more information, please contact Sarah at sarah.kavage@tukonlawa gov or visit www TukwIlaWA goy/ welcome -the -works -event. SACK 'TO SCHOOL Tukwila Community Center is hosting a "Back to School" supply drive! Donations can be dropped off to the community center until September 11. Donated items will be given to local organizations that support Tukwila students in need. For a list of most needed items, call the front desk at 206-768-2822. Cool down in the summertime at the Community Center Spray Park through September 2. Free lunch and afternoon snacks provided for ages 1 to 18 years of age. Opens daily from 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM weather permitting. Arts Commission: 4th Wed., 6:00 PM, Tukwila Community Center. Contact Tracy Gallaway at 206-767-2305. Community Development and Neighborhoods Committee: 2nd & 4th Tues., 5:30 PM, Hazelnut Conference Room. Contact Laurel Humphrey at 206-433-8993, (2A) Applications for Lodging Tax fund: $5,000 for Region Ready Conference sponsorship and $10,000 for International Food Truck Rally 2.0. (2B) An ordinance and a resolution related to House Bill 1406 "encouraging Investments in affordable and supportive housing". (2C) Board and Commission appointments. (2D) Foster Golf Links: marketing update and purchase of carts for the Cart Replacement Program. Equity & Social Justice Commission: 1st Thurs., 5:15 PM, Hazelnut Conference Room. Contact Niesha Fort -Brooks at 206-454-7564. Finance Committee: 2nd & 4th Mon., 5:30 PM, Hazelnut Conference Room. Contact Laurel Humphrey at 206-433-8993 (24) Discussion on Fire Department budget. (2B) A resolution updating the Fire Department fee schedule. (2C) Fire Department Special Operations. (2D) June 2019 Departmental budget-to-actuals report. Library Advisory Board: 1st Tues., 5:30 PM, Community Center. Contact Stephanie Gardner at 206-767-2342. Planning Commission/Board of Architectural Review: 4th Thurs., 6:30 PM, Council Chambers at City Hall. Contact Wynetta Bivens at 206-431-3670. Public Safety Committee: 1st & 3rd Mon., 5:30 PM, Hazelnut Conference Room, Contact Laurel Humphrey at 206-433-8993. Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: 1st & 3rd Tues., 5:30 PM, Hazelnut Conference Room, Contact Laurel Humphrey at 206-433-8993. Tukwila International Boulevard Action Committee: 2nd Tues., 7:00 PM, Valley View Sewer District. Contact Chief Bruce Linton at 206-433-1815. 233 Tentative Agenda Schedule Mt3NTH MEETING 1 — REGULAR MEETING 2 -- CAW. MEETING 3 - REGULAR MEETING 4 C.O.W. August 5 12 19 26 See agenda packet cover sheet for this week's agenda: August 26, 2019 Committee of the Whole Meeting September Consent Agenda 9 Special Issues 16 Unfinished Business 23 Application for Lodging Tax funds: Region Ready Conference sponsorship for $5,000. Unfinished Business A resolution updating the Fire Department fee schedule. A resolution updating the Fire Department fee schedule. An Interlocal Agreement with the City of SeaTac for Justice Center frontage. New Business A resolution reaffirming the City's commitment to inclusivity. 234