HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2013-06-27 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila
Jim Haggertoti, Mayor
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
CHAIR, THOMAS MCLEOD; VICE - CHAIR, LOUISE STRANDER; COMMISSIONERS, BROOKE
ALFORD, MIKE HANSEN, SHARON MANN, CASSANDRA HUNTER AND MIGUEL MAESTAS
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
June 27th, 2013 PM, 6:30pm
Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers
Call to Order
Attendance
Adoption of Minutes: April 25, May 21, May 23, 2013
IV. CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
V CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
VI. Director's Report
VII. Adjourn
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
L12 -049 Natural Environment Element, Comp Plan
City of Tukwila
Adopt revisions to the Natural Environment Chapter of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan including revisions to text, goals and policies for
wetlands, watercourses and geologically sensitive areas and adding
goals and policies related to urban forestry.
City -wide
L13 -027, Shoreline Element, Comp Plan
City of Tukwila
Revise the text of the Shoreline Chapter of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan. This action does not affect shoreline goals and
policies which were revised in 2011 when the City adopted a new
Shoreline Master Program
City -wide
Reminder: Please bring your packet to the joint work session with the City Council and the Tree and
Environment Committee on June 24th.
6300 Sozithcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax 206 - 431 -3665
111111111 ir
Date:
Time:
City of Tukwila
Planning Commission
Planning Commission Hearing Minutes
April 25, 2013
6:30 PM to 8:15 PM
Location: City Hall Council Chambers
Present: Thomas McLeod - Chair, Brooke Alford, Mike Hansen, Sharon Mann,
Cassandra Hunter and Miguel Maestes
Absent: Louise Strander - Vice -Chair
Staff: Nora Gierloff - Deputy DCD Director, Rebecca Fox - Senior Planner, Moira
Bradshaw - Senior Planner, Robin Tischmak — City Engineer
Chair McLeod called the meeting to order at 6:34 PM.
Motion: Commissioner Alford made a motion to approve the 3/28/13 minutes.
Commissioner Maestes seconded the motion and all were in favor.
Board of Architectural Review Hearing — Sound Transit Master Sign Program
Chair McLeod opened the public hearing for case S13 -006, request for BAR approval of
a Master Sign Program for Tukwila Station, a Sounder Commuter Rail and Amtrak
Cascades facility at 7301 Longacres Way. Ms. Bradshaw asked the appearance of
fairness questions of all Commissioners. No one declared a conflict or ex -parte contact
and no objections were heard from the audience.
Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner with the Department of Community Development,
gave the staff presentation. She described the location of the permanent station to be
constructed between Longacres Way and Strander Bl /SW 27th St extension. Access to the
site will be from the NW and SE corners. As an essential public facility the station meets
the requirements to apply for a master sign program. The only buildings on site are the
bus shelters, the canopies over the platforms, the canopy over the stairs and the Amtrak
service building.
Sound Transit is requesting installation of two grand monument signs under the Master
Sign Program provisions near the site entrance at Longacres Way. One other
freestanding sign is proposed that is not regulated because it is not visible off -site. There
are over a hundred directional signs that do not require BAR approval.
NG Page 1 of 5 06/20/2013
Z: \DCD \PC minutes - -5.21 & 5.23 \ 4-25-13PC_Hearing_Minutes.docx
PC Work Session Minutes
The Board asked questions regarding sign code regulations, site lighting, the
requirement to display the site address on signs and the how the proposed sign could
meet the definition of monument sign. The applicant testified that the proposed signage
met Sound Transit's system -wide standard design.
Staff recommended that the Board approve the Master Sign Program subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the requirement for showing the site's address on the sign; and
2. Modification of one of the three panels such that it extends down and touches
the base.
There was no public testimony. Commissioner McLeod closed the public hearing.
Motion: Commissioner Alford made a motion to approve the application with the two
proposed conditions for showing the site address on the sign and modifying one of the
three panels to extend down to the base. Commissioner Hansen seconded and all were
in favor.
Planning Commission Public Hearing — Capital Facilities and Utilities Elements
Chair McLeod opened the public hearing for cases L12 -037 Capital Facilities and L12-
048 Utilities Elements updates to the Comprehensive Plan.
Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner, with the Department of Community Development, gave
background on the development of the 1995 version of the Comprehensive Plan by the
16 member Tukwila Tomorrow Committee. This was required by the passage of the
State Growth Management Act. The Plan is used to meet State and Regional
requirements as well as being a statement of local values. The current update is not
intended to change the overall vision and goals but to reflect changed conditions and
incorporate the Strategic Plan. In addition staff has tried to consolidate and reorganize
to make the document easier to use.
Commissioner Alford asked about the review cycle for the Plan. Ms. Fox explained that
it was intended to be a 7 year cycle but that it had been extended by the legislature due
to the fiscal crisis. Amendments to the Plan are generally limited to once a year so all of
the proposed changes will be acted upon by the Council at one time.
Commissioner Mann asked why a specific funding source was not identified for the
Residential Streets Program. Robin Tischmak replied that there was no dedicated
source, money is allocated from the general fund. Tukwila is unusual in this as many
other jurisdictions do not fund residential streets directly, instead using local
NG Page 2 of 5 06/20/2013
Z: \DCD \PC minutes - -5.21 & 5.23 \ 4-25-13PC_Hearing_Minutes.docx
PC Work Session Minutes
improvement districts. Commissioner Hansen suggested that language be added
stating that residential streets were funded through the general fund.
Commissioner Mann thought that there should be funding priority for safe routes to
school locations. Ms. Bradshaw replied that 94% of general capital facility funding came
from grants and very few of those are available for residential streets. Mr. Tischmak
stated that the City has received a safe routes to school grant for upcoming work on S.
150th Street and the Council has approved improvements to 42nd Avenue S. Ms.
Bradshaw pointed out that proposed policy 14.1.23 does prioritize residential streets
with safety issues.
Commissioner Mann asked what vision was referenced in utilities policy 12.1.34. Ms.
Fox clarified that it referred to the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. Commissioner
McLeod asked about whether Puget Sound Energy has plans to generate wind power in
Tukwila. Ms. Fox replied that they have not identified any local wind turbines in their
capital facilities plans.
Commissioner McLeod asked if there was any plan to consolidate water districts. Ms.
Fox replied that the Growth Management Act originally encouraged consolidation but
that has received less emphasis. Coordination between districts remains a high priority.
Mr. Tischmak said that Tukwila has taken over smaller provider districts in the past
and would consider future consolidations.
There was no public testimony. Commissioner McLeod closed the public hearing.
Ms. Fox went over the Utilities element language the Commission asked staff to
develop:
Issue 1
p. 2 — Revised language that restores the struck language about residential priority
Motion: Commissioner Mann made a motion that under Issues on p. 2 staff has
reworded the verbiage under Residential Neighborhood and Sub -Area Vitality to
change to "City planned utility improvements and extensions place priority on
improving and sustaining residential neighborhood quality and livability. Utility
investments affect neighborhood quality of life and the ability to realize established
visions for specific sub - areas." Commissioner Hansen seconded the motion and all
were in favor.
p. 11 - A new policy added after Policy 12.1.17
NG Page 3 of 5 06/20/2013
Z: \DCD \PC minutes - -5.21 & 5.23 \ 4-25-13PC_Hearing_Minutes.docx
PC Work Session Minutes
Motion: Commissioner Mann made a motion that we accept the new wording as
provided by staff regarding goals and policies under residential neighborhoods and
subarea vitality to be added after policy 12.1.17 the verbiage "Give priority to
residential neighborhoods for city - planned utility projects and extensions in order to
improve and sustain neighborhood quality and livability." The motion was seconded
and all were in favor.
Issue 2
p. 9 - A new policy added after Policy 12.1.15
New Implementation Strategies
• Provide training for City staff on tree retention,
• Use manuals for best management practices to protect tree roots during
trenching
• Develop Urban Forest Management Plan
Motion: Commissioner Alford made a motion that we accept the policy and
implementation strategies provided by staff to be added after policy 12.1.15 "Consider
Tukwila's Urban Forest together with other infrastructure systems during utility
planning, design, installation and /or maintenance to ensure that trees are protected."
And then the three implementation strategies that follow. Commissioner Maestas
seconded and all were in favor.
Issue 3
p. 14 - A new policy added after policy 12.1.26
p. 15 — New Implementation Strategy
• Investigate programs that provide financial incentives through the Surface
Water Utility to property owners who maintain or enhance their tree canopy.
Motion: Commissioner Alford made a motion to accept the policy and implementation
strategy proposed by staff to "Encourage the retention and planting of trees for their
beneficial effects on surface water runoff including flow attenuation, water quality
enhancement, and temperature reduction " and the following implementation strategy
to be added after 12.1.26. Commissioner Hunter seconded and all were in favor.
Then the Commission moved on to items raised during the hearing.
Motion: Commissioner Mann made a motion to amend Policy 12.1.34 under
telecommunications under the Utilities element to read "Provide telecommunications
infrastructure to serve growth and development in a manner consistent with Tukwila's
NG Page 4 of 5 06/20/2013
Z: \DCD \PC minutes - -5.21 & 5.23 \ 4-25-13PC_Hearing_Minutes.docx
PC Work Session Minutes
vision as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan." Commissioner Alford seconded and all
were in favor.
Capital Facilities Element p. 2 General Government Facilities Funds, 1St bullet
Motion: Commissioner Mann made a motion to approve new verbiage to read "The
Residential Streets Program Fund for transportation related projects specifically
identified for street improvement in residential neighborhoods and includes lane
widening, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, illumination and undergrounding utilities. Said
funds shall come from the City's general fund." Commissioner Hansen seconded and
all were in favor.
Staff requested an amendment to the second to the last implementation strategy in the
Utilities Element p. 11:
Il ed: . �if� im ntif�:.wine„r, at public facilities, especially for
p p �. n
����n m�, euse and rec a,,,
high- volume non - potable water uses such as parks, schools, and the golf course 2s„
Motion: Commissioner McLeod made a motion to accept that amendment to the
strategy under 12.1.16 to the paragraph beginning "Require water reuse and
reclamation ". Commissioner Hansen seconded and all were in favor.
Motion: Commissioner Alford moved that the PC approve the recommendation on the
Comprehensive Plan updates made by staff to the Capital Facilities and Utilities
chapters along with the changes that we passed tonight. Commissioner Hansen
seconded and all were in favor.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Next month the PC will be reviewing the Transportation Element with a work session
on a Tuesday followed by the hearing on Thursday. In June we are proposing
something different. The Tree and Natural Environment Committee would like to
present their recommendations to a joint PC and CC meeting on June 24th in lieu of the
June work session.
HANDOUTS
Printed Copy of the Comprehensive Plan
Minutes By: Nora Gierloff
NG Page 5 of 5 06/20/2013
Z: \DCD \PC minutes - -5.21 & 5.23 \ 4-25-13PC_Hearing_Minutes.docx
111111111 ir
Date:
Time:
City of Tukwila
Planning Commission
Planning Commission Work Session Minutes
May 21, 2013
6:35 PM to 7:50 PM
Location: City Hall Council Chambers
Present: Thomas McLeod - Chair, Louise Strander - Vice - Chair, Mike Hansen,
Cassandra Hunter and Miguel Maestas
Absent: Brooke Alford, Sharon Mann
Staff:
Nora Gierloff - Deputy DCD Director, Lynn Miranda—Senior Planner,
Rebecca Fox - Senior Planner, Cyndy Knighton - Senior Program Manager
(Transportation), Robin Tischmak - City Engineer
ISSUE Updates to the Comprehensive Plan Southcenter/Urban Center and
Transportation Elements
DISCUSSION
Nora Gierloff explained that this work session was a continuation of the phased review
of Comprehensive Plan elements for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update.
Southcenter/Urban Center Element:
Lynn Miranda reminded the Planning Commission that they had seen the
Southcenter /Urban Center Element, Southcenter Plan, Design Manual and revised
TMC in October, 2012 and forwarded them to the City Council. Since then, Tukwila
has contracted with Berk to refresh and edit the Comprehensive Plan. Few changes
have been made to this element since the Comprehensive Plan was approved in 1995, so
this update is an opportunity to edit for greater conciseness and clarity.
Lynn went through the element, highlighting changes. The "Purpose /Issues /Vision"
section was reorganized to emphasize consistency with Vision 2040, and to highlight
that this is a centers plan. Linkages with Tukwila's 2012 Strategic Plan are made.
Bullets are added for greater readability. Some redundant policies have been deleted,
and others have been relocated to more appropriate parts of plan. Starting, with Goal
10.2, on Page 10 implementation strategies have been grouped according to specific
Goals and Policies, rather than all implementation strategies being placed at the end of
sections.
New wording has been added to Policy 10.2.2. per Fire Department request:
...Ensure that street design 444 eliminates potential conflicts, etlifi promotes safety for all modes
of travel and maintains emergency services response capabilities
Z: \DCD \PC minutes - -5.21 & 5.23 \ 5-21-13--Work_Session_Minutes.doc
PC Work Session Minutes
Starting with page 16 of the strikeout /underline document, transportation and parks
policies have been deleted, and relocated to other sections.
New policy 10.2.10 addresses economic development, and incorporates information in
the EcoNorthwest study as follows: "Work collaboratively with Southcenter property
owners, businesses and community members to implement the vision for Southcenter, assess the
potential to catalyze development in the Southcenter area, and form an economic redevelopment
strategy.
Commissioner Strander asked for an explanation of the redevelopment strategy:
"Establish a lead redevelopment entity on the public side to coordinate implementation of an
urban center redevelopment strategy and provide it with people, resources, and tools to succeed."
Who is that entity?
Lynn Miranda explained that there is nothing in place now, but in the future it might be
desirable to form an economic development administration to coordinate
public /private partnerships, potentially develop tool boxes and tax strategies and take
the lead to implement Comprehensive Plan policies.
Commissioner Strander wanted to know if the entity would be the City's Economic
Development department or the Community Development Department? Where would
people go to implement new development?
Lynn Miranda explained that there is no intention to implement this now, but that it
could be a good idea in the future.
Nora Gierloff commented that the approach would probably be similar to what had
been done for Tukwila Village to attract a development proposal, and work with
private developer and make a partnership between the public and private sides to
facilitate growth.
Commissioner Maestas commented that the Southcenter Plan and Vision 2040 show the
Southcenter area will grow significantly, and will take the majority of the City's
population and housing growth.
Lynn Miranda explained that Tukwila is required to demonstrate that it can
accommodate its growth targets. Single family areas don't have room, and would need
to be upzoned to take more growth. By definition a regional growth center brings
together jobs and housing. So, the new Southcenter plan allows that growth to happen.
Commissioner Maestas asked whether there will be plans to ensure that housing will be
affordable to people who live and work in the Southcenter area, as the area develops
further. He is concerned about the ability to walk to work, and the need to reduce cars
in the area.
2
Rf Z: \DCD \PC minutes- -5.21 & 5.23\5-2 1 -13- -Work Session Minutes.doc 6/20/2013
PC Work Session Minutes
Lynn Miranda indicated that there has not been much talk about housing affordability.
There is a lot of affordable housing in the City already, and the direction has been to
explore all kinds of housing in the Southcenter area.
Commissioner Maestas expressed concern that as the Southcenter area develops, it
could become too expensive for the majority of people who live in the area. There
might be a lack of walkability for people who work there.
Commissioner McLeod questioned the viability of area workers being able to buy
condos since most of Southcenter jobs are retail and perhaps part time.
Nora mentioned that staff had thought about reconsidering zoning regulations to
handle topics like the large Circuit City redevelopment, and said that zoning might be a
way to address affordable housing. Since incentives for such things as frontal
improvements, etc. are now built into the code, an additional incentive could be an
affordable housing provision. If desired, perhaps staff could provide some options for
affordable housing incentives.
Commissioner McLeod asked about the difference between affordable and low- income
housing.
Nora explained that these types of housing are usually based on a percentage of area
median income, and might provide different tax credits.
Lynn said that affordable housing would be discussed next year in the Housing
element, which the Planning Commission will review next year.
Commissioner Maestas encouraged staff to develop the option of zoning incentives for
affordable housing and for development including some affordable housing. He would
like a discussion of affordable housing around Southcenter, and cautioned that
affordable housing can decrease around light rail stations as economy improves.
Nora said that the Growing Transit Communities project is looking at growth around
light rail and rapid transit from Tacoma to Lynnwood, and considering issues such as
how equitable transit - oriented development can be built so that benefits of transit are
shared. The Growing Transit Communities work will ultimately result in jurisdictions
being asked to make commitments toward affordable housing and economic
development. Planning Commission concerns over affordable housing are very timely.
Commissioner Hunter expressed her long -term concern for affordable housing. She
also requested options for implementing different rates of affordable housing, and
indicated her desire to see and study alternatives.
Nora said that staff would provide a link to the Growing Transit Communities Strategy
report from the PSRC website. The website contains evaluation of conditions of
3
Rf Z: \DCD \PC minutes- -5.21 & 5.23\5-2 1 -13- -Work Session Minutes.doc 6/20/2013
PC Work Session Minutes
different centers. Some can do inclusionary housing i.e. you must make 10% of housing
affordable. South King County has different market conditions and so incentives will
be more appropriate.
Lynn concluded discussion of the Southcenter /Urban Center element by reporting that
an update of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Southcenter
Plan is being prepared, and must be completed before the Planning Commission sees
the Development Regulations again. Once the Planning Commission approves
changes, the entire Southcenter Plan /Development Regulations /Design Manual
package will go to the City Council.
Transportation Element:
Nora introduced Cyndy Knighton of the Tukwila Public Works Department.
Cyndy Knighton, Senior Program Manager provided background on the Transportation
Element, including how it was developed and, Growth Management Act (GMA),
regional requirements and other concerns.
As background to the current update of the Transportation Element policies, staff
prepared detailed modeling projections with Public Works and Planning working
closely to see what will happen in the future. The GMA requires Tukwila to update its
Transportation element, and to assess where we are and where we want to be. Our big
concern is funding. The Transportation Element is a tool to implement the City's vision,
including city growth and regional growth, and other City plans, including the Strategic
Plan, Commute Trip Reduction, sub -area plans, and GTEC. Tukwila must also provide
infrastructure for non - motorized facilities.
The Transportation Element is lock -step with land use. We have already established
Level of Service (LOS) for all locally -owned facilities, but are affected by state -owned
facilities even though we don't control them. Transit LOS is required even though we
don't control the agency. We need to work cooperatively with other agencies.
Financing CIP projects is also key. New regional requirements mean that policies must
be tweaked, for example, to include a multi -modal LOS for pedestrian, bicycle and
transit. We must evaluate our financial capabilities and recognize that the projects we
propose to achieve this are fiscally constrained. Multi -year financing plan goes with
budget, and raises questions of how additional funding will be raised. GMA requires
balancing growth with capacity. Concurrency /Level of Service standard allows us to
say that we have to have adequate capability to meet growth targets and where the
growth will happen. Tukwila must be able to balance growth, capacity and funding.
In 2005, the City established Level of Service Standards, including mostly LOS E in
commercial areas, and LOS D for larger residential intersections.
Commissioner McLeod asked for an explanation of the LOS lettering system.
4
Rf Z: \DCD \PC minutes- -5.21 & 5.23\5-2 1 -13- -Work Session Minutes.doc 6/20/2013
PC Work Session Minutes
Cyndy explained that LOS A means very little traffic, and LOS B has a few more cars.
LOS C and LOS D have progressively more congestion. LOS E is considered to be at
capacity and LOS F is failure or breakdown of the traffic flow.
Multi -modal LOS (MMLOS) must be developed. We got a grant for $70,000 with
federal stimulus funding to study and implement new MMLOS using the 2010
Highway Capacity Manual, incorporating information from the Walk and Roll Plan.
Tukwila was among the first to use this new method in the country, but when
completed, the method didn't meet the City's needs. We need to do additional work to
customize the method, and will return to this topic in future work plans.
We have language that METRO and Sound transit have set for their LOS and headways.
We do not control this, although we want to support these agencies' efforts. We have
transit priority streets, and perhaps in the future will have different levels of service on
these streets. Tukwila staff is working King County METRO to include transit signal
priority at signalized intersections along the future RapidRide F -Line route to allow the
RapidRide buses to stay on schedule without significantly affecting our traffic flow.
Commissioner Strander asked about the RapidRide F line.
Cyndy explained that RapidRide is Metro's version of Bus Rapid transit. Special buses
will operate on a frequent headway, with a 7 to 10 minute arrival interval rather than 30
minutes. With frequent service, a timetable will not be needed. The RapidRide F line
will replace Route 140. There will be fewer stops, but more frequent, higher capacity
buses. This will be very good for Tukwila.
Commissioner Strander asked if street lights would be coordinated with RapidRide.
Cyndy reported that there would be transit signal priority along the route. A
transponder on the RapidRide buses will communicate with the signal controllers to
help the buses, but not at the expense of other uses.
She continued that GMA concurrency requires that LOS service standards must be met,
per Ordinance #2305. We are ok today, with only a few intersections falling to LOS F.
Transportation concurrency must be met within six years due to the cost, and
magnitude of projects.
The Southcenter area has different way to calculate LOS that considers how quickly one
gets through a corridor, rather than an individual intersection. Southcenter Boulevard
and Grady Way /Interurban /West Valley Highway is under Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) control and currently operates at LOS F. This
is a problem, but can't be addressed until I 405 work is done. All other corridors are at
LOS E or better in Southcenter.
5
Rf Z: \DCD \PC minutes- -5.21 & 5.23\5-2 1 -13- -Work Session Minutes.doc 6/20/2013
PC Work Session Minutes
Determining an LOS for pedestrians and bikes presents a challenge, despite work done
through the federal grant. For example, results showed that in some areas we have an
LOS C, although we actually have no pedestrian or bicycle facilities in that location.
We are trying to implement projects from Walk and Roll, while we work on new
methodology for determining MMLOS.
Commissioner McLeod used the example of Starfire, where people park over the river
and somehow walk to the site without sidewalks to ask if this is what was meant by
"having no service ?"
Cyndy used the example of Southcenter Boulevard west of City hall. Analysis
indicated an LOS D on both sides of street even though there is a sidewalk on one side
only.
The 2005 Transit Network Plan was developed by the City with the last Transportation
Element update with focus groups, etc. It was not updated for this update.An exciting
development is that we are now working on design and work for the undersized bus
facilities at the Westfield Southcenter Mall. Expanding and relocating this stop was the
top priority from the Transit Network Plan. Once it is complete, Tukwila will have a
really nice on- street transit center, perhaps the only one in the area.
GMA requires us to plan under fiscal constraint. Revenue forecasts anticipate $71 MM
to $105 MM over next 20 years. Thru the impact fee ordinance, multiple zones have
been established so that transportation impacts to a certain area are paid for by fees in
that area.
Cyndy referred to the project list in the Transportation Background Report. Priority A
projects are those that are needed to maintain our current LOS levels (sidewalks, roads,
transit.) Tukwila can afford to construct projects on this list during the 20 -year
planning period given our current priorities. On average, the City must spend $4
MM /year to maintain our LOS. The City must also construct the projects on the B list,
but that goes beyond our expected funding ability. More funding is needed. Priority C
list projects are also very important, but we don't think we need them or are likely to
build them before 2030.
$85 to $187 MM additional revenue is needed, which is about $4.8 MM additional per
year. Available revenue includes all the taxes that are earmarked for
roadway /transportation projects. Tukwila has been very successful at getting grants,
and has also used bonds and impact fees to fund transportation projects. However,
new revenues are needed or we will need to modify our vision.
Commissioner McLeod asked about ideas for new revenue sources.
Cyndy explained that a range of new funding sources was palatable to a greater or
lesser degree. For example, Tukwila could consider a B & 0 tax, transportation benefit
6
Rf Z: \DCD \PC minutes- -5.21 & 5.23\5-2 1 -13- -Work Session Minutes.doc 6/20/2013
PC Work Session Minutes
districts, or assess the option to increase local sales tax. Grants are harder and harder to
get. Tukwila could consider more voter - approved general bonds or councilmanic
bonds. Local Improvement Districts are not the tool for all projects, since they must
prove special benefit. LIDs can be effective for larger projects. Tukwila could consider
reciprocal agreements w /neighboring jurisdictions to share impacts of projects. A
specific transportation fee could be assessed, similar to the Revenue Generating
Regulatory License which is a per employee fee. She acknowledged that none of these
possibilities are easy. The choices are to find additional funding, accept slower growth
or more congestion.
The Comprehensive Plan provides clear policy direction but we have inadequate
funding to achieve this. The Capital Facilities element states that without enough
funding we will need to slow growth, change LOS or find new funding sources. All
modeling shows that we fall short, so we need to do something.
The Transportation Improvement Plan has good projections and we also make
projections yearly with the Planning staff. Tukwila is not in dire straits today, but will
be at some point. Cyndy recommends that policy direction is needed before a budget
decision is needed. In any event, she feels this topic is worthy of discussion, whether or
not there's policy direction.
Commissioner Hansen asked how the actual traffic flow on Klickitat has turned out vs.
the traffic projections prior to project construction.
Cyndy described expectations that the buttonhook off ramp would be at extreme LOS F
with backups onto freeway without the project. Projections also showed extreme delays
from people wanting to go left onto Strander after coming off the buttonhook, and
stopping traffic on peak hours. With today's project, it's hard directly compare.
Southbound traffic doesn't stop at the signal. Northbound has dramatic improvements.
The buttonhook is no longer able to make the left turn on to Strander, so that both
hazardous driving conditions and LOS are addressed. The Nordstrom signal gets more
traffic, but conditions are still in C and D range. Although she thinks that Tukwila will
be able to make LOS goals beyond 2030, she couldn't anticipate if what would happen if
Tukwila South traffic becomes a problem once that area is eventually developed.
Commissioner Hansen remarked that people tend to find alternate routes to level out
traffic.
Cyndy commented that all today's modeling may show growth in different ways, such
as residents of the Circuit City project foregoing cars.
Commissioner Strander inquired if the Background Report by Fehr and Peers is online?
Rebecca replied that there was a link in staff report if more detail was desired.
7
Rf Z: \DCD \PC minutes- -5.21 & 5.23\5-2 1 -13- -Work Session Minutes.doc 6/20/2013
PC Work Session Minutes
Commissioner McLeod stated that he doesn't favor head tax or sales tax on businesses
to generate new revenue since it isn't popular. He suggested that the best way to
generate new revenues is to create environments and destinations where people want to
be. He used the example of I -Fly and Bicycles West now being located adjacent to each
other, and forming a destination. He asked about the City's creating a public /private
partnership w/ REI at Tukwila Pond, or the possibility of using vacant warehouses to
attract art and entertainment. He feels that Tukwila needs destinations for
entrepreneurs.
Cyndy stated support for visionary documents that guide us, but indicated that Public
Works staff always asks how to make this happen. Her desire is to give the Planning
Commission sufficient background to have some idea of the ramifications of vision.
There are many ways to change this, perhaps more incentivizing certain types of
activity that will change current lifestyles or ways of travel. But, under what we know
today, there is an issue for funding and we must be aware of that as we make policy
recommendations.
Commissioner McLeod noted the relative lack of bus routes serving the Community
Center, and asked if there is a currently an effort to increase public transportation there.
Cyndy said that she was not aware of anything specific to TCC. King County Metro
wants to provide routes where there are destinations and patrons. We can try to bring
this forward to guide them in future, but right now it's a challenge since King County is
having its own problems.
Commissioner McLeod asked if there were any further talks about light rail at Boeing
Field.
Nora replied that there is a policy about looking for a station at Boeing Field. Although
Tukwila brings this up at regional meetings, momentum is to extend service areas
rather than going back and adding stations. The Boeing Field station is not as big a
priority for Sound Transit as it is for us, we are trying to keep it on their radar. Transit
goal, Policy 1,.4.1 states: Support and encourage the location of a light rail stop at Boeing
Access Road. (P 23 of strikeout /underline version.)
Commisioner Maestas inquired about the option to deny /delay /reduce new growth if
sufficient funding is not available. He wanted to know how does new growth not fund
itself? How would we increase funding in relation to new growth since it doesn't fund
itself?
Cyndy explained that the transportation impact fee program assesses new growth to
pay for new growth. This doesn't necessarily always pay for itself, and this is by
design. There is hesitation to pass on full cost of growth. Tukwila doesn't want to set
fees to low or too high, but it's a balancing act that doesn't always achieve that
directive.
8
Rf Z: \DCD \PC minutes- -5.21 & 5.23\5-2 1 -13- -Work Session Minutes.doc 6/20/2013
PC Work Session Minutes
Commissioner Maestas remarked that Tukwila's roads are used by people that come
from somewhere else and we have to subsidize this.
Cyndy mentioned that every jurisdiction needs to do this. Projections assume a certain
amount of regional growth. Renton growth will be on our streets. For example, when
405 is very congested, people will get off I -5 and drive on our surface streets to Renton.
Cities must accept this, but you have a good point on why growth pays for growth.
There were no additional questions from the Planning Commission, and no requests to
go through individual policies.
Nora requested that the Planning Commission make any changes they felt were
appropriate prior to these elements going forward to the City Council, and reminded
them of the upcoming hearing on May 23. She indicated that she would send a link to
the Growth Transit Communities website.
Minutes By: Rebecca Fox
9
Rf Z: \DCD \PC minutes- -5.21 & 5.23\5-2 1 -13- -Work Session Minutes.doc 6/20/2013
111111111 ir
City of Tukwila
Planning Commission/BAR
Planning Commission (BAR)Hearing Minutes
Date: May 23, 2013
Time: 6:30 PM to 7:45 PM
Location: City Hall Council Chambers
Present: Thomas McLeod - Chair, Louise Strander - Vice - Chair, Mike Hansen, Cassandra
Hunter
Absent: Brooke Alford, Sharon Mann, Miguel Maestas
Staff: Nora Gierloff- Deputy Director Department of Community Development, Lynn
Miranda - Senior Planner, Rebecca Fox - Senior Planner, Cyndy Knighton- Senior
Program Manager (Transportation), Robin Tischmak -City Engineer
The absences of Commissioners Alford, Mann and Maestas were excused because they
gave advance notice of their conflicts.
Motion by Commissioner Hansen, seconded by Commissioner Hunter to adopt the April
23, 2013 work session minutes as presented. Motion was approved unanimously.
Topic Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan update, Southcenter /Tukwila Urban
Center element (L09 -008), and Transportation element (L12 -047)
TESTIMONY
Commissioner McLeod opened the hearing and swore in Staff. No members of the public
were present.
Nora Gierloff introduced the hearing on L09 -008 and L12 -047. It is a continuation of the
Planning Commission's phased review of Comprehensive Plan elements. The Washington
Growth Management Act requires a periodic review and update of the Comprehensive
Plan and Development Regulations. Tukwila's update is undertaken to adapt to changed
circumstances since the 2004 update. This will ensure that requirements from the Growth
Management Act, Multi- County Planning Policies (Vision 2040) and the King County
Countywide Planning Policies are all aligned, and that development regulations are
supported. The document will be edited to eliminate redundancies, especially in the
Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center element. These include removing and /or relocating
Initials Page 1 of 3 06/20/2013
Z: \DCD \PC minutes - -5.21 & 5.23 \ PC_Hearing_Minutes-- 5.23.13.doc
PC Hearing Minutes
certain transportation - related policies. More global changes are being made to the
Transportation element.
Transportation Element (L12 -047)
Staff summarized changes in the Transportation element including: 1) updated LOS; 2)
new maps; 3) new policies added for closer alignment with the Walk and Roll Plan and the
complete streets concept. Policies have been consolidated and reworked for greater clarity.
Sections on the Level of Service (LOS) are expanded to include travel modes beyond the
automobile. Policies relating to transportation demand management (TDM) stress that
using different modes of travel offer choice and extend roadway capacity. Policies for non-
motorized travel emphasize the importance of a connected community, and the priority for
facilities that support walking and bicycling.
Commissioner Hansen asked whether the TDM section should include car share and bike
share policies.
Commissioner McLeod asked about charging stations.
Nora replied that required development regulations supporting installation of charging
stations had previously been adopted.
Cyndy indicated that the charging station topic was not specifically covered under TDM.
Nora explained that sustainability issues were scattered throughout the Comprehensive
Plan document, and were intended to be "baked in" throughout. Supporting charging
stations, car share and bike share might be the most appropriate in the overall goal section
as a new policy.
Commissioner McLeod spoke about the concern that Commissioner Mann brought up at
the April meeting, and the need to give priority to sidewalks near schools, such as along
150th,, and emphasized that this was also a priority to him.
Cyndy explained that as part of the work in developing the multi -modal levels of service
(MMLOS) and through the Walk and Roll Plan, that policies had been added for sidewalks.
Staff has discussed developing an overlay around schools, libraries, light rail and
commuter rail.
Staff cited policies 13.6.2 and 13.6.10 which respectively address continuing to allocate
funds to the Residential Street Fund to build sidewalks, and continuing to work with
school officials to promote Safe Routes to School Projects, and requiring improvements.
Rf Z: \DCD \PC minutes - -5.21 & 5.23 \PC Hearing Minutes-- 5.23.13.doc 6/20/2013
2
PC Hearing Minutes
Commissioner Hansen said that he felt that this topic has been well- addressed.
This portion of the hearing was closed, and the Planning Commission began deliberation.
Action Item: Nora proposed that staff craft new policy language addressing sustainability
features. Staff proposed draft language as follows:
New Policy 13.1.10 Support ride share options, including car share, bike share and
alternate transportation to enhance sustainability
New Policy 12.1.11 Support electrical vehicle charging stations and alternative fuels if
available.
Commissioner Hansen directed staff to craft final wording.
ACTION TAKEN
Commissioner Hansen moved to adopt the Transportation element with the addition of
policies on shared vehicles and alternative fuels, accept changes and move the item
forward to the City Council.
The motion was approved unanimously.
Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Element (L09 -008)
The hearing continued, and moved to the Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center element.
Nora asked if the Planning Commission had questions or edits on this element. There were
none.
Commissioner McLeod moved to adopt the amended Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center
Element as proposed by staff. Commissioner Hansen seconded. The motion was approved
unanimously.
Director's Report
Nora announced that the next work session would be a joint meeting of the City Council
and Tree Committee at 5:30 p.m. in lieu of the regular Community Affairs and Parks
Committee meeting , prior to the City Council meeting. The narrative of the Shoreline
element will also be updated to be consistent with policy changes that were made as part of
the Shoreline Master Program update. The Planning Commission hearing on both these
topics will be held on June 27, 2013 at the regular 6:30 p.m. time
Minutes By: Rebecca Fox
Rf Z: \DCD \PC minutes - -5.21 & 5.23 \PC Hearing Minutes-- 5.23.13.doc 6/20/2013
3
111111111 1:
TO:
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Mayor Haggerton
Members of the City Council
Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Pace, Director, Dept. of Community Development
BY: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner
Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist
DATE: June 14, 2013
SUBJECT: June 24, 2013 Joint Planning Commission /City Council Work Session
Comprehensive Plan Update— Natural Environment Element
ISSUE
The Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee has completed its work reviewing the
goals and policies for the Natural Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Resolution
1767, which established the Committee, states the Committee "shall have an opportunity to
discuss their recommendations at a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission ".
BACKGROUND
The Council adopted Resolution 1767 on May 21, 2012 establishing the Tukwila Tree and
Environment Advisory Committee. The role of the Committee was to advise the City on the
development of new goals and policies related to the urban forest and to recommend revisions to
the current goals and policies that apply to the City's streams, wetlands, geologically hazardous
areas and other sensitive areas. The Committee began meeting in September, 2012 and
concluded its work in May, 2013. Over the course of nine months, the Committee heard
presentations on the benefits of trees, the Tree Canopy Assessment prepared by Davey
Resources, and the City's current sensitive area, tree and landscape regulations and was provided
a variety of reading material related to urban forestry to assist in their review of the Natural
Environment Element.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the work session is for the Planning Commission and City Council members to
hear a presentation on the work of the Tree and Environment Advisory Committee. Staff and the
Committee will make a joint presentation to summarize the Committee's recommendations and to
provide commentary on the Committee discussions that led to their recommendations. To assist in
preparing for this meeting, a number of materials are attached to this memo:
CL
1. Natural Environment Element — Strikeout/Underline: this is the current Element from the
Comprehensive Plan with text revisions and Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
recommended goals and policies. Staff has included a number of explanatory comments in
this version.
2. Natural Environment Element — Formatted: this is a clean version of the Natural
Environment Element with all Committee recommended revisions accepted.
Page 1 of 2 06/19/2013 8:53:28 AM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry \CC -PC Joint Work Session Memo
1
2
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
3. Natural Environment Element Background Report: this document contains more detailed
information on the regulatory environment for sensitive areas and urban forestry.
4. Staff Report to Planning Commission on Natural Environment Element: this staff report is
for the public hearing to be held on Thursday, June 27, 2013.
5. Tukwila Urban Tree Canopy Assessment - Executive Summary: the full Tree Canopy
Assessment, including maps, can be found under the March 13, 2013 meeting at:
http://www.tukwilawa.govidcd/treepolicy.html.
6. Screen Shot — Tree and Environment Policies page of City Web Site: this will provide a
listing of all the materials provided to the Advisory Committee, includes recordings of most
of the meetings (there were a couple technical glitches with recording several meetings)
and the reading materials provided to the Committee. In the interest of saving paper, we
have not provided copies of these articles /documents as some are quite lengthy. Copies of
the PowerPoint presentations viewed by the Committee are also posted on the web page.
These materials are found at the same location as above:
http://www.tukwilawa.gov/dcd/treepolicy.html
7. Copies of Meeting Memos from staff to the Advisory Committee and Meeting Notes from
the Advisory Committee Meetings — September, 2012 through May, 2013.
8. Copies of correspondence received from individuals who provided comments to the
Advisory Committee during the course of their work (letters /emails from Daryl Tapio, David
Shumate and Brooke Alford).
RECOMMENDATION
The joint work session is an "Information Only" meeting. The Planning Commission is scheduled to
hold a public hearing June 27, 2013 on the Natural Environment Element, as recommended by the
Tree and Environment Advisory Committee.
Attachments:
1. Natural Environment Element — Strikeout/Underline
2. Natural Environment Element — Formatted
3. Natural Environment Background Report
4. Staff Report to Planning Commission on Natural Environment Element
5. Tukwila Urban Tree Canopy Assessment - Executive Summary
6. Screen Shot — Tree and Environment Policies page of City Web Site
7. Meeting memos from staff to Advisory Committee and Meeting Notes —
September, 2012 through May, 2013
8. Correspondence received by Committee
CL Page 2 of 2 06/19/2013 8:53:28 AM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry \CC -PC Joint Work Session Memo
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
PURPOSE
This element of the Comprehensive Plan addresses the City's natural
environment — air, land and water resources •by guiding future
development in a manner that protects the community's identifies:
environmentaily,,,, ir_n_proyes...the .quality,of life in thecirj, andproyides
reasonable of communit residentsfrom natural hazards.
fieffSir tfeefitit-itf'
To be healthy and sustainable a commun4must integrate the natural
environment into urban develoament desi n. The natural environment and
it.5...455ociatedgc919gicatprocessesXIOYidemany
including.;
Visual relief from the hard, constructed surfaces of urban
development
• Fish and wildlife habitat
• Air and water quality;
• Surface water runoff management;
• Recreational opportunities for interaction with nature; and
• Aesthetic and economic benefits.
RCW 37,70A „ 171
velitefictf-efitical-areiw,
The Natural Environment
WETLANDS ROLE
Flood and
Stonnwater Control
Water Quality
Improvement
Erosion Prevention
Sediment Trapping
Groundwater Recharge
and Discharge
Wildlife Habitat
December 22O13
3
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
ont a peer;,,
that if the City
Trees and ve etation also provide critical environmental services, which in
turn, affect the c ualit of life of residents visitors da time workers and
neighboring communities. Some of the benefits of trees are shown in the
graphic below.
2 W December 201
4
• . •
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
BENEFITS OF TREES
' E_NYIRDNMENTa.
habitat
•_„„„„IrTTEQM! 4ir_g_ttaliLY
• Stormivater„„rojtiggion
• „„_. ligclmcc,4„„eurgx.ort5imtiop
•_ _SeUIP.5,t ratiP.11.9i c4ri?..911
”atal2Aization of_slopes
SOCIAL
• Improved kbysical,..hgalth
• ...„„ACMINIk§..00d_AtialitY_of_life
ECONOMIC
•___SPnWtrier_ati5fikcJi9r1LiPerga§d, 512erldirli/
• Increased_pmertyyglues
• APdiJeg,d_inain.looRgoo of r94StIMITINP§,„:ah4,0
• Qrger] infrAitructuro-EPDXALP,Ps.t
pc! jp4intainjnvurfagg water nfrastrugg re
The Natural Environment Element sets forth _goals and policies_tpide
the„arotection and management of wetlands watercourses,, fish and
wildlife habitat areas. and geologically hazardous areas collectively
called "sensitive areas". It also includes goals and policies related to flood
management, surface water mana, ement water qualitL and the urban
foresilthe combination of trees„„shrubs and other plants thatmake up_the_
formal landscaped areas of the cit and the natural areas in our parks and
ourivate propertal
Coalsand,p_olicies for the_protection ofpaleontolo. ical and
archaeological resources_prey„ioust,, in this Element have been moved ,
from this Element to Element I. Community Image. (will be laced as a
sidebar)
To assist the City in the update ophis Com_prehensive Plan Chapter the
CitylOrmed the Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee,made
u� o members of the business and residential communim The
Committee, workinglor over 9 months between 2012 and 2013 reviewed
previous Comprehensive Plan_policies in the Natural Environment and
Communi Ima ,e Elements ond_proyided inputfor revis,ion.s and„new
goals,,policies and implementation strategies. (Will be placedst_s_p
sidebar.)
THE STATE OF TUKWILA'S URBAN ENVIRONMENT
December
2013
5
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
Tukwilaenco mpass about 9 square miles and much of thegity
within an extensive valley centered on the LowerGreen/Duwamish River,
watershed. The valley_is virtuall flat and almost entirely built out except
for the newly annexed:Tukwila South area which is slated for
cleyelopment over the next JO to 15 years. The upland areas of the City
have rollino numerous areas withsteep and_potentially,
unstable slo es. Many of the steep hillsides are forested_with second or
third growth trees and understories with a mix of native and invasive
vegetation. These areas tooether with the City:s numerous water resources
provide important fish and wildlife habitat that coexist with the built
environment. The following, is a summary of conditions in the constituent
elements of Tukwila's environment - more detail is found in the
Back .round Re ort
Wetlands and Watercourses
As urban develo ment has occurred, natural draina. e corridors have been
altered orplaced in culvertsnd wetlands have been filled. Remnant
wetlands remain in some of the City'sparks, on undeveloped slopes
{formed by springs and roundwater seeps), in freeway interchanges,. and
in other areas of the City. The City has purchased Tukwila Pond and
Macadam wetland forpreservation. Tukwila Pond serves as both a
wetland and tem_porarystorawater storage pond forsommercial.
development on its north side. Macadam wetland collects mostly naturally,
generated surface water from the steep slopes located on its east side.
(photo of Tukwila pond)
Stream alterations have affected wildlife and fish habitat. There are few
remaining open channels in the four main streams in Tukwila (Johnson
Creek Gilliam Creek Southgate Creek and Riverton Creek), which have,
been channelized, relocated and piped for much of their length.
Construction of urban streets and highway sy_stems and driveways required
watercourses to be laced in culverts, which have blocked or made fish
passage difficult. All the streams discharge into the Green/Duwamish
River.
Run-off coupled with steep in the upper reaches of Gillian],
South. ate and Riverton Creeks has caused scourin and erosion in the
stream channels resultint in dee ened ravines with steep_banks
instability, bank erosion and downstream sedimentation. The lower
reaches of Tukwila's streams are_generally lacking in_pools and_woody_
debris which are important for good fish habitat. Thus the open reaches
of Tukwila's streams are generally in deteriorated conditions with
generally poor riparian habitat and narrow buffers. In fact, many
4
6
December 2013
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
tributaries of the urban watercourses flow in roadside ditches with little
protection from urban impacts„(stream photo.)
Fish_Species in Tukwila (will be placed in sidebar)
Fish specieis found in the Gree
Cutthroat trout
Chinook salmon
Chum §411110n
Coho salmon
Pink salmon
Socke e salmon
Bull trout
uwa ish River include the following:,
Resident Cutthroat are found in Tukwila's streams as well as,other fish
and aquatic species (photo of fish)
Fish and Wildlife
The Washing on De artment of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)has mapped_
and identified priority habitats and species in Tukwila to ensure their
protection and management. 'The include: the Green/Duwamish
reaches of Gilliam Creek, South .ate Creek and Riverton Creek riparian_
4EP4a_Lasea§ adjacent to streams and
mapped are wetland complexes and Johnson Creek, in Tukwila South.
The Shoreline Master Projamprovides more detail on the Cit ''s
involvement with 111g.....WatPr„Re§Piirce Inventory Area 9.1WRIA 9) and the
Green/Duwamish River Salmon Habitat Enhancement Plan which is
intended to restore habitat for Chinook salmon and other species. (photo
of a,restoration sitel
Tukwila citizens are actively jnyolved in wildlifoprotection and
enhancement activities, such as the Back ard Wildlife Proglam projects to
restore habitat, and a salmon rearingproject that involves school children,
state wildlife officials and local businesses in annual stockino of Coho
salmon_inSouthgate Creek. telipto_of_kids plunthig sphijoal
Waterfowl areas in Tukwila include Tukwila Pond and the wetlands in
Tukwila South, which provide important winter habitat for m orating_
water fowl and ermanent habitat for other waterfowl. Over 50 species of
birds Nye been recorded at Tukwila Pond. Other bird species found in
Tukwila include ossre which re. ularly nest near the Gree 0 uwamish
Riverihawks and passerine birds. Other wildlife species in_Tukwila
include co otes, Eastern Grey squirrels beaver, otter, nutria turtles
December
011:
2013
7
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
(mostl non- native red -eared slidersi,.,Lzrter snakes amphibians ( non -
native bullfrogs, native Pacific Tree frogs and dsalamanders , opossum„
andraccoons. (Picture of osprey ar _ro
Flood Management
Tukwila's urban center the light industrial andmanufactunng „area„south
of S 180'h Street, part of Tukwila South, and Fort Dent Park are,protected
from flooding of the Green River bevee systems. The City articipates
in the National Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency il~EMA),,,which has mapp„ ed regulated
floodlains in Tukwila. Ma ; ed fl,00dlains and the levee system are
explained in more detail in the Shoreline Element of the Com, rehensive
Plan.
Impervious surfaces and the elimination of natural wetland functions have
,m,
caused localized flooding from streams .eriodicall at va ying levels of
severit; on some of public rjght -of -way, as well as on private
Topertieswhere inadequate or no surface water infrastructure exists. The
City has resolved_ many_ of the f7oodingproblems through improvements to
surface water infrastructure. For example, periodic flooding from Gilliam
Creek near Southcenter Boulevard was resolved through the construction
of a regional detention facilij „that serves the area of Southcenter
Boulevard west of Interstate 5. The surface water manement system
(surface waterutilityl is described in more detail in the Utilities Element,,,
of the Comprehensive Plan More detailed information on localized
flooding problems is provided in Cites Comprehensive Surface Water,,,
Management Plan,,
December 201
8
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Earth Resources and Geolo is Hazards
The Citv_has mapped areas with steep_and unstable slopes,_includi_
active landslide areas and springs to ensure that there is adequate review of
slope stability, if develo+ment is r ro,osed m these areas. In addition, there
are coal formations on the southwest side of Interurban Avenue South,
some of which have been mined and are defi_nedas sensitive areas based
on City ofTukwila _ Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Hazard
Assessment, May 1990.
Water Quality
Although the City does not have ongoing monitoring programs periodic
studies have indicated that Tukwila's streams and the Green/Duwamish
River suffer from poor water qualitydue to surface water runoff. Rain
events wash contaminants off of rooftops driveways,sidewalksyparking
lots, and roads into the watercourses. Runoff from these areas can
contribute to high temperatures in urban streams and can carry
contaminants into streams and wetlands. Many„newer developments have
flow control_au_d_water_quality treatment facilities such_as sediment
removal and oil water separators that moderate the discharges that flow
µpea there are areas of Tukwila where runoff from
directly into streams but utt
impervious surfaces_ discharges directly to streams and the river with no
treatment.,__(See background report for more information on water quality.)
Riparian habitat_plays as valuable role in protectin stream water quality_„
Adequately-sized and healthy riparian buffers help filter out avariety_of
pollutants„including substances that can lead tothe depletion of oxygen ill
streams Riparian vegetation can also shade streams reducing water_
temperatures However., most of Tukwila's streams have oor c ualit
narrow ri .arian areas.
Air Ouality
The Natural Environment
Tukwila lies in the air quality region made up of King, Kitsap, Pierce, and
Snohomish counties. Air quality is monitored and managed by the Puget,
Sound Clean Air _Agenc Through the effort of the Clean Air Agent,
all of King_County currently has good air quathy„ except for_occasional
periods when air quality in our area is considered a risk to health,
particularly for members of the population with respiratory conditions.
Climate Change
The impacts of climate change in Tukwila could affect several aspects of
the natural environment as well as the provision of utilities to its citizens.
December
2013
9
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
Climate change could cause risinc sea levels which would affect the
tidally-influencedportions of the Green/Duwamish River raising water
levels in the river and causinvidal waters to reach further up river and
into streams. This, in turn, could impactflood control measures and fish
and wildlife habitat, with particular detriment to salmon. Othersossible
effects of climate change could include new and increased insect
infestations in the City's urban forestshanges in wildlife _behavior and
diversity: and, reduced availabilit of water su • • lies for drinking water _
irrigatjqpf aardens, landscaped_areas, street trees, and parks.
Tukwila's Urban Forest
The "Cit
of Tukwila Urban Tree Cano Assessment," completed in
2012,_quantifies existing urban tree canopy as well as impervious surfaces,
surfacewateLgrasslands. and_bare soils,The assessment forrnsthe basis_
for several new pals and...policies related to the urban forest. Seethe
assessment report appended to this chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
The results of the study show that Tukwilahas a current overallsity:wide_
averageyee canopy_cover of 25% and im_pervioussurface of 51%, The,
residential zones range from 33% to 51670 canopy across 1,869 acrek_while
the industrial and commercial zones have tree cano ranain from 9% to
49% across 2 780 acres.
The City is fortunate to have remnant st. ds of second or third:
growth native forests and hi. h cano coverage in its single family_
residential_areas, on undeveloped steep slopes, and in some, of its
parks (for example, Crystal Springs Park and Tukwila Park) tiowevei trees and understory veggtation in many of our parks
and natural areas are plagued with infestations of invasive pl. ts
like blackberry_and ivy. Trees in undeveloped areas are threatened
12y tuture development. A in7 tr es in alread develo ed
residential and commercial areas become hazardous and reyire
removal are not always replaced with new trees.
The City has street trees of varyint sieci s sizes, health and
maturity pl._ ted on City rights-of-way throughout Tukwila. They
range from large c. opy trees to small canopy or young trees that
do not_provide many benefits. Street trees often do not gel
replaced the
igielof care otthe conditigns they need to thrive,
Shade h. ,es are.generally_lacking in most of the City's commercial
parking lots and other landscaped areas. Trees in these areas are
often improperly pruned or removed and not replaced. Trees
December 201
10
ff:
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
throughout the C- fre_q_u e-t:... damaged by installation or
,air'?narce of • 7;71.7! ,devc1.opment.
$:,.E.-.1F,7..q1..v have
narro7..a.,,rip•arian buff.::2s • •,•
on
overihe:y_earsjed amc- int of • lese areas„
Some reaches of the a.re characterized by large native
tree 5 (7oster other,„„areasAttere
is ".f..:e r,o tree can.-•• t: and large expanses of invasive vegetation
inctekL_I'ves have] -.•.mov^d from te &yjevee.
c` S_. 4052o m . - F.npinPPCS requirements.
Several env • tc; enhance t: urban
forest have bee7 parks
wetlands and st.eatr.:.7;, and a the Duwamish et, Trees have
been glar.f..ef.l. a.',orkg the river by_ the County as mil • ,n for
remol of elsewhere. The City also plar" ' ' :••:?ds of trees
in it yearl. requires trees as r—rt irig_fo_r
commercial. industrial office and multi- 7,,_ments; 4E.od
requires tree replacementirensitive areas,,
However, the City does not have a comprehensive written urban
forestry plan, street tree, or other program in place to ensure a
hcaltyrban forest across all areas of the City. A p•rogram to
iirban forest should inciude the following aspects:
• rve existing trees and forest;
P -rve and improve the "tree-growinglenyironmentli,,e,_
provide adequate growing conditions for trees); .4
• Plant for the long-term (ensure the...Lighttree in the right
121ace, sufficient provisions for tree maintenance
• Stored Carbon - 71,000 Tons
• Sequestered Carbon - 2300 Ton/yr 4
• Carbon Monoxide (CO) 4.3 Ton/yr 4
• Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 10 Ton/yr 4
• Ozone (03) - 4.3 Ton/yr
• Sulfur Dioxide (S02) - 8.5 Ton/yr 4
• Particulate Matter - 15.7 Ton/yr 4
Yearly Benefit - $493K
$1.4M
$48K
$4K
$89K
$240K
$18K
$94K
The Natural Environment
The v • ue that Tukwila's trees provide to
the ct ni triUllitV in terms of air quality
irnprc vements was calculated to equal a
total • f $443 000.00,as detailed in the
vraph c., (side bar)
December
2013
9
11
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
Regulations
In addit'^- to the State Growth Mana ement Act, manuegt...tions at the
federal, st te and local levels _al Tly to Ihe managerpent„of yila's
natural environment. More information can be found in Lne background
report for this Chapter. (The following tPrt Will opl)Par as a sidP har iteml
Regulatory or Resource Agencies Management of the
Natural Environment
Federal:
• EPA
• Corps of Engineers
• National Marine Fisheries Service & US Fish and
Wildlife Service
• FE,MA
State
• Department of Ecology
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Department of Natural Resources
Regional/Local
• Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
• Puget Sound Partnership
• Puget Sound Regional Council
• King County (planning policies, water quality)
• King County Flood Control District
• King Conservation District
1 ISSUES
There are several 17.€ issues that reflect new community_priorities „and
respond to new ret ri!9tions at the local, regional state and federal levels
addressed in the Natrtral Environment Element. The oals and policies
that follow respond to these identified issues.
Envircarmelgal Quallitv, Con ity Ed "I
EnviLmonetital Stewardship, In order to foster b....* 7,-i-tices for
protecting Tukwila's environmental ,sualit im rove the protection
awl -t-ration of the City's sensitive areas and fish and wildlife
habitat and improve air an0 -1uality, the City needs to provide
information and education to th-: community in various forms. In
10
12
December 201
•
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
addition the City should continue to expand efforts in collaboration
with other organizations and businesses to engage the community_
throu gh hands-on environmental stewardship and restoration_
activities. Policies regarding the2rotection of fish and wildlife and
climate change are also important to inco orate into the Natural
Environment Chapter.
Sensitive Areas. Although Tukwila enacted significant revisions to
its Sensitive Areas regulations in 2004 and a ain in 2010, new
policies are needed to reflect the most current best ayailablescience
info ation and new federal and state regulations and guidelines.
Tukwila also needs to improve the protection of watercourses and
find mechanisms to ensure that compensatorymitigation is
successful for the lonverm.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Thelistin of Puget Sound Chinook
Salmon and Bull Trout under the Endangered Species Act has,
underscored needforthe City toprotect and restore habitat for
fish ando_ther wildlife..._New_volicipsntinued restoration efforts
and new sources of funding are needed to carry out restoration of
habitat on the Green/Duwamish River and its tributaries. The.City_
mustc_ontinue to beactiyelyinyolyedinshagingLaolicies and
programs and helpjnPto_implement the Water Resource Inventory_
Area 9 Salmon Habitat Enhancement Plan, in collaboration with
other local jurisdictions and Count State and Federal government
a encies„
Water ualit . More efforts are needed to improve andprotect
water quality in the Cit ''s wetlands, watercourses and the
Green/Duwamish River. Programs for monitoring water quality,
retrofitting surface water management systems where there are water
ualit roblems and im rovin. riaarian buffers are important
actions for the City to carout.
Surface Water Management. With new State re uirements for the
management of surface water, the City must modify its surface water
regulations and begin implementingand re uirin., low im act,
development, techniquesioLsurface water system retrofits and for_
PeW.O.YPIQP„Ment.
Flood Mana ement. Because the City has levees alon arts of the
Green-Duwamish River to reduce flood otential, it is necessary for.
the City to coordinate with County and Federal officials, and
neighboring local jurisdictions on maintenance and rebuilding of the
levees and ensuring that federal certification is continued, where
December 20082013
11
13
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
applicable. Also, due to the listina of Chinook salmon under the
Endangered Species_Ac_Land Corps of EnRineersTolicies restricting_
vegetation on levees the City needs to be involved in efforts to
achieve ood riparian conditions, while not compromisinn the
interit of levees or losino federal certification.
Earth Resources. The definition of steep slopes should be clarified
and new policies are needed to require setbacks and better protect
trees on steep slopes.
Trees and the Urban Forest. The Cit needs to establish )olicies
and programs to )rotect and enhance the urban forest including
establishinz„„im_proved policies for .protecting trees,increasing tree_
onopyi_anclensurino sufficient resources to propedy maintain trees,
improve tree health and reduce potential hazards to the public. This
Elementprovides new .oals and _policies to address these issues.
e44e
°
°
lo
-sreit--
d 4e
Fid-refiide
F 5 Natur
a
•
f
ural
ksncsrey
\as °
Even-thowei
4ie-iealley344-1e41rea contii
-c iercia
12 December 201
14
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
4efiree4 a,+÷efki+if eareas-443,as,e4
Ce." 44-114'
GOALS AND 130LICIE$
The following_goals and policies address the issues identified above.
Goal 4.1
The city's air, land and water resources are restored and protected for
futurelgeneration. Rete
Policies
4.1.1 Anticipate the effects ot climate change by kegabig abreast of
current scientific data and plan for adapting Ch regulations
and internal procedures, asPeeded. t4nc land usc and
ift-g- Hetztfttwal-
ivg-ehition-ettr-ologt-tt-rpft
t,,ecliffien-tatiottrof
d#m-f(ircas pofertf=c9.1e-
ssociericel
R.---4raftflaltefiftgfege4atiees
• Tree regulations
• Rey& .
pfeeess
4.1.2 Collaborate with Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies
to iclentt fiority species (endangered, threatened, sensitive,_
and candidate s )ecies and prioritT habitats to determine
appropriateprotection and wildlife access negsures1 Fef-itew-
tifinfr-eorttr-64-peetk-Hittelf
December
2013
The Natural Environment
Comment [CL1] : The location of goals
and policies in this chapter has been
reorganized.
r _ ......_........._
Comment [CU] : Substitute this new
broader goal for current Goal 4.1
.......___
rComment [CL3 j : New policy to address
climate change.
Comment [CL4 : This policy relocated
and renumbered as proposed policy 4.6.1
Comment [CL5] : Throughout the
Chapter, all implementation strategies
have been grouped by topic area and are
meant to apply to the preceding goal(s)
and policies - this provides needed clarity
and guidance to users of the document.
Comment [CL6] : New policy based in
part on current policies 4.2.1 and 4.2.4.
13
15
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
rtflYS-401
j'AVItli-lt- 75119f
f3Preiie-Veleplifelff-
° if
P
.----Staffnv,vater
4.1.3 Identity_impacts to_wildlife from new development and
ensuprotection of existin riorit: wildlife habitat, including
Osprey and,Bald Ea le nests and Chinook and Bull Trout habitat,
WhgrlissuinPUnits_fPrIPIPPIRPTIL.Re4ofa
fti+14340M-elleetif ' ns-ef-watereeerse
wliere-feasrible-and-praet4eake--efeate -than nelf; for
I '
.iveteFe
4.1.4 Assistmpticants_incorn_plyin_gwithfederal and State,
wildlife and_endarigered_species regulations for allpublic and
private sector_irojestS. fHnewanci-existinfi::,cleyel
11-
Conmient Min
This policy
modified and
now in Goal 4.8
4.1.5 Develop and implement programs that encourage Tukwila
residents and businesses to take active measures to protect and
enhance Tukwila's natural environment. Such measures could
include the use of low impact development technioues,..natural.
streambank restoration, non-toxic lawn care, composting and
IrecycrLin z .
4e-better
14
16
December 201
at a
Comment [CL8
New policy to
address
importance of
wildlife.
Comment [CL9
This policy
modified and
divided into
three proposed
policies found
at 4.5.1, 4.5.5
and 4.5.6.
Comment [CU
New policy to
reflect actual
procedures
A used by City.
Comment [CL1
Modified and
moved to
Policy 4.7.5
Comment [CL1
New policy in
recognition of
upcoming
NPDES permit
requirements.
Comment [CL1
This policy
modified and
included in
proposed
Policy 4.6.1
Rtyluir,e-app-rop-46-79,14-fiter,
wcuer resource areu4fiffilaii-o0-
,.„
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
Comment [CL14] : This policy-
modified and moved to proposed Policy
4.6.3
11,fruputef,
euuk-weite,Peonffresrpukrutet4
iffititkuft-i-i÷gN--ift-ift4laniekuptut-i+y-e-ere-ouf5e-
adverse-4-topuf4,-to--
4,,,ted
----Reetu-ke-early
tiLififf
°
* Regie
• Sensitive Areas Ordinance
for public and-private off
December
2013
Comment [CL15] : The intent of this
policy encompassed in proposed Policy
4.6.1
— ,– —
Comment [CL16] : This policy modified
and moved to proposed Policy 4.6.5
Comment [CL17] : This policy modified
and included in proposed Policy 4.6.1
15
17
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
Goal 4.2
An educated ublic that understands the importance of protecting .
sensitive areas, wildlife and fish habitat in the City's natural areas,
wetlands, watercourses and the Green/Duwamish River and assists in
the6tewardshiP Pfetee
Policies
: 4
: .
4.2.1 Exp_apd free or low_ cost educational ,prograrns apcmateriais
tor the comnitItlity_about thp multiple_bP11Pfit,Pflhc,citY
sensitive areas flood lains the urban forest and wildlife habitat
and on individual responsibilities for theidste.wardshii,
peeoefrsiflefat-ion to-
4.2.2 Provide individuali-ed education and technical
residential property, owners anclieneral uidance to
businesses rogardimenviromnental stewardship,.
restore
9r1.9
4.2.3 peyelop. and continue to support _communityLorietzteltyvildlift.
educational programs such as the Tukwila Backyard Wild1i e
tro ra fw
measm
16
18
December 201
Comment [CL1
Modified from
existing Goal
4.4
Comment [CL1
Current goal
4.2 has been
modified and
incorporated
into proposed
Goal 4.5
Comment [CL2
Modified from
current Policy
4.4.1.
Comment [CL2
This policy
modified and
moved to
proposed
Policy 4.1.3.
Comment [SW2
Proposed new
policy to reflect
current efforts
already being
provided by
staff.
Comment [CL2
Policy
modified and
included in
proposed
Policy 4.6.1
Comment
[CL2
Modified from
a current
' Implementatio
n Strategy
Comment (CL2
Modified and
included in
proposed
Policy 4.6.1.
'110,51110.11161MONOMMPARAWAPARMEMINSIM‹
Comment [CL2
Modified and
included in
proposed
Policy 4.1.3.
NAMMIMN,
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
Goal 4.3
Increased number of Tukwila residents trained as environmental stewards
and actively participating in environmental restoration and
...1-naintenunc
Policies
4.3.1 konsor_Loint City and citizencleatim and restoration projects
and emand the citizen volunteer base in Tukwilafor
restoration and maintenance of the City's natural kireasr
re-a ituft-FeV-I-eW-41104-Fefileet-t411-411-r-I
4.3.2 Collaborate with environmental organizations and
businesses to support recruithig and training_of envirotunental
stewards, identifv restoration projects, and provide logistical
supportfortheirworIA .
ffiNate
Refer-e
:'..t.Fet4e.ftt+eflat-fficasurcte-iftairttaiti-srlepe.
;
ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND STEWARDSHIP
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIESY
Assign responsibilities for trackina climate change issues and
develop recommendations for new City management policies,
as needed.
U)date, and ex and the Cit 's website to ost information on
environmental stewardshi • reen building techniques and
standards, rec_ycling and re-use of„construction waste, low
impact development techniques, and other related topics.
Distribute such info ation to applicants and contractors
durin ermit reviews.
Ex an the availubility_of brochures on environmentally_
friendly lawn care rec cling and other environmental
stewardship „informationas fundin pe its.
Incorporate green construction and low impact development
technigues into City construction or retrofit projects as a tool
Comment [CL27] : Modified from
current Goal 4.4 to reflecting the need for
more hands-on restoration efforts, and
trained volunteers to lead them.
Comment [CL28] : This goal modified
and included in proposed Goal 4.11
Comment [CL29] : Modified from
Policy 4.4.1 with increased emphasis on
citizen involvement in restoration efforts.
Comment [CL30] : Policy modified and
incorporated in proposed new policy
4.11.1
Comment [CL31] : New policy that
expands on current Goal 4.4 and Policy
4.4.1, and reflects current City efforts.
' Comment [CL321 : Policy modified and
r,„,„,,
expanded on in proposed policies 4.11.1,
4.11.2, 4.11.3, 4.11.4, and 4.11.5.
December
.to
2013
17
19
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
for educating Tukwila residents, businesses and developers
• about their benefits.
Develop and mail topic - specific fact sheets to property owners
on environmental stewardship in „a variety of larigu,ages.
• Publish articles on environmental stewardshi : in the Tukwila
Rejorter and/or Hazelnut.
• Team with other environmental organizations such as Forterra
Earth Cort2s,,Nattonal Wildlife Federation and the Washington.
Native Plant Socite „,to train environmental stewards ,_help
recruit and manage volunteers and can' out environmental
restoration projects.
•
Engage youth and school groups in restoration projects.
! Seek grants anddonattons,to fund_publtcations,,,yolunteer,
environmental restoration projects and citizen stewardship
training.
Maintain contact with Washingtz „on Department of Fish and,
Wildlife and the federal resource a encies to sta, ^u, to date on,
wildlife management policies,rmit requirements and
requirements for pre grin • biology ical assessments.
ate r Resources
Comment [CL3
Modified and
incorporated
into proposed
Policy 4.11.2.
The , Water _ Resources Section includes theollownoverarchineneralgoal that is
supported by the goals and policies in the subsections that follow. ,
Goal 4.4 Citizet t rwi r }ee E
r� Water resources that function as a
healthy, integrated system; provide a long -term public benefit from
enhanced environmental quality, and have the potential reduce public
infrastructure icost,,a
18
20
December 201
Comment [CL3
This goal
modified and
incorporated
into proposed
Goal 4.2.
Comment [CL3
This proposed
goal is
modified from
current Goal
4.5.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
Wet andstWatersoursesffish and Wildli e Habitat
Goal 4.5
• Ree-yelifit-P111:11)'''
Bfiel,i,yef
seasitiot‘e-feas
A-systeimef-w-a-ter-feetiftaes-41-tat4ulit-tien--a--liett441y-,,.
4Fem.ealligiee4ti4mwfieffiill-
' Vital and self-sustaininE fish and wildlife habitat areas that also
rovide where ap_proariate, opportunities for recreational and educational
Policy 4.5.1 Restore watershed function through sensitive
area restoration projects on publicly owned lands and by,
working with_prop_e_ owners o restore/improve sensitive
areas on priyate roperty,„
Comment [CL3 6] : This policy modified
and included in proposed policies 4.2.1
and 4.2.3.
Policy 4.5Z Recogpize„protect and enhance the value of
watercourse and river riparian zones and other natural areas
as wildlife orridori
Policy 4.5.3 Deylop best managementpractices for surface
water drainage and street maintenance activities to avoid
disturbin rsg. destroying native riparian veg_etation.___ ere
Comment [CL3 7 : Modified and
incorporated into proposed Goal 4.4.
revitalizing and educating the public
about fish and wildlife habitat areas.
Comment [cL3 8] : Proposed new goal
that recognizes the importance of
Comment ICL3 9] : Modified from
current policy 4.1.3
Comment [cL4 0] : Proposed new
policy
December
2013
19
21
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
4.5.1
ri arian velretation is disturb d throu h maintenance,
activitiesJestore.yegetatiort with....nativeaecie4
„Identifstaff and financial supportfor,
restoration prsijects, wherever feasible to enhance salmonid
habitat iruya tercourse5wetlands. dthieenJDuwamish
RiverJthiijrigrojects identifi d in the Shoreline
Program.Habitat Restoration Pro Y am and the.Water
Resource Inventor Area 9 Salmon Habitat 1'l
Policy 4.5.5 Prohibit watercourses except where,
unavoidable for access purposes. ere feasible and
practical to create,healthy riparian habitaLencourage_
removal o_f_pipasections of watercourse54542401.11M.QL
redevelopment and public ojects.
Polica5.6 Prohibit creation of new fish barri rs and where
possible, eliminate existing barriers to fish_pas.sagethrough.
implementation of capital improvementwojects and by_
Fpyidin4inccntiyes to_Frivate, segtor cievelgpmen .
44•••-49mteon impacts due to incrieeseatriffut91
.h4tmer-Preteei-eiewkwtfeampr6rerties-emd-medifv ite
[ Comment (C14-
Proposed new
policy.
Comment [CL4
Proposed new
policy.
Supports City's
newly adopted
Shoreline
Master
Program and
commitments
to WRIA 9
Plan.
Comment [CL4
Modified from
current Policy
4.1.3.
Comment [CL4
Modified from
current Policy
4.1.3 to prohibit
new barriers.
Comment [CL4
Flood related
policies
grouped
together under
new goal 4.9.
, Comment (CL4
Modified and
incorporated
into proposed
policy 4.8.2
problems in eneb hasht
04'
Goal 4.6
-al artifacts and
20
22
December 201
Comment [CL4
Goal has been
modified and
moved to the
Community
Image Chapter to
be included with
the Historic
Preservation
goals and
policies.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Goal 4.6 Watercourses and their buffers, wetlands and wetland
buffers rotected .,..fromencroachment and degradation ....andimproved
through mitigation, enhancement and restoration projects.
Policy 4.6.1 Regulate land use and develo ment,,using_Best,,,
Available Science to protect andimprove_natural vegetation and
droIog , in order to prevent significant erosion,. sedimentation,,or,
degradation of areas of potential geologic instabilit; wetlands,_
watercourses fish and wildlife habitat areas andtheir associated
buffer.
Polic 4n6.2 Ensure mitigation sec uencin2 is a lied to avoid o
minimize impacts to sensitive areas consistent with Federal and
State_ uidelines
The Natural Environment
Polic ' 4.6.3 Require and enforce mitigation in order to ensure no
net loss of sensitive area functions as well as mitigation designed
to replace sensitive area acreage lost due to eyelopmen. Comment [CL51] : Modified .)� „- c�--_— � odified from
current Policy 4.1.6.
Content [CL48] : Proposed new goal
......� 4.1.7, 4.2.2,
that incorporates Policies 4.1.
Comment [CL49] : Modified from
current policy 4.1.1
Comment [CL50] : New policy to reflect
current SAO regulations and State and
Federal requirements.
Policy 4.6.4 Ensure the effectiveness of sensitive area mitigation
by r- uirin adequate sensitive area studies and mitigationrlans,
the application of mitigation se, uencin financtal assurances from
proiectjjroonentstoensure mitigation success,, and by imrovtng„
City oversight of maintenance and monitoring of miti *ation
Folic 4.6 ,5 Allow off -site wetland mitigation only_when there is
greater functional benefit no snificant adverse impact to the„
ad acentpropert and no si ;nificant adverse im ,act to existing.
wetlands or watercourses. Preference shall be given first o
mitigation sites within Tukwila's„portion of the Green- Duwamish
watershed followed by sites located elsewhere to the „vatershe ,LL,
Policy 4_6.6 Consider allowing payment into an in -lieu fee
program for mitigation outside of Tukwila where ecological
December ! `2013
Comment [CL52] : New policy that
incorporates the elements of existing
Policy 4.1.5.
Comment [CL53] : Modified from
current Policy 4.1.8
21
23
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
benefits of such actions will be significantly_ greater than mitigation
locations in the ICitk.
Policy 4.6.7 Consider creating a City in-lieu fee program for
future wetland mitigation or collaborate with King County to
establish in-lieu fee sites in Tukwila for wetland restoration
projects, includina projects along the Green/Duwamish Rive
shoreline.
Comment [CL5
New policies
4.6.6 and 4.6.7
are proposed to
address COE
guidance
Policy 4.6.8 In collaboration with other agencies, develop a
program toprovide guidance to property owners interested in using _
their property for sensitive area mitigation or shoreLw.Jp1tILatIonJ Comment [CL5
Proposed new
policy.
Wetlands/WatercoursesfFish and Wildlife Habitat Im Iementation
Strategies
• Continue_irnplementation of the Sensitive Areas Regulations_
and improve tracking and monitoring, and develo other
mechanisms to im rove com !lance with maintenance
r_Nuirements. Update the regulations as necessa to ensure
they reflect current Best Available Science.
Develop guidelines and provide trainin tosurface water and
street maintenance staff in hest management_p_ractices for work
in sensitive areas.
• Periodically_offer special workshop5 or classes for property_
owners on sensitive areas stewardship, regulations, stream bank
enhancement and other related topics.
Publish articles on sensitiye areas stewardship in he Tukwila
Reporter and/or Hazelnut.
• _Encourage off-site wetland mitigation and offer assistance to
property owners interested in providing mitigation sites where
appropriate.
• Evaluate opportunities and Federal and State requirements for
in-lieu fee wetland mitigation programs, and discuss options
for 115.ft DIFILY.A.Psiv11.4tqd. 5ite5. in T.Pkwi I a. Prindclg.,
recommendations to decision-makers.
•„„„„ Continue_implernentation of the_Surface Water„Martagemerit
Plan and individual watercourse Basin Plans to remove
identified fish barriers during surface water and street
maintenance and upgrade projects, where ossible.
•Continue to coordinate with the Department of Fish and
ildlife and the Tribes resardirkg_projects that impact fish and_
the design of watercourse restorationprojects.
22
24
December 201
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
Wate
ualtiZQuantiu
Goal 4.7 The water quality in Tukwila's wetlands, watercourses, fish and
wildlife habitat areas and the Green/Duwamish River is improved over
CComment [C'L56] : Proposed new goal.
Policy 4.7.1 Improve surface water management and ensure
grovision of water quality treatment where Irequiredi.
Policy 4.7.2 Prevent and reduce streambank and channel erosion
and sedimentation of water resources through implementation of
surface water and land clearing regulations and inspection.
Policy 4.7.3 Initiate educational and managementsroarams to,„
reduce the use of chemicals having negative impacts on the
environment or human health. Prohibit the application of
pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, algaecides,
rodenticides, etc.) to surface water systems or their buffers unless
warranted to protect ecological functions of the,systern, and inform
applicators about State pesticide licensing iregulationsi. Comment [CL59] : Proposed new
policy.
LComment [CL57] : Modified from
current Policy 4.1.2.
Comment [CL58] : Proposed new policy
due to observed erosion problems.
Polic 4.7.4 To protect water quality,. promote natural yard care,
alternatives to grass lawns, and proper waste management through
educationatprograms and „ublicity,
Policy 4.7.5 Continue City monitoring for illicit surface water
discharges and ensure that action is taken to eliminate any such
.0.5.0141:ggi„
Comment [CL60] : New policy.
Policy 4.7.6 Retrofit existing City surface water systems, including
ditches conveying stormwater, to improve the water quality of
disch a rges . where there are significant water quality bepefits.„
Goal 4.8_Surface watergenerated by_urban development does nor exceed
greAevelupment dischargeirak,„,
Polic 4.8.1 Demonstrate implementation of low-impact
development techniques through grant-funded public projects,
Where feasibincorporate such techniques into Citysapital„
facilities pro'ects. Provide technical assistance to developers and
encouraue the use of such techniques for stormwater Management Comment [CL64] : Proposed new
policy to reflect upcoming NPDES
requirements.
Comment [CL61] : Modified from
current policy 4.1.4.
Comment [CL62] : Newpolicy:j
--„--
Comment [CL631 : Modified from
existing Policy 4.1.2.
Policy 4.8.2 Require that all proposed development identifies
hydrologic features both on-and off-site that could be impactedly
December
eg:
2013
23
25
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
thepro'ect. Evaluate project_impacts,.on on-site and off-site
watercourses., wetlands, drainage features and sprin s to avoid
adverse impacts to existing_sensitive areaihydrolo
Policy 4.8.3 Continue inspection programs to ensure proper
mai.ntenanceof.public and_privatesurfaceyvateLmagagment,
Water ualit and uantit lementation Stra
Implement water quality testing as required under the chyls .
new National Pollutant Discharge S stem ermit and develop_
actioulans fc11 identit14914_4110„diflairiatinS9141Tee§PfPlInti9,11
when PrStlem§...41:04.ernifleg,_
• Provide trainircand written information on low-impact_
development techniques to developers, contractors„city_staff_
and Cit officials.
•___„Set up_interoalproceduresfor_eyaluatiuzilevelopmentprojects,
to ensure_po adverse impacts to wetland or stream hydrology.
Publish articles on environmental SJPAYANI§1241,414W444,1e411.
rotection in the Tnic,Wila_Re orter and/or Hazelnut.
Flood Control
Goal 4.9: The natural flood attenuation functions of wetlands, floodplains
and floodwaysare protected and severe flooding is reduced to help_prevent
clamaye to life, propertyandpublic tfaL
Policy 4.9.1 Restrict or prohibit development that could create a
dan er to health safet, and roert due to potential flood hazards
bycomplying with federal iegulatiousj,
Policy 4.9.2 Minimize the alteration of natural surface water
features that retain or carry floodwaters (such as wetlands natural
flood plains and streams) and prevent land alterations that would
increase potential Ooodini
Policy 4.9.3 Reduce flooding that adversely affects public health,
safety and general welfare and protect against flood damaae
through surface water and flood managementirOke6.
Policy 4,9.4 Minimize adverse impacts to water resources _b
requiring the use of bioengineering and natural solutions for bank
stabilization or flood control proiects, whereverJfasil1 e.
24 December 201
26
Comment [CL6
Proposed new
policy, includes
language from
current Policy
4.5.2.
Comment [CL6
Proposed new
policy.
r____,......._...
Comment [CL6
Proposed new
goal.
Comment [CL6
Modified from
Policies 12.1.18
and 12.1.19
from Utilities
Element.
Comment [CL6
New policy
that
incorporates
the intent of
Policy 4.1.9.
Comment [CL7
Modified from
Policy 12.1.18,
Utilities
Element.
Comment [CL7
New policy to
reflect Best
Available
Science.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Policy 4.9.5 Require miti, ation to reduce adverse environmental
impacts from engineered flood control measures on a case-by-case_
The Natural Environment
Goal 4.10: The levee system south of 1-405 is constructed,plaintained
and....cgrtified to_rneet,the accreditation standards of the Federal Emer ency„
Management
Policies:
Policy.4.10.1 Coordinate with Kip° County Flood Control District and the
U.S. Army Coips of Engineers to inspect and maintain the City's levee
system.
policy4.10.2 Restrict leyee encroachments by_attacentproperty_owners.
Policy 4.10.3 Continue to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
develop levee vegetation policies that enhance habitat while at the same
tlme.protecting_public safety,
Policy 4.10.4 Coordinate with the City of Kent on flood control projects
that affect both jurisdictions.
Flood Control Imdementation Strate les:
• Regulate uses,„development and redevelopment including
essential facilities in flood )Iains consistent with federal
Emulations
o Prevent cumulative effects of obstructions in a flood zone by.
restrictin_ develo ment and other actions to zero increase in
flood elevation.
• Require flood roofin or elevation of structures above the
base flood elevation when built in a flood zone.
Encourage the use ofLow-Impact Development for surface
water management t from new develo ment or redevelopment
where appropriate.
• Prohibitplacement of structures or fill in the floodplain that
would cause an increase in the elevation of the "zero rise"
floodway.
0_ Increase „City staff ex2ertise in„bioengineerimtechniques for
bank stabilization.
•_,,,,.Partici ate in coanty7wide flood controLtpeetings_sponsored,,by
Kind County Flood Control District the iLa, ArrilYS9111
En.gi neers and other_applicable organizations.,
Comment CL7 2 ] : New policy.
111111111-.-
Comment [ CL7 3 1: This goal and the
following polices are new and intended to
recognize the importance of the federally
certified levee system along the
Green/Duwamish River south of 1-404
and the need to maintain its accreditation
and work with other agencies and
property owners on the system's
maintenance, enhancing habitat and
preventing encroachments.
December
2013
25
27
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
26
28
Earth Resources
Goal 4.11: Potential impacts and liabilities associated with development
in areas ofpotendal eoloaic instabilit and coal mine hazard areas are
minimized, erosion is prevented and natural surface water features are
protected from loss disruption or hannelizatio,._
Policy 4.11.1 I_Zequir p,eotechnical studies for any cleveloment
proposal on slopes over 15% to ensure that design takes into account
geoloaic characteristics, surface_and proundwater, and thepresence of,
trees and native veaetation and their role in slope stabilization.
Policy 4.1aingeologically hazardous areas, require areas where
vegetation must remain undisturbed land disturbanceininimized.and
cut and fill construction limited to protect slope stahility,on sites_
cleared for development. Require significant re ianting and
maintenance u on com letion of development.
Policy 4.11,3 Require setbacks for buildings and other...infrastructure.
where needed from the to and/or toe of steep slopes to reduce risks of
Proposed new
policy.
slope failure and risks to ublic -afetN comment [Sw7
4,,
Comment (P78
Policy added to
support
existing
regulations for
erosion contra
Comment [ SW7
Modified from
current Goal
4.3
Comment [ P7 5
Modified from
existing Policy
4.3.1. Studies
are already
required in the
Sensitive Areas
Regulations.
Comment (P76
Modified from
existing Policy
4.3.3
Policy 4,11,4 Require the use of erosion control measures, and where.,
warranted written erosion! and sediment control plans to minimize
erosion durin and after construction activities on steep slopes or other
erosion-prone areas.
Polic 4.11.5„Incoworate information_from -,eotechnicalsworts_and
documented landslide and erosion- one areas into the Cit GIS
at
Policy 4.11.6 Ensure that proposed development projects in mapped
coai mine hazard areas adequately consider and mitigate forpossible
risks.
Earth Resources LmIementation Strate ies
• Modify requirements for geotechnical evaluations under the
Sensitive Areas Regulations to expand the assessment of trees'
function in slope stability.
Reyiew,,and considerfevisinpthe SAO definitionotsteep.
slopes.
•Ensure that erosion control clans are adequate and that erosion
control measures are implemented throu_gh inspections
conducted as part of land clearinfermits and NPDES permits.
December 201
4 1:
Comment [sw7
Proposed new
policy to
ensure maps
are as up to
date as
possible.
Comment (P80
Policy added to
support
existing
regulations.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
• Update the City's GIS system to reflect data submitted in
geotechnical studies.
Urban Forestry
Currently there are no overarching urban forestry goals in the
Comprehensive Plan. However, the Community Image Element has one
goal (Goal 1.4) related to vegetated hillsides, three policies (1.4.1, 1.4.2
and 1.10.12), and several implementation strategies that address urban
forestry. These are shown in the text box. It is proposed that they be
deleted from the Community Image Element and be incorporated into the
proposed new Urban Forestry Section of the Natural Environment
Element, given the benefits of trees for natural and urban areas, including
stormwater runoff management, habitat, economic and aesthetic values,
etc.
Goal 1.4. Vegetated hillsides and freeway corridor s.
Policies
1.4.1 Require that new development along hiliside, an ri blurts n tram
substantial amounts of signi cant„trees.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
• Treepreservation regulations
.1 4.2 Coorrlingte aplanlingpragram with the Washlnaron Department ( f
Transportation to introduce molar trees alone the.jregwoy_cpiri,lloi s
within Washington State Department of Transportation,.
right -of -ways.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Flip,twayeorndoripIantirSg plan
1.10.1 2 U,,velop_ansi iMpltirent.P.T.Infri5 whi h ictenliify„T, tkwila'' trr,e
resources, establish priorities for protection and planting, and
provide guidelines for oer1'etu l maintenarrrre rr,plarem'nt 3ni
planting. of,trees.
The following Implernentation trategi re inc: [PO er.1 in .tG_
implement the policy 1.10.12:
IMPLEIIINWATI.QN STRATEP IES
ePr nd_ciearing_regplati,ns
• Landscaping standards for trees
Urban Forestry program
O CI?D Street Tree Program
O 'pacific H„ghwayScwth Street Ire Proj ram
O ° Technical .staff aviilable
Tree planting programs and grant'
December :2013 27
29
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
Note: all proposed goals and policies are new, unless otherwise noted.
Goal 4.12: Trees are recognized by, Tukwila citizens, businesses, City
staff and decision- makers for their benefits to the environment, urban
infrastructure and their aesthetic value.
poky 4.12.1 Develop a fo al urban forest management plan to
promote andguide preservation, restoration and maintenance of a
sustainable urban forest using the goals and policies of this chapter (as,
a basin for guidance.
Policy 4,12.2 Ensure that the benefits o trees are factored into site
design and ermit decisions.
Policy 4.12.3 Ensure that regulations recognize that la
provide more benefits than small trees.
er trees
Policy 4.12.4 Seek to create and fund an urban forester /municipal
arborist position withinthe City_ or_contract for such servicest to
provide expertise for urban forest management planning, oversight of
tree planting and maintenance and assistance to all Cit departments
that have responsibilities for tree management.m
Policy 4.12.5 Educate the public elected officials and City staff about,
the importance of and ,benefits .rovided by trees_in Tukwila.
Policy_4.12.6 Develop tree valuation methods to reflect the value trees
provide,; for use in assessing fines determining damages or estimating
loss of tree benefits.
Policy 4.12.7 Identify funding sources to support urban forestry
planning and management and establish an urban forestabudget and
account.
Polic 4.12.8 Consider develorina an "exceptional" or "herita
program to foster tree a eciation in the communit
Policy 4.129 Encourage_public involvement in urban forest
stewardship through volunteer events free „traininuworkshops,; and„
other means.
28
30
December 201
Comment [P81
New goal that
goes further
than existing
Policy 1.10.12
(Element 1),
with policies
that support
management
and protection
of the urban
forest
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Goal 4.13 Tree Canopy Goal: Overall cit -wide tree canopylop the
zoning categories indicated below! has increased to a total of 2,951) 2034
achievirw the following City-wide goals for differentland use
categories:
Goals for Increasin
Li h
Canopy
Industrial zones: 3% increase
om 20% to achieve 23%
cover
Heayy, Industrial zones: 1% increase from 9% to achieve 10%
cover
Tukwila Urban Center and Tukwila South: 5% increase fro
to achieve 18% cover
Office and Coi
cover
ercial: 3% increase from 29 %to achieve 32%
Parks: 5% increase from 38% to achieve 43% cover
Public Rights-of-Way; increase canopycoyerage_through stree
treeplantino. Specific canopy_goallo_besstablished based on
future assessment.
Goals for No Net Loss of Cano
Low Density Residential: Maintainsurrent_gity:_wide canopy
coveraoe of 47%
Medium and High Density Residential: Maintain current City:
wide coverage of 40%
Policy 4.13.1 Promote tree retention throughout the City by:
3%
a. im_plementing educational programs_foLproperty_owners and
,m,anagersre. ardin tree selection and care„applicable_
regulations selecting a qualified„„arborist and other issues._
b. except for hazard trees_„.prohi_biting removal of an tree four
inches_or larger in diametergreaaheight,(dbh) on all
undeveloped property without atopproyed development or
other land use e
the mutual !!:,oals of tree protection and urban
development throu h the implementation of incentive
programs_and ,llexiblesitcdeyelopmen t_regu ations especially,,
to retain tree gro ves._
otin
Note: Some_public rights-of-wayisuch as WSDOT's are not included in the total city:
wide canopy calcul tion. Ri hts-of-way adiacent to public streetsjle., where street
trees would be planted) are included in each zoning category.
The Natural Environment
Coalmen t [13 8 2 ] : Goals to increase or
have no net loss of current baseline tree
canopy cover with policies to retain trees
and increase tree planting to meet canopy
goals in each zoning area.
Comment [P 8 3 ] : Policy does not apply
to already developed properties. Tree
removal regulations in sensitive areas and
shoreline regulations still apply, where
relevant. Policy is not intended to never
allow tree removal, only to delay it until
there is an actual project for development,
and to provide opportunity to save trees
where possible without reducing allowed
density.
December
.11
2013
29
31
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
d. re uirina financial assurances for re uired tree re )Ianting and
maintenance.
Polic4.13.2 Im)rove retention ofts„ on steep sloes throu h
modifications in regulations ensuring the evaluation of the role that
trees„,glay_in slope _stab i I ity_ du rinageotechnical reyiews, and by_
P.r0ViclitCillcgatiY4
Polic 4.13.3 Continue to protecttreesinsensitive areas and he
shorelinethrough releyant regulations.
Polic 4.13,4 Ensure that required re. lacement trees at maturit will
have equivalent„or lar er canopiesthan the removed tree, except
whereexisting future_infrastructure im edes the
trees.
lantin
Policy 4.13.5 Develop naechanis s for rotectin tree roots for aubjj c
andpriyatesurface andunderground infrastructureinstallation
including in„ some cases_requiring the_presenceof„a_certified arborist
when_liyorking in_the„gritical„„root,„,zone _replacement ottrees where
damage is unavoidable; and either requiring replantingorgayment into
a tree re ilacement fund ascompensation ifglanting_onzsite is not
feasible. Establish reasonable !,,o,rocedures to ensure consideration of
tree root protection during, routine or emergency„ maintenance of
exislingutilitieLandproyidelraininglogity,,,and other public utility:„
maintenancestaffgn root protection, techniques„
4,13,6,„ Establish cdterikforsequiringprofessiopal asessment
and„corrective„actions_by_property,,owner,s_who damage code-required ,
landscaginstreet trees„or other required_trees by togging, poor
pruninp.:, practicesor rootdisturbance.
Poi ic.Y413„1),Yhereirgq§Plg..„EP8111410„Bldig, !uired seplacement trees.
cannot be accommodated on a site establish procedures for off-site
plantingsf reglacement trees, or ayment into a dedicated tree
replacement fund.
pouigyA,„0.5„„pcipipp_tEP.P.12J4111111LaRcIllt 41119101 Thabi I i tat i n
ro rams for City_parks and other publicly owned lands. Collaborate
with other agencies, such as Washington Department of Trans ortation
toTrorpotujantinv inbighway interchangesand otherlocation
Policy 4.13.9 Collaborate with other government, non-profit
organizations and rivate sector entities to romote urban forest
management and restoration.
30
32
December 201
Comment [CL 8
Modified from
Policy 1.4.1,
found in the
Community
Image Element.
Comment (P85
Already
allowed under
existing tree
regulations,
policy added to
support the
regulations.
Comment [CL 8
This policy
incorporates
policy 1.4.2
from the
Community
Image Element.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
Policy 4.13.10 Provide flexibility in the landscape code topromote
increased tree !planting .and/or plantina of large canopy trees, and
reward the preservation of existinghealthy trees to assist in meeting.
the Citv's canopy goals.
Policy 4.13.11 Evaluate current parkin!. lot landscape requirements to
identify "opportunities to increase tree canopy,
Goal 4.14. Tukwila's streetsca es and landscaped areas are sustainable
and attractive and its urban forest is health diverse and
Po,lic,124,14,„1„ „PPvelporeeturbanArestirlygnWrig§_and
health of trees and forests in Tukwila's public spaces.
Polic 4.14.2. Develop maintenanceplans_and.programs for_trees,.o.n
City_property or rights-of-way: to . ensure that maintenance runin
PIP.PerlY_rriqd.„PAL0k4sesAndP,OtirlfPg409n4re r11411n,qcli
hazardous trees are identified and managed inamely manner to
reduce risksLand invasive vegetation is.proerly, manage&
policy,4.14,3_ M9StitY„„1,413,0scals cPcIPAnds.4110tPPr,PP,PrtY,„.9Nriers,,
ProPPITSY.Pailaagr5JAnciFAP:gili4inignAngg0.11V.411ies,„
companies to romote best practices fgr solopeparation,planting.
,techniques,srunin trenchina andgeneml tree care .
EThaW0114140aing„40NP14gclngntirMirt PqW.
developmentorse-development are pro erl cared for and „thriye„ in
perpetuity, through such means as maintenance agreements
monitorin and enforcement.
ic,Y PM.Yg19,P.Articgt4DIMRS0 PP§Aggitat tree removal and
maintenance com anies have the necessgoalificationg and liability.,
insurance for work in Tukw
Policy 4.14.6 Modify. landscape code to require diversiti of tree
species in landscape plantingsand consideration of species alreads.
resent in the vicinity.
Policy 4.14.7 Establish minimum standards andlandsme
specifications to ensure long:term tree health for street trecs„_req.uired
landscape trees and required replacement trees, includingi_ minimum
soil volume soil ualit , plant quality, planting techniques, irrigation,
mulching, tree pruning, and prohibition of toppinz_
Comment [P87] : This will require
modifications to landscape code
Comment [P88] : May result in future
modifications to landscape code.
expanded from existing Goal 1.7 from
Community Image Element.
Comment [P90] : City will need to
develop minimum qualifications and
coordinate with City Attorney and City
risk assessment staff.
Comment [P91] : Diversity is
important to tree health in the event of
insect infestations or disease that affect
one species.
December
fe:
2013
31
33
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Natural Environment
Policy 4.14.8 Develo ) an a oved/recommended tree list for street
trees,landscape, perimeter j2lanting..and :park insjots that takes into.
account the importance of species diversit available lantin s ace
and infrastructure conflicts„cliMate conditions _canopysoverage_goals„.
.allergy issues., urban_wildlife,benefits„_and toleranceof„,arbah
cgoaditicIPS,
32
34
m lementation Strate
ies for Urban Forestr
•Prepare andpublish technical specifications for landscape
professionals and landsca e contractors reflecting best
.managernentp„raetices/standards for achievipqadequate_soll_
c,onditiopsislant quality specifications„properslanting
techniques. proper mulch placement, tree are and_pruning and
other relevant information.
• Prepare and make available technical guidance for homeowners
on tree selection, planting., care, pruning, selecting a good
arborist, identifying and...controlling invasiveplants.
• Conduct volunteer activities in parks and other public areas to
help carryouturban„„forest restorationpjanstoremove invasive .
plants andTjant natyees andotheryegetation,
•____Create_anl`ado_pl-anmsban-foresC`iyy removalleamf _or
.similar_program to actively remove invasive plants and
promote oncroinq stewardship of urban forests in the City's
parks and other public areas.
• Add an urban forestry page to the City's web site that contains_
information about programs, regulations,. technical_guidance
how to find a certified arborist and other relevant issues.
•„„, Expand_theannual Arbor Dayelebrati on to widen public
artici ationi
• Evaluate other.jurisdiction's herita e tree sro2rams and reach
out to business and resident community to determine interest in
a heritacre tree program in Tukwila.
• Develop mechanisms for monitoring, tree canop owth
removal and replacement, in addition top_eriodic tree canoa„.
assessments using_GIS and remote sensin_gmmthods
• Review and amerg. as necessary SAOand Shoreline_
reijationsto ensure corlaisleration of treesetention,_
articularly_in steep slope areas,.
Provide ongoin training forCity staff from all departments on
tree selection, site preparation, proper planting techniques, and,
otection of tree roots duiring construction activities proper
and eneral tree care.
runin
December 201
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
P
are and ublish technical s
ecifications manuals for utilit
companies and City staff to identif techni ues to rotect tree
roots during installation of public and private surface and
• underground infrastructure...
Revise City regulations to allow assessment of fines or
requirement of financial guarantees in the enforcement of
corrective actions.
*Prwareanurbanforest,..inventory folkublically.owned. treesi
the City.
*_....Notify..property_ewners aboutApplicable.tree regulationsyik
iJ1QasLflLeiiin.s . torm water utility.hill direct mailings
and media announcements.
• Imroye the frequency of landscape ,and„ tree_ re )1 ace
inspections and increase enforcement.
..*Developstreet tree Jansloryarioussayruf she„City„ _taking
into account the need for diversit. for tree health and urban
design...issues,
Modify landscape tree and right-of-way vegetation regulations
including consideration of a point system for landscape
requirements, clarification of responsibilities for trees on city
ROW„...identifying.incentive programs, and allowingfor fines
,b ased ch yLu o f,..t re ,,s dam g.Lp . rsrn 9Y.O.
ent
The Natural Environment
December
ID
2013
33
35
36
1111 1111111111111111 1 11111
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Illlllllllllll
WHAT YOU W
SAID
VV
TH
S CHAPTER:
N
111111111
• A description of the naturaV resources and sensitive envuronnentaV areas present in the City of Tukwila;
• A discussion of local City efforts and clhzen volunteer programs to protect Tukwila's natural resources;
• An overview of State, Federal, and Uocd environmental protection regL atlons; and
• Goals and Policies for protecting sensitive natural resources, including the urban forest.
R
This element of the Comprehensive Plan addresses the City's natural environment - air, land,
and water resources- by guiding future development in a manner that protects the community's
environment, improves the quality of life in the City and provides reasonable protection of
community residents from natural hazards
To be healthy and sustainable a community must integrate the natural environment into urban
development design. The natural environment and its associated ecological processes provide
many benefits to Tukwila including:
• visual relief from the hard, constructed surfaces of urban development;
• fish and wildlife habitat;
• air and water quality;
• surface water runoff management;
• recreational opportunities for interaction with nature; and
• aesthetic and economic benefits.
38 : 1 "VJIK NIIIL..A
COMPREHENSIVE IPII...AN UUICPII)AU ll': ILW'1: JUyIIVIIP: "USG, 2013
UI
'lave op
Environ
wc!
II II
II II
en t of the Natura
cunt E Lc Ilent
To assist with the update of this Comprehensive
Pan Chapter, the City formed the Tukwila Tree
and Environment Advisory Committee, made
up of members of the business and residential
community. The Committee, working for over
9 months between 2012 and 2013, reviewed
previous Comprehensive Plan policies in the
Natural Environment and Community image
Elements and provided input for revisions
and new goals, policies and implementation
strategies.
1,rtrrr rt 11JiJ111111'
ll�i�7�1,'1 %f
ArchaeLog ca
Resources
Goals and Policies for the protection of
paleontological and archaeological resources
previously listed in this element have been
moved to Element 1 - Community image.
Trees and vegetation also provide critical environmental
services, which, in turn, affect the quality of life of residents,
visitors, daytime workers, and neighboring communities. Some
of the benefits of trees are shown in the graphic below.
The Natural Environment Element sets forth goals and
policies to guide the protection and management of wetlands,
watercourses, fish and wildlife habitat areas, and geologically
hazardous areas — collectively called "sensitive areas ". It
also includes goals and policies related to flood management,
surface water management, water quality, and the urban forest
(the combination of trees, shrubs, and other plants that make
up the formal landscaped areas of the city and the natural
areas in our parks and on private property).
i)iotriaiiiii‘ i i 1111 or too
ill IIIII rrilir i !I'll"
i
(t
II 0,000111/0/10
7 4111011/0 )
);,(ijoi 0 ,iiiieloilriol000r 0
000; log*
0 0/ el
rilitII
titlictio /1
v • 41
1 illf011111141141/1
1 iglif / /
110 *HP Or
il
1/
TUKWIIII...A COMPREHENSIIVE Pit...AN JUNIE 13,90 13
r
1
Tukwila Pond serves as both wetland habitat and
temporary stormwater storage.
Southgate Creek is an example of a watercourse
with little riparian protection from urban impacts.
40
11111
OH 111111111 STTA' I ' G
E TINVIRoNro
11111
N TUR L E VIRONMEN
'UIKWILA'S UI BAO
Tukwila encompasses about 9 square miles, and much of
the city lies within an extensive valley centered on the Lower
Green /Duwamish River watershed. The valley is virtually flat
and almost entirely built out except for the newly annexed
Tukwila South area, which is slated for development over the
next 10 to 15 years. The upland areas of the City have rolling
topography and numerous areas with steep and potentially
unstable slopes. Many of the steep hillsides are forested with
second or third growth trees and understories with a mix of
native and invasive vegetation. These areas, together with
the City's numerous water resources, provide important fish
and wildlife habitat that coexist with the built environment.
The following is a summary of conditions in the constituent
elements of Tukwila's environment — more detail is found in the
Background Report.
TLANDS AND WATERCOURSES
As urban development has occurred, natural drainage
corridors have been altered or placed in culverts, and wetlands
have been filled. Remnant wetlands remain in some of the
City's parks, on undeveloped slopes (formed by springs and
groundwater seeps), in freeway interchanges, and in other
areas of the City. The City has purchased Tukwila Pond and
Macadam wetland for preservation. Tukwila Pond serves as
both a wetland and temporary storm water storage pond for
commercial development on its north side. Macadam wetland
collects mostly natural surface water from the steep slopes
located on its east side.
Stream alterations have affected wildlife and fish habitat. There
are few remaining open channels in the four main streams in
1"UIKWIIII...A COMPREHENSIVE IPIL..AN U JUNE "M 2013
'i�
Fish Species in Tuuukwi
a
Fish species found in the Green/Duwamish
River include the following:
• Cutthroat trout
• Chinook salmon
• Chum salmon
• Coho salmon
• Pink salrroon
• Sockeye salmon
• Bull trout
Resident Cutthroat trout are found in Tukwila's
streams, as well as other fish and aquatic
species.
Cutthroat trout photo courtesy of Washington
Department of Fish & Wildlife.
Tukwila (Johnson Creek, Gilliam Creek, Southgate Creek and
Riverton Creek), which have been channelized, relocated and
piped for much of their length. Construction of urban streets
and highway systems and driveways required watercourses
to be placed in culverts, which have blocked or made fish
passage difficult. All the streams discharge into the Green/
Duwamish River.
Run -off coupled with steep slopes in the upper reaches of
Gilliam, Southgate and Riverton Creeks has caused scouring
and erosion in the stream channels, resulting in deepened
ravines with steep banks, instability, bank erosion and
downstream sedimentation. The lower reaches of Tukwila's
streams are generally lacking in pools and woody debris, which
are important for good fish habitat. Thus, the open reaches
of Tukwila's streams are generally in deteriorated conditions
with generally poor riparian habitat and narrow buffers. In fact,
many tributaries of the urban watercourses flow in roadside
ditches with little protection from urban impacts.
FISH AND WILDLIFE
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFVV) has
mapped and identified priority habitats and species in Tukwila
to ensure their protection and management. They include: the
Green /Duwamish River; reaches of Gilliam Creek, Southgate
Creek and Riverton Creek; riparian areas (areas adjacent to
streams and rivers) and freshwater wetlands. Also mapped are
wetland complexes and Johnson Creek in Tukwila South.
7 "VJIKWIIII...A
COMPREHENSIVE IPII...AN V IIl'')A"'V"'ll' II'1: JU N E 4 to 3
Volunteers removing invasive blackberry -
Duwamish River Shoreline Restoration Project
Community volunteers stocking Coho salmon in
Southgate Creek.
Pacific tree frog at wetland restoration site.
42
N TUR L E VIRONMEN
The Shoreline Master Program provides more detail on the
City's involvement with the Water Resource Inventory Area
9 (WRIA 9) and the Green /Duwamish River Salmon Habitat
Enhancement Plan, which is intended to restore habitat for
Chinook salmon and other species.
Tukwila citizens are actively involved in wildlife protection and
enhancement activities, such as the Backyard Wildlife Program,
projects to restore habitat, and a salmon rearing project
that involves school children, state wildlife officials and local
businesses in annual stocking of Coho salmon in Southgate
Creek.
Waterfowl areas in Tukwila include Tukwila Pond and the
wetlands in Tukwila South, which provide important winter
habitat for migrating water fowl and permanent habitat for other
waterfowl. Over 50 species of birds have been recorded at
Tukwila Pond. Other bird species found in Tukwila include
osprey, which regularly nest near the Green /Duwamish River;
hawks; and passerine birds. Other wildlife species in Tukwila
include coyotes, Eastern Grey squirrels, beaver, otter, nutria,
turtles (mostly non - native red -eared sliders), garter snakes,
amphibians (non- native bullfrogs, native Pacific Tree frogs, and
salamanders), opossum, and raccoons.
FLOOD MANAGEMENT
Tukwila's urban center, the light industrial and manufacturing
area south of S. 180th Street, part of Tukwila South, and Fort
Dent Park are protected from flooding of the Green River by
levee systems. The City participates in the National Flood
Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), which has mapped regulated
flood plains in Tukwila. Mapped floodplains and the levee
systems are explained in more detail in the Shoreline Element
of the Comprehensive Plan.
7 "VJIKWIIIL..A COINBIPREIHIENSIIVIE IPIL..AIW UII'pll'1A "'V "'Il': II''1: JUNE 14, 2013
111111
1111111116
Impervious surfaces and the elimination of natural wetland functions have caused localized
flooding from streams periodically at varying levels of severity on some areas of public right -of -way,
as well as private properties where inadequate or no surface water infrastructure exists. The City
has resolved many of the flooding problems through improvements to surface water infrastructure.
For example, periodic flooding from Gilliam Creek near Southcenter Boulevard was resolved
through the construction of a regional detention facility that serves the area of Southcenter
Boulevard west of Interstate 5. The surface water management system (surface water utility)
is described in more detail in the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. More detailed
information on localized flooding problems is provided in the City's Comprehensive Surface Water
Management Plan.
EARTH RESOURCES AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The City has mapped areas with steep and unstable slopes, including active landslide areas and
springs to ensure that there is adequate review of slope stability if development is proposed in
these areas. In addition, there are coal formations on the southwest side of Interurban Avenue
South, some of which have been mined and are defined as sensitive areas based on the City of
Tukwila Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Hazard Assessment, May 1990.
WATER QUALITY
Although the City does not have ongoing monitoring programs, periodic studies have indicated that
Tukwila's streams and the Green /Duwamish River suffer from poor water quality due to surface
water runoff. Rain events wash contaminants off rooftops, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots,
and roads into the watercourses. Runoff from these areas can contribute to high temperatures in
urban streams and can carry contaminants into streams and wetlands. Many newer developments
have flow control and water quality treatment facilities such as sediment removal and oil water
separators that moderate the discharges that flow directly into streams, but there are still areas of
Tukwila where runoff from impervious surfaces discharges directly to streams and the river with no
treatment. (See Background Report for more information on water quality.)
Riparian habitat plays a valuable role in protecting stream water quality. Adequately -sized and
healthy riparian buffers help filter out a variety of pollutants, including substances that can lead to
the depletion of oxygen in streams. Riparian vegetation can also shade streams, reducing water
temperatures. However, most of Tukwila's streams have poor quality, narrow riparian areas.
7 "VJIK NIIIL..A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPII...AN Vyll'p11'1A "'V "'ll': II''1: JUNE 14, 2013
43
Illlllllllllll
AIR QUALITY
Tukwila lies in the air quality region made up of King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties.
Air quality is monitored and managed by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. Through the efforts
of the Clean Air Agency, all of King County currently has good air quality, except for occasional
periods when air quality in our area is considered a risk to health, particularly for members of the
population with respiratory conditions.
CLIMATE CHANGE
The impacts of climate change in Tukwila could affect several aspects of the natural environment
as well as the provision of utilities to its citizens. Climate change could cause rising sea levels
which would affect the tidally- influenced portions of the Green /Duwamish River, raising water
levels in the river and causing tidal waters to reach further up river and into streams. This, in
turn, could impact flood control measures and fish and wildlife habitat, with particular detriment
to salmon. Other possible effects of climate change could include new and increased insect
infestations in the City's urban forest; changes in wildlife behavior and diversity; and, reduced
availability of water supplies for drinking water, irrigation of gardens, landscaped areas, street
trees, and parks.
TUKWILA'S URBAN FOREST
The "City of Tukwila Urban Tree Canopy Assessment," completed in 2012, quantifies existing
urban tree canopy as well as impervious surfaces, surface water, grasslands, and bare soils. The
assessment forms the basis for several new goals and policies related to the urban forest. See the
assessment report appended to this chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
The results of the study show that Tukwila has a current overall city -wide average tree canopy
cover of 25% and impervious surface of 51%. The residential zones range from 33% to 51%
canopy across 1,869 acres, while the industrial and commercial zones have tree canopy ranging
from 9% to 49% across 2,780 acres.
44 �.V�IK NIIIL..A
COMPREHENSIVE IPII...AN UlC:pll'.:)ATIP: IC.:1: JUNE "M 2013
u"I
1116
A tree engulfed by invasive English ivy.
The City is fortunate to have remnant stands of second or
third - growth native forests and high canopy coverage in its
single family residential areas, on undeveloped steep slopes,
and in some of its parks (for example, Crystal Springs Park
and Tukwila Park). However, trees and understory vegetation
in many of our parks and natural areas are plagued with
infestations of invasive plants like blackberry and ivy. Trees
in undeveloped areas are threatened by future development.
Aging trees in already developed residential and commercial
areas become hazardous and require removal, and are not
always replaced with new trees.
The City has street trees of varying species, sizes, health and
maturity planted on City rights -of -way throughout Tukwila.
They range from large canopy trees to small canopy or young
trees that do not provide many benefits. Street trees often do
not get replaced when they are damaged or removed and do
not all get the level of care or the conditions they need to thrive.
Shade trees are generally lacking in most of the City's
commercial parking lots and other landscaped areas. Trees in
these areas are often improperly pruned or removed and not
replaced. Trees throughout the City are frequently damaged
by installation or maintenance of infrastructure and new
development.
The Green /Duwamish River and the City's streams generally
have narrow riparian buffers that have been impacted
by urbanization over the years, reducing the amount of
urban forest in these areas. Some reaches of the river are
characterized by large native canopy trees (Foster Golf Course,
for example), while in other areas, there is little to no tree
canopy and large expanses of invasive vegetation instead.
Trees have been removed from the Green River levee, south of
SR 405, to meet Corps of Engineers requirements.
7 "VJIKWIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFIWSIIVIF IPII...AN VyII°pll'1A "'V "'ll': ID, JUNE 4501
How LV uuuch Are Tu
Worth?
cwilals Trees
The value that Tukwila's trees provide to the
community in terms of air quality improvements
is $493,000, as detailed in the table below.
• Stored Carbon ^' 71,000 Tons
• Sequestered Carbon ^' 2300 Ton /yr
• Carbon Monoxide (CO) ^' 4.3 Ton /yr
• Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) "' 10 Ton /yr
• Ozone (03) 4.3 Ton /yr
• Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 8.5 Ton /yr
• Particulate Matter 15.7 Ton /yr
Yearly Benefit
$1.4M
$48K
$4K
$89K
$240K
$18K
$94K
$493K
Natura I nvfuron II Regulatory
Agencies
Federal
• EPA
• Corps of Engineers
• National Marine Fisheries Service & US Fish
and Wildlife Service
• FEMA
State
• Department of Ecology
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Department of Natural Resources
Re ion- t /Loc ft
• Puget Sound lean Air Agency
• Puget Sound Partnership
• Puget Sound Regional Council
• King County (planning policies, water
quality)
• King County Food Control District
• King Conservation District
46
Several environmental restoration projects to enhance the
urban forest have been completed or are underway in the City's
parks, wetlands and streams, and along the Duwamish River.
Trees have been planted along the river by the County as
mitigation for removal of trees elsewhere. The City also plants
hundreds of trees in its parks each year; requires trees as part
of landscaping for commercial, industrial, office and multi - family
developments; and requires tree replacement in sensitive
areas.
However, the City does not have a comprehensive written
urban forestry plan, street tree, or other program in place to
ensure a healthy urban forest across all areas of the City.
A program to improve the urban forest should include the
following aspects:
• Preserve existing trees and forest;
• Preserve and improve the "tree- growing" environment (i.e.
provide adequate growing conditions for trees); and
• Plant for the long -term (ensure the right tree in the right
place, sufficient provisions for tree maintenance and care).
Ilf°
IH GU III
In addition to the State Growth Management Act, many
regulations at the federal, state, and local levels apply to
the management of Tukwila's natural environment. More
information can be found in the Background Report for this
Element.
TUKWIIII...A COMPREHENSlIVliii Pit...AN JUNIE 14, 2013
11111111111111111111111
ssu
.S
There are several key issues that reflect new community priorities and respond to new regulations
at the local, regional, state and federal levels addressed in the Natural Environment Element. The
goals and policies that follow respond to these identified issues.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
In order to foster best practices for protecting Tukwila's environmental quality, improve the
protection and restoration of the City's sensitive areas and fish and wildlife habitat, and improve
air and water quality, the City needs to provide information and education to the community
in various forms. In addition, the City should continue to expand efforts, in collaboration with
other organizations and businesses, to engage the community through hands -on environmental
stewardship and restoration activities. Policies regarding the protection of fish and wildlife and
climate change are also important to incorporate into the Natural Environment Chapter.
SENSITIVE AREAS
Although Tukwila enacted significant revisions to its Sensitive Areas regulations in 2004 and again
in 2010, new policies are needed to reflect the most current best available science information and
new federal and state regulations and guidelines. Tukwila also needs to improve the protection of
watercourses and find mechanisms to ensure that compensatory mitigation is successful for the
long term.
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
The listing of Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Bull Trout under the Endangered Species Act
has underscored the need for the City to protect and restore habitat for fish and other wildlife.
New policies, continued restoration efforts, and new sources of funding are needed to carry out
restoration of habitat on the Green /Duwamish River and its tributaries. The City must continue to
be actively involved in shaping policies and programs and helping implement the WRIA 9 Salmon
Habitat Enhancement Plan, in collaboration with other local jurisdictions and County, State and
Federal government agencies.
7 "VJIK NIIIL..A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPIL..AN VylPII'1A "'V "'IP: II''1: JUNE 14, 2013
47
11111111111111111111111
WATER QUALITY
More efforts are needed to improve and protect water quality in the City's wetlands, watercourses
and the Green /Duwamish River. Programs for monitoring water quality, retrofitting surface water
management systems where there are water quality problems, and improving riparian buffers are
important actions for the City to carry out.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
With new state requirements for the management of surface water, the City must modify its surface
water regulations and begin implementing and requiring low impact development techniques for
surface water system retrofits and for new development.
FLOOD MANAGEMENT
Because the City has levees along parts of the Green /Duwamish River to reduce flood potential,
it is necessary for the City to coordinate with County and federal officials and neighboring local
jurisdictions on maintenance and rebuilding of the levees and ensuring that federal certification
is continued, where applicable. Also, due to the listing of Chinook salmon under the Endangered
Species Act and Corps of Engineers policies restricting vegetation on levees, the City needs to
be involved in efforts to achieve good riparian conditions, while not compromising the integrity of
levees or losing federal certification.
EARTH RESOURCES
The definition of steep slopes should be clarified, and new policies are needed to require setbacks
and better protect trees on steep slopes.
TREES AND THE URBAN FOREST
4 7 "VJIK NIIIL..A
The City needs to establish policies and programs to protect and enhance the urban forest
including establishing improved policies for protecting trees, increasing tree canopy, and ensuring
sufficient resources to properly maintain trees, improve tree health, and reduce potential hazards
to the public. This Element provides new goals and policies to address these issues.
COMPREHENSIVE IPII...AN UIL:)ATIP: IC.:1: JUNE ,M 2013
II
11111111111111111111111
5.1
Goal 4.1
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
c
IIIIIIIII 111111
V
Li rA1 III„„„,,
Y AI
The City's air, land and water resources are restored and protected for future generations.
Policies
4.1.1
Anticipate the effects of climate change by keeping abreast of current scientific data
and plan for adapting City regulations and internal procedures, as needed.
4.1.2 Collaborate with Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies to identify priority
species (endangered, threatened, sensitive, and candidate species) and priority
habitats to determine appropriate protection and wildlife access measures.
4.1.3 Identify impacts to wildlife from new development and ensure protection of existing
priority wildlife habitat, including Osprey and Bald Eagle nests and Chinook and Bull
Trout habitat, when issuing permits for development.
4.1.4 Assist applicants in complying with Federal and State wildlife and endangered species
regulations for all public and private sector projects.
4.1.5 Develop and implement programs that encourage Tukwila residents and businesses
to take active measures to protect and enhance Tukwila's natural environment. Such
measures could include the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques, natural
streambank restoration, non -toxic lawn care, composting, recycling, among others.
7 "VJIK NIIIL..A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPIL..AN U II''1: JUNE 14, 2013
49
Illlllllllllll
Goal 4.2
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
An educated public that understands the importance of protecting sensitive areas, wildlife and fish
habitat in the City's natural areas, wetlands, watercourses and the Green /Duwamish River and
assists in their stewardship.
Policies
4.2.1 Expand free or low cost educational programs and materials for the community about
the multiple benefits of the City's sensitive areas, flood plains, the urban forest, and
wildlife habitat and about individual responsibilities for their stewardship.
4.2.2 Provide individualized education and technical support to residential property owners
and general guidance to businesses regarding environmental stewardship.
4.2.3 Develop and continue to support community- oriented wildlife educational programs
such as the Tukwila Backyard Wildlife Program.
Goal 4.3
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Increased number of Tukwila residents who are trained as environmental stewards and actively
participate in environmental restoration and maintenance.
Policies
4.3.1 Sponsor joint City and citizen cleanup and restoration projects and expand the citizen
volunteer base in Tukwila for restoration and maintenance of the City's natural areas.
4.3.2 Collaborate with environmental organizations and businesses to support recruiting
and training of environmental stewards, identify restoration projects, and provide
logistical support for their work.
`Jo: `: 1 "VJIK NIIIL..A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPIL..AN UylPII)A"'U"'IC: IC.:1: JUNE "USG, 2013
111111
1111111116
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND STEWARDSHIP IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
• Assign responsibilities for tracking climate change issues and develop
recommendations for new City management policies, as needed.
• Update and expand the City's website to post information on environmental
stewardship, green building techniques and standards, recycling and re-
use of construction waste, LID techniques, and other related topics. Distribute
information to applicants and contractors during permit reviews.
• Expand the availability of brochures on environmentally friendly lawn care, recycling
and other environmental stewardship information, as funding permits.
• Incorporate green construction and low impact development techniques
into City construction or retrofit projects as a tool for educating Tukwila
residents, businesses and developers about their benefits.
• Develop and mail topic- specific fact sheets to property owners on
environmental stewardship in a variety of languages.
• Publish articles on environmental stewardship in the Tukwila Reporter and /or Hazelnut.
• Team with other environmental organizations such as Forterra, Earth Corps, National Wildlife
Federation, and the Washington Native Plant Society to train environmental stewards,
help recruit and manage volunteers and carry out environmental restoration projects.
• Engage youth and school groups in restoration projects.
• Seek grants and donations to fund publications, volunteer environmental
restoration projects and citizen stewardship training.
• Maintain contact with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the federal
resource agencies to stay up to date on wildlife management policies, permit
requirements and requirements for preparing biological assessments.
7 "VJIK NIIIL..A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPII...AN Vyll'p11'1A "'V "'ll': II''1: JUNE 14, 2013
51
111111
III 1111111111111111
G ,I��►III�������,5 �►I
Goal 4.4
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
III
c
.S
ER R
ES
URC
ES
111
Water resources that function as a healthy, integrated system; provide a long -term public benefit
from enhanced environmental quality, and have the potential to reduce public infrastructure costs.
Wetlands /Watercourses /Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Goal 4.5
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Vital and self- sustaining fish and wildlife habitat areas that provide, where appropriate,
opportunities for recreational and educational uses.
Policies
4.5.1 Restore watershed function through sensitive area restoration projects on publicly
owned lands and by working with property owners to restore /improve sensitive areas
on private property.
4.5.2 Recognize , protect and enhance the value of watercourse and river riparian zones
and other natural areas as wildlife corridors.
4.5.3 Develop best management practices for surface water drainage and street
maintenance activities to avoid disturbing or destroying native riparian vegetation.
Where riparian vegetation is disturbed through maintenance activities, restore
vegetation with native species.
`J2: 1 "VJIK NIIIL..A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF "M 2013
111111
1 1 11111116111111
4.5.4 Identify staff and financial support for restoration projects, wherever feasible, to
enhance salmonid habitat in watercourses, wetlands and the Green /Duwamish River,
including projects identified in the Shoreline Master Program Habitat Restoration
Program and the Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Salmon Habitat Plan.
4.5.5 Prohibit piping of watercourses except where unavoidable for access purposes.
Where feasible and practical to create healthy riparian habitat, encourage removal of
piped sections of watercourses as part of new or redevelopment and public projects.
4.5.6 Prohibit creation of new fish barriers and, where possible, eliminate existing barriers
to fish passage through implementation of capital improvement projects and by
providing incentives to private sector development.
Goal 4.6
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Watercourses and their buffers, wetlands and wetland buffers protected from encroachment and
degradation and improved through mitigation, enhancement and restoration projects.
Policies
4.6.1 Regulate land use and development, using Best Available Science, to protect and
improve natural vegetation and hydrology in order to prevent significant erosion,
sedimentation, or degradation of areas of potential geologic instability, wetlands,
watercourses, fish and wildlife habitat areas and their associated buffers.
4.6.2 Ensure mitigation sequencing is applied to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive
areas consistent with Federal and State guidelines.
7 "VJIK NIIIL..A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPIL..AIW Vyll'pll'1A "'V "'Il': II''1: UVyIIVII': 14, 2013
53
111111
III 1111111111111111
4.6.3 Require and enforce mitigation in order to ensure no net loss of sensitive area
functions as well as mitigation designed to replace sensitive area acreage lost due to
development.
4.6.4 Ensure the effectiveness of sensitive area mitigation by requiring adequate sensitive
area studies and mitigation plans, the application of mitigation sequencing, financial
assurances from project proponents to ensure mitigation success, and by improving
City oversight of maintenance and monitoring of mitigation sites.
4.6.5 Allow off -site wetland mitigation only when there is greater functional benefit, no
significant adverse impact to the adjacent property, and no significant adverse impact
to existing wetlands or watercourses. Preference shall be given first to mitigation sites
within Tukwila's portion of the Green /Duwamish watershed, followed by sites located
elsewhere in the watershed.
4.6.6 Consider allowing payment into an in -lieu fee program for mitigation outside of
Tukwila where ecological benefits of such actions will be significantly greater than
mitigation locations in the City.
4.6.7 Consider creating a City in -lieu fee program for future wetland mitigation or
collaborate with King County to establish in -lieu fee sites in Tukwila for wetland
restoration projects, including projects along the Green /Duwamish River shoreline.
4.6.8 In collaboration with other agencies, develop a program to provide guidance to
property owners interested in using their property for sensitive area mitigation or
shoreline mitigation
54 1 "VJIK NIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF "M 2013
111111
1 1 11111116111111
TLANDS /WATERCOURSES /FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
• Continue implementation of the Sensitive Areas Regulations and improve
tracking and monitoring, and develop other mechanisms to improve
compliance with maintenance requirements. Update the regulations as
necessary to ensure they reflect current Best Available Science.
• Develop guidelines and provide training to surface water and street maintenance
staff in best management practices for work in sensitive areas.
• Periodically offer special workshops or classes for property owners on sensitive areas
stewardship, regulations, stream bank enhancement and other related topics.
• Publish articles on sensitive areas stewardship in the Tukwila Reporter and /or Hazelnut.
• Encourage off -site wetland mitigation and offer assistance to property
owners interested in providing mitigation sites, where appropriate.
• Evaluate opportunities and Federal and State requirements for in -lieu fee
wetland mitigation programs, and discuss options for using County- designated
sites in Tukwila. Provide recommendations to decision - makers.
• Continue implementation of the Surface Water Management Plan and individual
watercourse Basin Plans to remove identified fish barriers during surface
water and street maintenance and upgrade projects, where possible.
• Continue to coordinate with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Tribes regarding
projects that impact fish and the design of watercourse restoration projects.
7 "VJIK NIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPII...AIW Vyll'pll'1A "'V "'Il': II''1: UVyIIVII': 14, 2013
55
111111
III 1111111111111111
Water Quality and Quantity
Goal 41
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
The water quality in Tukwila's wetlands, watercourses, fish and wildlife habitat areas and the
Green /Duwamish River is improved over time.
Policies
4.7.1 Improve surface water management and ensure provision of water quality treatment
where required.
4.7.2 Prevent and reduce streambank and channel erosion and sedimentation of water
resources through implementation of surface water and land clearing regulations and
inspections.
4.7.3 Initiate educational and management programs to reduce the use of chemicals having
negative impacts on the environment or human health. Prohibit the application of
pesticides (insecticides , herbicides, fungicides, algaecides, rodenticides, etc.) to
surface water systems or their buffers unless warranted to protect ecological functions
of the system, and inform applicators about State pesticide licensing regulations.
4.7.4 To protect water quality, promote natural yard care, alternatives to grass lawns, and
proper waste management through educational programs and publicity.
4.7.5 Continue City monitoring for illicit surface water discharges and ensure that action is
taken to eliminate any such discharges.
4.7.6 Retrofit existing City surface water systems, including ditches conveying stormwater,
to improve the water quality of discharges where there are significant water quality
benefits.
`J6: `; 1 "VJIK NIIIL..A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF "M 2013
111111
1111111116
Goal 4.8
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Surface water generated by urban development does not exceed pre - development discharge
rates.
Policies
4.8.1 Demonstrate implementation of low- impact development techniques through grant -
funded public projects. Where feasible, incorporate such techniques into City capital
facilities projects. Provide technical assistance to developers and encourage the use
of such techniques for stormwater management.
4.8.2 Require that all proposed development applications identify hydrologic features, both
on -and off -site, that could be impacted by the project. Evaluate project impacts on
on -site and off -site watercourses, wetlands, drainage features and springs to avoid
adverse impacts to existing sensitive area hydrology.
4.8.3 Continue inspection programs to ensure proper maintenance of public and private
surface water management systems.
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
• Implement water quality testing, as required under the City's new National
Pollutant Discharge System permit and develop action plans for identifying
and eliminating sources of pollution when problems are identified.
• Provide training and written information on low- impact development
techniques to developers, contractors, City staff and City officials.
• Set up internal procedures for evaluating development projects to
ensure no adverse impacts to wetland or stream hydrology.
• Publish articles on environmental stewardship and water quality
protection in the Tukwila Reporter and /or Hazelnut.
7 "VJIK NIIIL..A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPII...AN Vyll'p11'1A "'V "'ll': II''1: JUNE 14, 2013
57
111111
III 1111111111111111
Flood Control
Goal 4.9
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
111
The natural flood attenuation functions of wetlands, floodplains and floodways are protected and
severe flooding is reduced to help prevent damage to life, property and public safety.
Policies
4.9.1 Restrict or prohibit development that could create a danger to health, safety and
property due to potential flood hazards, by complying with federal regulations.
4.9.2 Minimize the alteration of natural surface water features that retain or carry
floodwaters (such as wetlands, natural flood plains and streams) and prevent land
alterations that would increase potential flooding.
4.9.3 Reduce flooding that adversely affects public health, safety and general welfare and
protect against flood damage through surface water and flood management projects.
4.9.4 Minimize adverse impacts to water resources by requiring the use of bioengineering
and natural solutions for bank stabilization or flood control projects, wherever feasible.
4.9.5 Require mitigation to reduce adverse environmental impacts from engineered flood
control measures on a case -by -case basis.
Goal 4.10
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
The levee system south of 1 -405 is constructed, maintained and certified to meet the accreditation
standards of the Federal Emergency Management Administration.
`J8: 1 "VJIK NIIIL..A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF "M 2013
111111
1 1 11111116111111
Policies
4.10.1
Coordinate with King County Flood Control District and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to inspect and maintain the City's levee system.
4.10.2 Restrict levee encroachments by adjacent property owners.
4.10.3 Continue to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop levee vegetation
policies that enhance habitat while at the same time protecting public safety.
4.10.4 Coordinate with the City of Kent on flood control projects that affect both jurisdictions.
FLOOD CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
• Regulate uses, development and redevelopment, including essential
facilities, in flood plains consistent with federal regulations.
• Prevent cumulative effects of obstructions in a flood zone by restricting
development and other actions to zero increase in flood elevation.
• Require flood - proofing or elevation of structures above the
base flood elevation when built in a flood zone.
• Encourage the use of LID for surface water management for new
development or redevelopment, where appropriate.
• Prohibit placement of structures or fill in the floodplain that would cause
an increase in the elevation of the "zero rise" floodway.
• Increase City staff expertise in bioengineering techniques for bank stabilization.
• Participate in county -wide flood control meetings sponsored by King County Flood Control
District, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other applicable organizations.
7 "VJIK NIIIL..A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPIL..AIW Vyll'pll'1A "'V "'Il': II''1: UVyIIVII': 14, 2013
59
111111
III 1111111111111111
G AIII�������,5 �►I
Goal 4.11
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
III
c
111111111 S
111111111 111111
111°"x"11
III » » »I III°"
ES
U
ES
Potential impacts and liabilities associated with development in areas of potential geologic
instability and coal mine hazard areas are minimized, erosion is prevented and natural surface
water features are protected from loss, disruption or channelization.
Policies
4.11.1 Require geotechnical studies for any development proposal on slopes over 15%
to ensure that design takes into account geologic characteristics, surface and
groundwater, and the presence of trees and native vegetation and their role in slope
stabilization.
4.11.2 In geologically hazardous areas, require areas where vegetation must remain
undisturbed, land disturbance minimized and cut and fill construction limited to protect
slope stability on sites cleared for development. Require significant replanting and
maintenance upon completion of development.
4.11.3 Require setbacks for buildings and other infrastructure where needed from the top
and /or toe of steep slopes to reduce risks of slope failure and risks to public safety.
4.11.4 Require the use of erosion control measures, and where warranted, written erosion
and sediment control plans to minimize erosion during and after construction activities
on steep slopes or other erosion -prone areas.
4.11.5 Incorporate information from geotechnical reports and documented landslide and
erosion -prone areas into the City's GIS data.
4.11.6 Ensure that proposed development projects in mapped coal mine hazard areas
adequately consider and mitigate for possible risks.
60 7 "VJIKWIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFIWSIIVIF IPII...AIW VyIIp11)AVII II'1 UVyIIVII; 14, 2013
111
1 1 11111116111111
EARTH RESOURCES IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
• Modify requirements for geotechnical evaluations under the Sensitive Areas
Regulations to expand the assessment of trees' function in slope stability.
• Review and consider revising the SAO definition of steep slopes.
• Ensure that erosion control plans are adequate and that erosion control measures are
implemented through inspections conducted as part of land clearing permits and NPDES permits.
• Update the City's GIS system to reflect data submitted in geotechnical studies.
Goal 4.12
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
c
AI
F
ES"
IlY
Trees are recognized by Tukwila citizens, businesses, City staff and decision - makers for their
benefits to the environment, urban infrastructure and their aesthetic value.
Policies
4.12.1 Develop a formal urban forest management plan to promote and guide preservation,
restoration and maintenance of a sustainable urban forest, using the goals and
policies of this chapter (as a basis) for guidance.
4.12.2 Ensure that the benefits of trees are factored into site design and permit decisions.
4.12.3 Ensure that regulations recognize that larger trees provide more benefits than small
trees.
4.12.4 Seek to create and fund an urban forester /municipal arborist position within the City,
or contract for such services, to provide expertise for urban forest management
planning, oversight of tree planting and maintenance, and assistance to all City
departments that have responsibilities for tree management.
7 "VJIK NIIIL..A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPII...AIW Vyll'pll'1A "'V "'Il': II''1: UVyIIVII': 14, 2013
61
111111
1111111111111111111
4.12.5 Educate the public, elected officials and City staff about the importance of and
benefits provided by trees in Tukwila.
4.12.6 Develop tree valuation methods to reflect the value trees provide, for use in assessing
fines, determining damages or estimating loss of tree benefits.
4.12.7 Identify funding sources to support urban forestry planning and management and
establish an urban forestry budget and account.
4.12.8 Consider developing an "exceptional" or "heritage" tree program to foster tree
appreciation in the community.
4.12.9 Encourage public involvement in urban forest stewardship through volunteer events,
free training workshops, and other means.
Goal 4.13
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Overall city -wide tree canopy for the zoning categories indicated below has increased to a total of
29% by 2034 by achieving the following City -wide goals for different land use categories:
Goals for Increasing Canopy
Light Industrial zones: 3% increase from 20% to achieve 23% cover
Heavy Industrial zones: 1% increase from 9% to achieve 10% cover
Tukwila Urban Center and Tukwila South: 5% increase from 13 %to achieve 18% cover
Office and Commercial: 3% increase from 29 %to achieve 32% cover
Parks: 5% increase from 38% to achieve 43% cover
Public Rights- of -Way:1 increase canopy coverage through street tree planting. Specific
canopy goal to be established based on future assessment.
1 Note: Some public rights -of -way (such as WSDOT's) are not included in the total city -wide canopy calculation. Rights -of -way
adjacent to public streets (i.e., where street trees would be planted) are included in each zoning category.
62 7 "VJIKWIIII...A COMIPIRIFIHIIENSIIVIF IPII...AIW UyIIp11)AU II II'1 JUUINIII; 14, 2013
111111
1 1 11111116111111
Goals for No Net Loss of Canopy
Low Density Residential: Maintain current City -wide canopy coverage of 47%
Medium and High Density Residential: Maintain current City -wide coverage of 40%
Policies
4.13.1
Promote tree retention throughout the City by:
a. implementing educational programs for property owners and managers regarding
tree selection and care, applicable regulations, selecting a qualified arborist, and
other issues;
b. except for hazard trees, prohibiting removal of any tree four inches or larger in
diameter at breast height (dbh) on all undeveloped property without an approved
development or other land use permit;
c. promoting the mutual goals of tree protection and urban development through the
implementation of incentive programs and flexible site development regulations,
especially to retain tree groves; and
d. requiring financial assurances for required tree replanting and maintenance.
4.13.2 Improve retention of trees on steep slopes through modifications in regulations, by
requiring the evaluation of the role that trees play in slope stability during geotechnical
reviews, and by providing incentives for tree retention.
4.13.3 Continue to protect trees in sensitive areas and the shoreline through relevant
regulations.
4.13.4 Ensure that required replacement trees at maturity will have equivalent or larger
canopies than the removed tree(s), except where existing or future infrastructure
impedes the planting of large trees.
7 "VJIK NIIIL..A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPIL..AIW Vyll'pll'1A "'V "'Il': II''1: UVyIIVII': 14, 2013
63
III 1111111111111111
4.13.5 Develop mechanisms for protecting tree roots for public and private surface and
underground infrastructure installation, including in some cases, requiring the
presence of a certified arborist when working in the critical root zone; replacement of
trees where damage is unavoidable; and either requiring replanting or payment into
a tree replacement fund as compensation if planting on -site is not feasible. Establish
reasonable procedures to ensure consideration of tree root protection during routine
or emergency maintenance of existing utilities and provide training to City and other
public utility maintenance staff on root protection techniques.
4.13.6 Establish criteria for requiring professional assessment and corrective actions by
property owners who damage code - required landscaping, street trees, or other
required trees by topping, poor pruning practices, or root disturbance.
4.13.7 Where trees are regulated and required replacement trees cannot be accommodated
on a site, establish procedures for off -site planting of replacement trees or payment
into a dedicated tree replacement fund.
4.13.8 Develop tree planting and urban forest rehabilitation programs for City parks and
other publicly owned lands. Collaborate with other agencies, such as Washington
Department of Transportation, to promote planting in highway interchanges and other
locations.
4.13.9 Collaborate with other government, non - profit organizations and private sector entities
to promote urban forest management and restoration.
4.13.10
Provide flexibility in the landscape code to promote increased tree planting and /or
planting of large canopy trees, and reward the preservation of existing healthy trees
to assist in meeting the City's canopy goals.
4.13.11 Evaluate current parking lot landscape requirements to identify opportunities to
increase tree canopy.
64: T COMPREHENSIVE IPII...AIW "M 2013
111111
I111111116111111
Goal 4.14
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Tukwila's streetscapes and landscaped areas are sustainable and attractive, and its urban forest is
healthy, diverse, and safe.
Policies
4.14.1 Develop tree /urban forest inventories and assess the health of trees and forests in
Tukwila's public spaces.
4.14.2 Develop maintenance plans and programs for trees on City property or rights -of -way
to ensure that maintenance pruning is properly carried out, that diseases and pest
infestations are managed, that hazardous trees are identified and managed in a timely
manner to reduce risks, and that invasive vegetation is properly managed.
4.14.3 Modify landscape code and educate property owners, property managers, landscape
maintenance companies and tree companies to promote best practices for soil
preparation, planting techniques, pruning, trenching, and general tree care.
4.14.4 Ensure that landscaping and replacement trees in new development or re-
development are properly cared for and thrive in perpetuity , through such means as
maintenance agreements, monitoring and enforcement.
4.14.5 Develop a mechanism to ensure that tree removal and maintenance companies have
the necessary qualifications and liability insurance to work in Tukwila.
4.14.6 Modify landscape code to require diversity of tree species in landscape plantings and
consideration of species already present in the vicinity.
4.14.7 Establish minimum standards and landscape specifications to ensure long -term tree
health for street trees, required landscape trees and required replacement trees,
7 "VJIK NIIIL..A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPII...AIW Vyll'pll'1A "'V "'Il': II''1: UVyIIVII': 14, 2013
65
III 1111111111111111
including: minimum soil volume, soil quality, plant quality, planting techniques,
irrigation, mulching, tree pruning, and prohibition of topping.
4.14.8 Develop an approved or recommended tree list for street trees, landscape perimeter
planting and parking lots that takes into account the importance of species diversity,
available planting space and infrastructure conflicts, climate conditions, canopy
coverage goals, allergy issues, urban wildlife benefits, and tolerance of urban
conditions.
URBAN FORESTRY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
• Prepare and publish technical specifications for landscape professionals and
landscape contractors reflecting best management practices /standards for achieving
adequate soil conditions, plant quality specifications, proper planting techniques,
proper mulch placement, tree care and pruning and other relevant information.
• Prepare and make available technical guidance for homeowners on tree selection, planting,
care, pruning, selecting a good arborist, identifying and controlling invasive plants.
• Conduct volunteer activities in parks and other public areas to help carry out urban forest
restoration plans to remove invasive plants and plant native trees and other vegetation.
• Create "Adopt -an- Urban - Forest," "Ivy Removal Team" or similar programs
to actively remove invasive plants and promote ongoing stewardship
of urban forests in the City's parks and other public areas.
• Add an urban forestry page to the City's web site that contains information about programs,
regulations, technical guidance, how to find a certified arborist and other relevant issues.
• Expand the annual Arbor Day celebration to widen public participation;
• Evaluate other jurisdiction's heritage tree programs and reach out to business and
resident community to determine interest in a heritage tree program in Tukwila.
• Develop mechanisms for monitoring tree canopy growth, removal and replacement, in
addition to periodic tree canopy assessments using GIS and remote sensing methods;
66 1 "VJIKWIIII...A
COMPREHENSIVE IPII...AIW U 'M 2013
111111
1 1 11111116111111
• Review and amend, as necessary, SAO and Shoreline regulations to ensure
consideration of tree retention, particularly in steep slope areas.
• Provide ongoing training for City staff from all departments on tree selection,
site preparation, proper planting techniques, and protection of tree roots
during construction activities, proper pruning, and general tree care.
• Prepare and publish technical specifications manuals for utility companies
and City staff to identify techniques to protect tree roots during installation
of public and private surface and underground infrastructure.
• Revise City regulations to allow assessment of fines or requirement of
financial guarantees in the enforcement of corrective actions.
• Prepare an urban forest inventory for publically owned trees in the City.
• Notify property owners about applicable tree regulations via inclusion of fliers
in storm water utility bill, direct mailings, and media announcements.
• Improve the frequency of landscape and tree replacement inspections and increase enforcement.
• Develop street tree plans for various parts of the City, taking into account
the need for diversity for tree health and urban design issues.
• Modify landscape, tree and right -of -way vegetation regulations, including
consideration of a point system for landscape requirements, clarification of
responsibilities for trees on City ROW, identifying incentive programs, and
allowing for fines based on the value of trees damaged or removed.
7 "VJIK NIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPII...AIW Vyll'pll'1A "'V "'Il': II''1: UVyIIVII': 14, 2013
67
68
41111111
CITY OF TUKWILA
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER REGULATORY
BACKGROUND REPORT
2015 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT
UPDATE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Planning Commission Draft
June 2013
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Background Regulatory Report Juno 19 2013 rJ. 1
69
X1111111
Table of Contents
I INTRODUCTION 3
II SENSITIVE AREAS 3
Growth Management Act Requirements 3
State and Federal Regulations and Guidance for Wetlands 4
King County Planning Policies 5
III ENDANGERED SPECIES AND PRIORITY HABITATS 5
IV FLOOD MANAGEMENT 6
V WATER QUALITY 6
VI AIR QUALITY 8
VII TREES /URBAN FORESTRY REGULATIONS 8
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Background Regulatory Report Juno 13 2013
70
X1111111
0
This background report for the Natural Environment Element provides a summary of the key regulatory
provisions and policies that apply to the management of the natural environment and expands on the
discussion of water quality in the Green /Duwamish River, and Tukwila's streams and wetlands.
s
u
A
This Section describes the various regulations and policies that are applicable to critical areas
management.
III wt
P
Via Vladoia ernC idt Act.
e UIIIIII'O11111C 1l'tS
The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires counties and cities to designate and
adopt policies and development regulations to protect critical (sensitive) areas. Under the Act, critical
areas are defined as: wetlands; fish and wildlife habitat; aquifer recharge areas (where groundwater is
used for potable water supply); frequently flooded areas; and geologically hazardous areas. The
application of best available science (BAS) must be considered in adopting regulations to protect the
functions of critical areas, giving special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary
to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries.
The Natural Environment Chapter provides the policy direction for the City's Sensitive Areas Regulations,
originally adopted in June 1991 and amended in 2004 and 2010. It also provides the basis for the
sensitive areas regulations that form part of the Shoreline Master Program.
Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations are designed to protect, and require compensation for, unavoidable
impacts to wetlands, watercourses, and fish and wildlife habitat areas. The approximate locations and
classifications of these sensitive areas have been established in a Sensitive Areas map (including
sensitive areas in the shoreline jurisdiction), and are updated as detailed delineation and classification is
obtained.
Under all of the Sensitive Areas regulations, Tukwila's wetlands have been defined using the State
definition [RCW 36.7OA.O3O(21)] and Tukwila's watercourse classifications are consistent with
the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)'s stream typing system. Tukwila has
designated and protected several fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas — including Tukwila Pond
and several restored habitat areas on the Duwamish River (designated under the Shoreline Master
Program). The designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are publicly owned and managed
and those in the shoreline jurisdiction have been especially developed for salmonid rearing and resting
habitat.
Tukwila's sensitive areas regulations also define and map geologically hazardous areas and coal mine
hazard areas, and require geotechnical evaluations and corresponding design requirements to reduce
risks created by development in such areas.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Background Regulatory Report Juno 19 2013
71
X1111111
Watercourses and wetlands form part of the City's surface water drainage system and provide important
flood storage and conveyance functions, and are therefore protected under the Sensitive Area
regulations. However, flood management issues on the Green /Duwamish River are dealt with under
different regulations and procedures (as described in Section IV). Frequently flooded areas associated
with streams are dealt with through the City's Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan and
individual basin plans, which identify problem flooding areas and prioritize action for managing them.
Tukwila does not have aquifers that are used for water supply, therefore, this type of GMA critical area, is
not addressed in this Element.
The Growth Management Act also requires the protection of resource lands - those lands that have "long-
term commercial significance" for agriculture, fisheries, timber production and mineral extraction. Since
Tukwila does not have lands used by resource -based industries, goals and policies for these types of
lands are intentionally absent from this chapter. Although agricultural activity was practiced until recently
in the newly annexed Tukwila South area, the area is being developed for urban uses, and agricultural
activity has ceased.
The Growth Management Act allows the use of non - regulatory measures to protect or enhance functions
and values of critical areas. These may include public education, stewardship programs, pursuing grant
opportunities, joint planning with other jurisdictions and non - profit organizations, and stream and wetland
restoration activities. Tukwila has been employing all of these measures and the updated Chapter
contains goals and policies addressing them.
State 8111PC'
.00
Mora
0U
8d<:III
lis aIIIic
.imll'
8111icc
or VV(M:
81111(
s
Most wetlands and watercourses are regulated under the federal Clean Water Act, and both the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) have regulations
related to their management. Permits for filling or dredging "waters of the US" are required by the Corps
of Engineers and EPA and the Washington Department of Ecology (Section 401 of the Clean Water Act)
have review authority over permits and can require additional conditions on the permit. Compensatory
mitigation is also required for impacts.
In 2004 the Department of Ecology, Corps and EPA published Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State, based on BAS, to guide local jurisdictions' decisions on wetland management and
mitigation. Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance was updated in 2010 to incorporate the new policies in
this guidance. One of the key modifications in Tukwila's regulations was the adoption of state and federal
methods used to classify wetlands, which are based on wetland functions. Another key modification was
the adoption of mitigation ratios consistent with the guidance, which vary based on the classification of
the wetlands and the type of mitigation proposed, requiring a greater amount of mitigation for impacts to
higher functioning wetlands. Monitoring and maintenance periods for installed mitigation were also
increased to better ensure its success.
In May of 2010, the US Army Corps of Engineers issued a regional supplement to its Wetlands
Delineation Manual, which modified the delineation process. Tukwila's Sensitive Areas regulations
require use of these federal requirements for wetland delineations.
In 2008, the Corps and EPA issued a revision to rules (33CFR Part 332) for compensatory mitigation for
impacts to water resources, which established standards and criteria for compensatory mitigation,
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Background Regulatory Report June 19, 2013 urJo 4
72
X1111111
defining the types, the methods and priorities for mitigation. The mitigation methods are established with
the following order of preference: mitigation banks, in -lieu fee programs, permittee responsible mitigation
using a watershed approach (taking into account the wetland's location and role in the landscape),
permittee responsible mitigation in- kind /on -site, and finally, permittee responsible mitigation off -site and
out -o -kind. Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Regulations are consistent with the types of mitigation but do not
currently reflect the priorities for the methods of mitigation. While off -site mitigation and mitigation at a
wetland mitigation bank are permitted under certain circumstances, where, the City's regulations do not
currently allow fee -in -lieu programs.
"<ln C.uuulnty C.uuulnty vviiic
0
3IIIPIIIPiiIIIP
vas
The update of this chapter is consistent with the King County Countywide Planning Policies related to
sensitive areas. The County policies state that local governments should incorporate environmental
protection and restoration efforts into their comprehensive plans to ensure that the quality of the natural
environment and its contributions to human health and vitality are sustained now and for future
generations. In addition, local governments should coordinate approaches and standards for defining
and protecting critical areas, especially where such areas and impacts to them cross jurisdictional
boundaries. Also, the County encourages basin -wide approaches to wetland protection, emphasizing
preservation and enhancement of the highest quality wetlands and wetland systems.
Tukwila's Sensitive Areas regulations are consistent with state and federal guidance, which favor
preservation of the highest quality wetlands. Tukwila's regulations also allow for a watershed approach to
wetland mitigation, by allowing off -site wetland mitigation where wetland functions would be significantly
increased over performing on -site mitigation at poor quality wetlands. The City has designated several
publicly -owned wetland systems where mitigation projects could increase wetland functions. In addition,
mitigation at a nearby mitigation bank (Springbrook Creek Mitigation Bank) developed by Washington
State Department of Transportation and the City of Renton, within the Green /Duwamish River watershed
just outside of the City's border, is allowed. This Chapter also contains policies for exploring use of or
establishment of in -lieu -fee programs for wetland mitigation.
) S
C
S A
0
The Federal government regulates endangered, threatened and sensitive wildlife species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Federal agencies involved in implementing the Act are the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFS). Marine mammals are
also protected under the Marine Mammal Act.
The Growth Management Act requires that the Comprehensive Plan contain policies guiding decisions
related to anadromous fisheries or fish and wildlife listed under the federal ESA. In Tukwila, Chinook
Salmon and Bull Trout in the Green /Duwamish River have been listed as threatened under the ESA.
Tukwila's Shoreline Master Program contains specific policies and regulations to protect these species
and ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological function. In addition, the Master Program includes a plan
to prioritize and direct restoration activities to promote ecological function and restore habitat for salmon
and other fish and wildlife along the river.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Background Regulatory Report Juno 19 2013
73
X1111111
Tukwila is a party to the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Salmon Habitat Enhancement Plan,
along with King County and other local jurisdictions in the watershed. This plan identifies programs and
restoration projects to foster recovery of Chinook salmon, which will also benefit bull trout and other fish.
Tukwila is actively supporting restoration activities under both this plan and the restoration plan adopted
as part of the Shoreline Master Program.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) identifies priority species (which include all
listed species under the ESA, as well as species of state significance) and maps their habitats, to provide
guidance to local jurisdictions in considering the impacts of proposed development and in protecting
them. WDFW also regulates any work in rivers or streams that requires a Hydraulics Permit Authorization
(HPA) and mitigation /restoration to reduce the impacts of the work.
New policies have been incorporated into the Natural Environment Chapter to ensure that all new
development consider potential impacts to fish and wildlife, identify if they are priority species, and ensure
that state and federal requirements are met. This Chapter is consistent with the King County planning
policies requiring an integrated and comprehensive approach to managing fish and wildlife habitat
conservation, especially, protecting endangered, threatened, and sensitive species and implementing
salmon habitat protection and restoration priorities under the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Enhancement Plan.
u
oo
VIA
Flood control is regulated and managed by several levels of government:
• The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps flood plains and operates the
National Flood Insurance Program. In Tukwila, this program covers the urban center, part of
Tukwila South, the light industrial area south of S. 180th and Fort Dent Park.
• The US Army Corps of Engineers permits, certifies and in some cases operates federally -
constructed levees for flood control. Tukwila has a federally certified levee on the left bank of the
Green River between SR -405 and South 190tH
• The King County Flood Control District is a special purpose government charged with funding,
policy development and construction projects to improve flood control structures throughout the
County. Tukwila contracts with the Flood Control District for levee maintenance services.
Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan includes goals, policies and implementation strategies that are
consistent with King County's policies related to flood management:
• The City has responsibility for localized flooding from streams. Flood control projects are
identified and prioritized in its Comprehensive Surface Water Plan and individual stream basin
plans.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Background Regulatory Report Juno '1; 2013 rJ
74
X1111111
V WA
CAA
The Washington Department of Ecology regulates municipal storm sewer systems under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Management Program. Tukwila
will be required to update its surface water regulations by 2016 to implement the requirements of the
municipal permit. Key features of the new regulations will include requirements to use Low Impact
Development techniques for managing urban surface water run -off from new development, utilizing best
management practices for turf and landscaped areas, and water quality monitoring.
The King County County -wide Planning Policies specify establishment of a multi - jurisdictional approach
for funding and monitoring water quality, quantity, biological conditions, and outcome measures and for
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of monitoring efforts. The Policies also seek to have all
jurisdictions collaborate to implement the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, under the
management of the Puget Sound Partnership, to restore and protect the biological health and diversity of
the Puget Sound basin. The Puget Sound Partnership was created by the Washington State Legislature
as the state agency with the responsibility for assuring the preservation and recovery of Puget Sound and
the freshwater systems flowing into the Sound. There are two strategic initiatives in the Puget Sound
Partnership's 2012/13 Action Agenda that apply to Tukwila: 1) prevent pollution from urban stormwater
runoff; and 2) protect and restore habitat along rivers and streams.
The City does not currently have an ongoing water quality monitoring program for the river or streams, nor
are surface water discharges monitored for quality. Some water quality monitoring has been done in the
past on the Green /Duwamish River and King County has a current monitoring program with a station at
Fort Dent in Tukwila. The river is considered by regulatory agencies to be impaired for water quality for
several contaminants: dissolved oxygen (too low to support fish in some areas), temperature (too high in
much of the Lower Green and upper Duwamish to support salmonids) and fecal coliform in some areas.
Water quality in Tukwila Pond was evaluated by the City over a 1 year period in 2009 and 2010. The
pond suffers from high levels of phosphorus, high water temperatures and low levels of dissolved oxygen,
much of it related to stormwater runoff that flows into the pond, natural inputs of phosphorous (decayed
vegetation and waterfowl feces) and the shallowness of the pond. These factors work together to
produce unsightly algae blooms in the late summer months. No potentially toxic blue -green algae blooms
have been observed to date.
Some periodic water quality monitoring has been done in Tukwila's streams. Past monitoring in Gilliam
Creek showed elevated turbidity during storm events and high levels of copper and zinc. Riverton Creek
has exhibited high levels of fecal coliform bacteria, phosphorus, turbidity, total suspended solids, and
copper. High turbidity and fecal coliform have also been measured in Southgate Creek. High
phosphorus and fecal coliform were also measured in Johnson Creek, possibly due to the agricultural
activities in the vicinity at the time the water samples were collected.
This Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the strategies of the Countywide policies and the Puget
Sound Action Agenda, as it contains goals, policies, and implementation strategies for improving surface
water quality, monitoring water quality and restoring riparian habitat. In addition, the 2010 update of
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Background Regulatory Report Juno 19 2013
75
X1111111
Tukwila's Sensitive Areas regulations strengthened requirements for protecting and restoring
watercourses and their buffers. The Shoreline Chapter also has policies for no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions and restoration of riparian habitat on the Green /Duwamish River.
u
A
CAA
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency regulates emissions and monitors air quality in King and other Puget
Sound counties. This agency focuses its efforts on reducing air pollutants that pose the greatest health
risks to our region — which include criteria air pollutants, air toxics and greenhouse gases. It requires
permits from businesses with air emissions and from construction projects and regulates open burning
and burning in fireplaces and wood stoves. Emissions from vehicles is monitored and controlled by the
State Department of Ecology. The agency also has growth management policies for promoting clean air
that relate to promoting development policies that improve air quality and address climate change.
King County also has several county -wide policies related to air quality and climate change including
policies for reducing green -house gases, directing development to existing urban centers and facilitating
modes of transportation other than single- occupancy vehicles.
The City has a role in improving air quality through the environmental review process for new
development projects. It also manages a commute trip reduction program for businesses, which indirectly
contributes to improving air quality by reducing the number of vehicle trips. Further the City can
implement energy efficiency strategies in its buildings and City vehicles. These air - quality and climate
change issues are addressed in the transportation, land use, and utilities chapters of the Comprehensive
Plan.
u
=S1
3A
A
0
\Js
In 2008 the State Legislature passed the Evergreen Communities Act, which requires that local
jurisdictions develop urban forestry management programs in order to be eligible for state funding and
provides technical assistance to local communities in developing and implementing the plans. The Act is
not currently in force, because no funding was appropriated to carry it out, however the requirements may
be enforced in the future.
The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), through its Urban Forestry Program, provides
education, technical assistance and some funding to local jurisdictions for urban forestry management.
Funding supports such efforts as tree inventories, urban canopy studies, urban forestry plans, and on -the-
ground projects. If the Evergreen Communities Act were implemented in the future, DNR would have an
important technical role in assisting communities in complying with its requirements.
Planning and management of the urban forest in Tukwila is a shared responsibility between the
Department of Community Development (tree removal permits, sensitive areas protection, shoreline
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Background Regulatory Report Juno 19 2013
76
X1111111
vegetation protection and restoration), Parks and Recreation (trees in parks), Public Works (trees on
public rights -of -way), and property owners (trees on private property).
Tukwila has been a "Tree City, USA ", certified by the National Arbor Day Foundation, since 2002 and has
tree protection and replacement regulations for both sensitive areas and the Green /Duwamish River
shoreline. Tukwila's landscape code also requires tree planting for most new development.
New goals and policies are included in the Natural Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to
formalize and augment Tukwila's current tree management efforts.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Background Regulatory Report Juno 13 2013
77
78
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggertou, Mayor
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
STAFF REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared June 12, 2013
HEARING DATE: June 27, 2013
FILE NUMBERS: L12 -049 — 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila
REQU EST:
2015 Comprehensive Plan Update —The Planning Commission will hold
a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Natural Environment
Chapter. This is part of the periodic review and update of the
Comprehensive Plan required by the Washington Growth Management
Act per the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 36.70A.130.
LOCATION: Goals and policies apply throughout the City of Tukwila
NOTIFICATION Hearing Notice was published in the Seattle Times on June 13, 2013, and
posted on the City of Tukwila website on June 13, 2013.
SEPA DETERMINATION:
Addendum to L92 -0053, Final EIS for the 1995 Tukwila Comprehensive
Plan, addressing 2015 Update to the Comprehensive Plan (E13 -004)
issued March 27, 2013
STAFF: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner; Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proposed Natural Environment Chapter, formatted
B. Proposed Natural Environment Chapter, strike - out /underline version
C. Natural Environment Regulatory Background Report
D. Tukwila Urban Canopy Study, Executive Summary
RF Page 1 of 5 06/19/2013
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
79
REVIEW PROCESS TO DATE
Planning Commission is continuing its phased review of the Comprehensive Plan in order to complete
the periodic update that the Washington Growth Management Act requires by the June 30, 2015
deadline.
In order to assist the City with the update of the Natural Environment Chapter, a citizen advisory
committee, the Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee, was created by City Council
Resolution1767 on May 21, 2012. The Committee was made up of one City Council member, one
Planning Commission member, one Parks Commission member, two representatives from local
businesses, one representative of an environmental group, one landscape professional, and two citizen
at -large members. It began meeting in September of 2012 and completed its work in May of 2013,
culminating in revised and new goals and policies and a presentation to a joint meeting of the Planning
Commission and the City Council to present the recommendations.
During a work session on June 24, 2013, the Planning Commission heard presentations from staff and
the Advisory Committee. A public hearing is scheduled for June 27, 2013.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER BACKGROUND:
The Growth Management Act requires consideration of the natural environment in all Comprehensive
Plans. Specifically the Act requires policies to protect and enhance sensitive areas: wetlands,
watercourses, fish and wildlife habitat; flood prone areas, and areas of geologic instability (including
abandoned mines). Air quality and water quality sections are also included in the Chapter to address
King County County -wide planning policies. A new section — trees and urban forestry — and a new policy
related to climate change are also included because of their importance to the natural environment.
Urban forestry is also addressed to anticipate compliance with the Evergreen Communities Act,
approved by the Washington State Legislature in 2008. This Act requires local jurisdictions to develop
urban forestry management plans in order to be eligible for state funding and provides for technical
assistance to local communities in developing and implementing the plans. No funding was provided by
the Legislature to implement the Act, so the requirements are not currently in force.
KEY ISSUES:
There are several key issues that are addressed in the Natural Environment Chapter that reflect new
community priorities and respond to new regulations and policies at the local, regional, state and
federal levels.
Environmental Quality, Community Education and Environmental Stewardship. In order to
foster best practices for protecting Tukwila's environmental quality, improve the protection and
restoration of the City's sensitive areas and fish and wildlife habitat and improvement of air and
water quality, the City needs to provide information and education to the community in various
forms. In addition the City should continue and expand efforts, in collaboration with other
organizations and businesses, to engage the community through hands on environmental
stewardship and restoration activities. Policies regarding the protection of fish and wildlife and
climate change are also important to incorporate into the Natural Environment Chapter.
Sensitive Areas. Although Tukwila enacted significant revisions to its Sensitive Areas regulations
in 2004 and again in 2010, new policies are needed to reflect the most current best available
SW /CL Page 2 of 5 06/19/2013
Z:ADCD n Clerk's \Carol\Natural Environment Element Materials\PC NE STAFF REPORT 6- 10.docx
80
science information and new federal and state regulations and guidelines. Tukwila also needs to
improve the protection of watercourses and find mechanisms to ensure that compensatory
mitigation is successful for the long term.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat. The listing of Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout under the
Endangered Species Act has underscored the need for the City to protect and restore habitat for
fish and other wildlife. New policies, continued efforts, and new sources of funding are needed to
carry out restoration of habitat on the Green /Duwamish River and its tributaries. The City must
continue to be actively involved in shaping policies and programs and helping to implement the
Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Salmon Habitat Enhancement Plan "Fit for a King ", in
collaboration with other local jurisdictions and County, State and Federal government agencies.
Water Quality. More efforts are needed to improve and protect water quality in the City's
wetlands, watercourses and the Green /Duwamish River. Programs for monitoring water quality,
retrofitting surface water management systems where there are water quality problems and,
improving riparian buffers are important actions for the City to carry out.
Surface Water Management. With new State requirements for the management of surface water
effective in Tukwila in 2016, the City must modify its surface water regulations and begin
implementing and requiring low impact development techniques for surface water system
retrofits and for new development.
Flood Management. Because the City has levees along parts of the Green - Duwamish River to
reduce flood potential, it is necessary for the City to coordinate with County and federal officials,
and neighboring local jurisdictions on maintenance and rebuilding of the levees, and ensuring that
federal certification is continued, where applicable. Also, due to the listing of Chinook salmon
under the Endangered Species Act, and Corps of Engineers policies restricting vegetation on
levees, the City needs to be involved in efforts to achieve good riparian conditions, while not
compromising the integrity of levees or losing federal certification.
Earth Resources. The definition of steep slopes should be clarified and new policies are needed to
require setbacks and better protect trees on steep slopes.
Trees and the Urban Forest. Because trees provide important environmental, economic and
aesthetic benefits to urban areas, the City needs to recognize the value of the urban forest and
establish policies and programs to protect and enhance it. Because of new surface water
management requirements and the implications of climate change, trees become even more
crucial in providing a sustainable urban environment. Tukwila needs to plan for a healthy urban
forest, including establishing improved policies for protecting trees, increasing tree canopy, and
ensuring sufficient resources to properly maintain trees to improve tree health and reduce
potential hazards to the public. This Chapter provides new goals and policies to address these
issues.
PROPOSED POLICIES:
The Chapter has been reorganized and expanded. The proposed goals and policies address updates of
the Sensitive Areas regulations, adopted since the last Comprehensive Plan update. In addition, the
proposed goals and policies reflect new state and federal regulations related to sensitive areas, surface
SW /CL Page 3 of 5 06/19/2013
Z:ADCD n Clerk's \Carol\Natural Environment Element Materials\PC NE STAFF REPORT 6- 10.docx
81
water management, fish and wildlife, and flood management. Because of the significant environmental,
social and economic benefits of trees for urban areas, a new set of urban forest goals and policies has
been proposed for this chapter. A study to assess the urban forest canopy, completed by the City in
2012, forms a baseline for setting new canopy goals, which, in turn drive proposed policies to retain and
improve canopy coverage. The proposed policies also address urban forestry management issues, and
the health of the urban forest. These goals and policies expand on an urban forest policy that was
formerly found in the Community Image Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (Policy 1.10.12).
Surface water management and flood management goals and policies from the Utilities Element have
been moved into this Chapter, as they relate more to the topic areas of the Natural Environment.
Archaeological and Palentological Resources goals and policies, with some modifications, have been
moved from this chapter into the Community Vision Chapter. Other policies have been proposed to be
consistent with Countywide Planning Policies and state requirements.
Key proposed policies include:
a. Environmental Quality and Stewardship:
• Consideration of climate change in planning
• Wildlife protection and education policies
• Programs to promote environmental stewardship
b. Water Resources:
• Actions for restoration of sensitive areas and fish and wildlife habitat
• Prohibiting new fish barriers and promoting removal of barriers
• Improving the effectiveness of sensitive area mitigation
• Consideration of fee -in -lieu programs for wetland mitigation
• Provision of sensitive areas management technical assistance to businesses and residential
citizens
• Protecting sensitive area hydrology when development occurs
• Increasing public education about protecting water quality
• Improvement of water quality monitoring
• Continuation and improvement of flood control actions
• Promoting use of low impact development techniques
c. Earth Resources
• Protection against erosion
• Consideration of the role of trees in slope stability; require areas where vegetation must
remain undisturbed
• Requirement of setbacks from top and /or toe of slope
d. Urban Forestry
• Creation of an urban forester /municipal arborist position or consultant contract that
would serve all City Departments and could assist the public
• Development of a comprehensive urban forestry plan
• Adoption of new standards and production of guidance manuals on tree selection, care,
and protection
• Development of programs to educate the general public, businesses, developers and
programs to involve the community in stewardship of the urban forest
SW /CL Page 4 of 5 06/19/2013
Z:ADCD n Clerk's \Carol\Natural Environment Element Materials\PC NE STAFF REPORT 6- 10.docx
82
• Establishment of tree canopy goals for different land use categories
• Prohibiting removal of trees, except for hazardous trees, on undeveloped parcels without
an approved permit;
• Incorporating more flexibility into the landscape code, and providing incentives for tree
retention or additional plantings while improving tree canopy
• Improving tools for enforcement when required trees are removed or damaged
MATERIALS AND FORMAT
The packet contains the following materials, which are intended to provide background and encourage
discussion:
1. A "clean," newly- formatted, version of the proposed Natural Environment Chapter
recommended by the Tukwila Tree and Environment Committee. This version reflects the
proposed appearance of the updated Comprehensive Plan.
2. A complete strikeout /underline version of the proposed chapter with all language that has been
added to and /or deleted from the current Natural Environment chapter. This version indicates
the rationale for proposed changes, and lets the reader follow the revision process.
3. Background materials that provide additional supporting information for the element and
policies.
a. The "Background Report on Regulations for the Natural Environment Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan Update" (June 2013).
b. Executive Summary from the Tukwila Urban Tree Canopy Assessment (Davey Resource
Group (December 2012). The complete report is available
at http:// www. tukwilawa .gov /dcd /treepolicy.html. The report is included with the
materials for the March 13, 2013Advisory Committee meeting.
REQUESTED ACTION
The Planning Commission is asked to hold a hearing on the proposed changes to the Natural
Environment Chapter, develop a recommended version and forward it to the City Council for final
action.
SW /CL Page 5 of 5 06/19/2013
Z:ADCD n Clerk's \Carol\Natural Environment Element Materials\PC NE STAFF REPORT 6- 10.docx
83
84
'arm° �
„ *•,r;
.. . r
i
4.'
1"014 ok
ii0hvit4 (1
I•
ft0" .:
ti
1rt
City of
Tukwila
Washington
Urban
Tree
Canopy
Assessment
December, 2012
DAVE'V4
RESOURCE DPIP
nK aw
♦n.
85
86
City of Tukwila, Washington
Urban Tree Cano py Assessment
September, 2012
Prepared for:
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Prepared by:
Davey Resource Group
A Division of The Davey Tree Expert Company
7627 Morro Road
Atascadero, California 93422
Phone: 805- 461 -7500
Toll Free: 800 - 966 -2021
Fax: 805- 461 -8501
www.davey.com/drg
Acknowledgements
This project was made possible by a grant from the Washington State Department
of Natural Resources Urban and Community Forestry Program
(www.dnr.wa.gov/urbanforestry).
87
Executive Summary
Trees and urban forests are vital to the health and sustainability of any community. Located in
the lushly forested Pacific Northwest, Tukwila recognizes the benefits of trees and the value of
urban tree canopy. While trees have been long appreciated for their contributions of shade and
beauty to our landscapes, science and technology have now made it possible to quantify the
environmental benefits to energy savings, cleaner air and water, carbon dioxide reduction,
property values, and socio - economics. The Center for Urban Forest Research (CUFR) estimates
that over a 40 -year period 100 urban trees in the Pacific Northwest provide $202,000 in benefits
(Trees in Our City).
Tukwila has been a Tree City, USA for over ten years, developing many programs to restore and
maintain the community forest, including sensitive areas restoration, planting trees in parks, and
street tree planting, among others. These activities show that the City of Tukwila has made a
commitment to protect and manage the community's tree resources. As a part of this
commitment, and as preparation for updating the City's Comprehensive Plan to improve urban
forest management, the City contracted with Davey Resource Group in June 2012 to carry out an
urban tree canopy assessment. The purpose of the assessment is to quantify and map existing
urban tree canopy as well as impervious surface, open water, pervious surface, and bare soil.
To accomplish this, high - resolution aerial imagery and infrared technology was used to remotely
map tree canopy and land cover over the city limits. The results of the study provide a clear
picture of the extent and distribution of urban tree canopy over the Tukwila area. The data
developed during the assessment will become an important part of the City's GIS database and
provides a foundation for developing community goals and urban forest policies. The primary
purpose of the assessment was to establish a benchmark value to measure the success of long-
term management strategies over time.
The assessment determined that Tukwila has a current overall average tree canopy cover of 25 %,
and impervious surface of 51% (Table 1). This may be influenced by the fact that, unlike many
communities, Tukwila features more acres of commercial and industrial zoned land than
residential areas. While these businesses are vital to the economic well -being and sustainability
of the community, commercial and industrial zones are simply less conducive to developing and
maintaining tree canopy than residential zones. The residential zones host a range of 33% - 51%
canopy across 1,869 acres, while the industrial and commercial zones have a range of 9% - 49%
canopy across 2,780 acres.
Land Cover Class
Acres
Canopy
Impervious
Pervious 1,131.67
Bare Soil 1,07.6
Open Water 299.21
Total 6,396.11
1,615.77
3,241.86
Table 1— Percent Land Cover Class Citywide
Tukwila, WA
Urban Tree Canopy Assessment iii
88
Tukwila Tree and Environment Policies Page 1 of 4
Search the City website
Tukwila-
Tukwila Tree and Environment Policies
Citizen and Business Input Needed on Tukwila Tree and Environment Policies
The City of Tukwila is gearing up to review land use policies that relate to the natural environment and trees in the community and the
role they play in our environment.
The Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee has been appointed to assist the City as it begins its review of these policies.
The committee is made up of two business representatives, two residents, a landscaping professional, a Backyard Wildlife
organization member, and a member of the City Council, Planning Commission and Parks Commission. The Advisory Committee will
meet monthly. Beginning in March, 2013, the Committee will meet on the second Wednesday of the month, from 5:30 — 7:30
p.m. The meetings will be held in Conference Room 2, located in the 6300 Building, next to City Hall. The address is 6300
Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA, 98188.
A mailing list is being created to allow the City to get the word out about upcoming revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and
ordinances that address environmental and tree issues, such as when and where trees can be removed, tree protection during
development, landscaping requirements for development, restoring the forests in our parks, and proper tree care. If you have an
interest in the natural environment and trees, whether you own a business or live or work in Tukwila, and wish to have input on these
issues, send an email to Trees@TukwilaWa.Gov or call 206 -431 -3661.
Materials for the May 29, 2013 Meeting
• May 29. 2013 Meeting Agenda
• Draft Meeting Notes from May 8, 2013
• Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee Achievement Highlights
• Talking Points for Committee Members
• Audio from May 8.2013 Meeting - Part 1
• Audio from May 8. 2013 Meeting - Part 2
Materials for the May 8, 2013 Meeting
• May 8. 2013 Meeting Agenda
• May 8. 2013 Advisory Committee Meeting Memorandum
• Draft Meeting Notes from April 10. 2013
• Final Meeting Notes from March 13, 2013
• Tree Policy Issues - Daryl Tapio - March 13, 2013
• Alford Letter to the Committee
• Shumate Letter to the Committee
• Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies from 1/23/13 Meeting
• Proposed Goals /Policies for Urban Forestry For May 8, 2013 Meeting
http://www.tukwilawa.gov/dcd/treepolicv.html
89
06/14/201'3
Tukwila Tree and Environment Policies Page 2 of 4
• Audio from March 13. 2013 meeting
• Tapio e-mail to Committee - May 6, 2013
• Tapio Letter - RE: Comments on StaffComp Plan Amendment Proposal on Urban Forestry
Materials for the April 10, 2013 Meeting
• April 10. 2013 Meeting Agenda
• April 10. 2013 Advisory Committee Meeting Memorandum
• Draft Meeting Notes from March 13, 2013
• Summary of Current Regulations and Possible New Proposed Policies
• Staff Proposed Goals /Policies for Urban Forestry For April Meeting
• Trees. Parking and Green Law: Legal Tools and Strategies for Sustainability - Fact Sheet #15
• Trees. Parking and Green Law: Strategies for Sustainability
• City of Tukwila Landscaping and Street Tree Regulations, Plans, Policies
• Undeveloped Parcels Memo
Materials for the March 13, 2013 Meeting
• March 13. 2013 Meeting Agenda
• March 13, 2013 Advisory Committee Meeting Memorandum
• Draft Meeting Notes from February 27. 2013
• Audio from February 27. 2013 meeting
• City of Tacoma - Urban Forest Policy Element
• Protecting and Developing the Urban Tree Canopy
• Brooke Alford Presentation - Urban Forestry and Tree Regulations
• City of Tukwila Urban Tree Canopy Assessment - Dec. 2012
• Current Tukwila Tree Policies & Regulations
• City of Seattle Private Property Tree Regulations Update Director's Report
• Staff Proposed Goals / Policies for Urban Forestry
Materials for the February 27, 2013 Meeting
• February 27. 2013 Meetina Agenda
• February 27. 2013 Advisory Committee Meetina Memorandum
• Draft Meeting Notes from January 23, 2013
• Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies from 1/23/13 Meeting
• Resolution 1608
• Tukwila's SAO - TMC 18 - Presentation
90
httn://www.tulcwilawa.gov/dcd/treenolicv.html
06/1 4/2011
Tukwila Tree and Environment Policies Page 3 of 4
• Staff Report: Off-Site Wetland Mitigation Program for Tukwila
• Current Tukwila Tree Regulations Presentation
Materials for the January 23, 2013 Meeting
• January 23. 2013 Meeting Agenda
• January 23. 2013 Advisory Committee Meeting Memorandum
• Draft Meeting Notes from December 19. 2012
• Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies for 1/23/13 Meeting
Materials for the December 19, 2012 Meeting
• December 19, 2012 Meeting Agenda
• December 19, 2012 Advisory Committee Meeting Memorandum
• Draft Meeting Notes from November 28, 2012
• Chapter 4 revised proposed goals and policies
Materials for the November 28, 2012 Meeting
• November 28. 2012 Meeting Agenda
• November 28, 2012 Advisory Committee Meeting Memorandum
• Draft Meeting Notes from November 1, 2012
• Key Natural Environment Topic Areas
• Existing Natural Environment Goals
• Staff Proposed Topics and Goals
• Tukwila's SAO - TMC 18 - Presentation
Materials for the November 1, 2012 Meeting
• November 1.2012 Meeting Agenda
• November 1. 2012 Advisory Committee Meeting Memorandum
• Draft Meeting Notes from September 26, 2012
• Revised Meeting Schedule
• City Staff's Top Issues Related to Trees and Urban Forestry
• Urban Tree Canopy Assessment for Tukwila Presentation - Ian Scott
• Urban & Community Forestry Benefits Presentation
httn://www.tukwilawa.aov/dcd/treenolicv.html
91
06/1 4/7011
Tukwila Tree and Environment Policies Page 4 of 4
Materials for the September 26, 2012 Meeting
• September 26. 2012 Meeting Agenda
• September 26. 2012 Advisory Committee Meeting Memorandum
• Community Image: Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
• Natural Environment: Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
• Tukwila: A City of Trees and a Tree City USA
• TMC 18.45. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
• TMC 18.52. Landscape. Recreation. Recycling /Solid Waste Space Requirements
• TMC 18.54, Tree Regulations
Reading Materials
• The Benefits of Trees
• Trees are Good. But...
• The Case for More Urban Trees
• Primer on Tree Biology
92
httn://www.tukwilawa.gov/dcd/treenolicv.html
06/1 4/9.01 '3
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 24, 2012
TO: Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
FM: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner
Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist
RE: September 26, 2012 Advisory Committee Meeting
Hello everyone, and welcome to the Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee. I am
enclosing a copy of the agenda for our first meeting and some materials for your review. Please note
that the meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Room 2 of the Department of Community
Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd (the white building next to City Hall) and one of the items we will
discuss is revising the start and end time of future meetings. We are trying to accommodate everyone's
schedule and the desire on the part of many of you to start the meetings earlier, however, one Tree and
Environment Advisory Committee member is participating on the City's Strategic Plan Steering
Committee, with meeting times that overlap somewhat with ours (4 -6 p.m.) for the first couple months.
We have included a variety of readings for your review. One of the tasks of the Advisory Committee
will be to advise the City on revisions /additions to two of the chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan
on goals and policies related to trees and the natural environment. I have included the two chapters of
the current Comprehensive Plan that address these two issues and identified the relevant goals and
policies with either an arrow or checkmark next to the number.
• Community Image Chapter: Goals 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.10
• Natural Environment Chapter: there is minimal mention of trees and vegetation protection in
this chapter — see goals 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 and policies 4.1.7, 4.2.2 and 4.3.3 and the references
under Implementation Strategies for policies 4.1.1 and goal 4.2. We would like the
Committee to help us expand the goals, objectives, policies and implementation strategies to
incorporate trees and urban forest management into this chapter.
I have also included the regulations from the City's Zoning Code that implement the existing goals and
policies.
• TMC 18.45, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, (TMC 18.45.070 B. 9.)
• TMC 18.50, Landscape, Recreation, Recycling/Solid Waste Space Requirements
• TMC 18.52, Tree Regulations
The Committee will recommend revisions to the Comprehensive Plan chapters that will go to the
Planning Commission and City Council. The policy recommendations from the Committee will be used
CPL Page 1 of 2
W: \\Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials\Memo 1
06/10/2013
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3653
August 24, 2012
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
September 26, 2012 Meeting
by staff to then revise the implementing regulations, create new regulations and/or develop new
programs. We don't expect you to be conversant on these materials — instead, we hope that it will help
familiarize you with the policy and regulatory context that we currently have in the City. We will be
providing you with a detailed table that summarizes all the existing regulations the City now has related
to trees and vegetation for a later meeting that should help to guide the Committee's discussions.
The final group of reading materials provides some background information on the biology of trees, and
the benefits trees provide to communities.
• The Benefits of Trees
• Trees are Good, But...
• The Case for More Urban Trees
• Primer on Tree Biology (from Trees and Development, by Nelda Matheny and James R.
Clark)
At our first meeting, we will give you a three ring notebook and dividers in which to keep the materials
we provide you for each meeting.
We look forward to seeing you on September 26, 2012 — please call or e-mail if you have any questions
in the meantime.
Enclosures
cc: Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director, Department of Community Development
Kimberly Matej, Council Analyst
CPL Page 2 of 2
W: \\Long Range Projects\Urban Forestry \Advisory Committee Materials\Memo 1
94
06/10/2013 1:35 PM
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee — Meeting Notes
Meeting 1, September 26' 2012
Committee Members in Attendance: Nancy Eklund, Christian Faltenberger, De'Sean Quinn, Stephen Reilly,
Don Scanlon, David Shumate, Heidi Watters, Kathleen Wilson
Members of the Public in Attendance: Kelli Turner, Barry Crosby
Staff in Attendance: Nora Gierloff, Carol Lumb, Sandra Whiting
The meeting began at 6 pm.
Topics of Discussion:
1. Introductions of committee members and staff
2. Public comment: (Time will be set aside at the beginning of each meeting for brief public comments;
the Committee is meeting in work session format, therefore, questions or comments from the public
that come up during the course of the meeting should be directed to staff via e-mail or telephone calls
after the meeting.)
There was no public comment
3. Housekeeping issues and operating procedures:
a. The December meeting will be on December 19tH
b. Meetings will begin at 6 pm until further notice
c. The committee roster with contact information will be distributed to all members
d. Materials for the committee will be mailed out as hard copy and by email with links to the
documents on the City's website. Staff will try to have materials sent out 2 weeks before each
meeting.
e. Meeting notes will be posted on the City's website after distribution to committee members.
The meetings will also be taped — the audio file will be made available upon request.
f. Committee will operate by consensus, but Robert's Rules of Order will be used, if needed to
move issues along. Strong minority opinions on recommendations will be forwarded on to the
Planning Commission and Council.
4. Powerpoint presentation on planning authority in Washington, Committee context and role, starting
point of this project, why trees and tree policies are important, next steps.
5. General discussions
a. Tree City USA criteria
b. Existing ordinances related to vegetation and sensitive areas and related to landscaping
requirements and issues with their implementation.
c. Source of push for changes to ordinances and improvement of tree /landscaping regulations and
likelihood for Council support of Committee's recommendations.
d. Current practices and programs in the City related to trees (plans, inventories, etc.) and
relationships between City departments.
SW Page 1 of 2 06/10/2013 1:38 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee \Meeting Materials \Meeting 1 Notes
95
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee — Meeting Notes
e. Development patterns and expectations for growth in Tukwila (housing permits, Tukwila Urban
Center /Southcenter Plan, Tukwila South Master Plan)
f. General City budget levels
g. Next steps and future meeting topics
Action Items
1. City will provide links to the following maps for the Committee's review and use and will try to have the
maps printed and mounted for the next meeting:
a. Comprehensive Plan
b. Zoning
c. Parks
d. Sensitive Areas
2. The City will provide a list of the top 5 to 10 issues that staff considers important for the Committee to
consider by November 1.
3. Committee members will each develop a list of 5 -10 key questions or topics they would like to explore
and will send them to Carol by November 1.
4. City will provide results of previous analysis of possible locations for stream daylighting projects (as
mentioned in existing Comp Plan policies.
5. City will revise /correct the meeting table (schedule and topics) that was handed out at the meeting.
The meeting closed at 8:15 pm.
SW Page 2 of 2 06/10/2013 1:38 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee \Meeting Materials \Meeting 1 Notes
96
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 19, 2012
TO: Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
FM: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner
Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist
RE: November 1, 2012 Advisory Committee Meeting
Enclosed please find materials for our next Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
meeting for your review:
• Agenda
• Revised Meeting Schedule
• Draft 9 -26 -12 Meeting Notes
• Ten Key Issues Identified by Staff
• TMC 11.20 Right -of -Way Vegetation Regulations
We will have two speakers at our next meeting. The first is Linden Mead, who is an Urban and
Community Forestry Specialist with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, speaking
to us on the benefits of trees. She will be followed by Ian Scott, Project Developer with the Davey
Resource Group, who will present the initial results of the Draft Urban Tree Canopy Assessment. The
City was fortunate to receive a grant from the Department of Natural Resources to pay for the
preparation of the assessment. The information from the assessment will help guide establishing tree
canopy goals for different areas of the City. Receipt of the revised Draft Tukwila Urban Tree Canopy
Assessment from our consultant has been delayed until Wednesday, October 24th, so I will e-mail you a
copy as soon as it is received and then mail you a hard copy. That way, you can hopefully start
reviewing the electronic copy prior to receiving the paper copy in the mail.
At the September 26th meeting, the Committee discussed providing staff with a list of 5 -10 key issues.
These are due to staff by November 1st — it would be helpful to have these electronically if that is
possible. Staff has provided the Committee with its list in this Agenda packet.
We look forward to seeing you on November 1, 2012 — please call or e-mail if you have any questions in
the meantime.
Enclosures
cc: Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director, Department of Community Development
Kimberly Matej, Council Analyst
CPL Page 1 of 1
W: \\Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials\Memo 2
06/10/2013
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -3
98
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
Meeting 2, November 1, 2012
Committee Members in Attendance: Sean Albert, Nancy Eklund, De'Sean Quinn (arrived 6:40 p.m.),
Stephen Reilly, Don Scanlon, David Shumate, Heidi Watters, Kathleen Wilson
Committee Members Absent: Christian Faltenberger
Members of the Public in Attendance: Daryl Tapio, Sharon Mann
Staff in Attendance: Carol Lumb, Sandra Whiting
The meeting began at 6:05 p.m.
Topics of Discussion:
1. Brief introductions of committee members and staff, members of the public in attendance.
2. Public comment: (Time will be set aside at the beginning of each meeting for brief public
comments; the Committee is meeting in work session format, therefore, questions or
comments from the public that come up during the course of the meeting should be directed to
staff via e-mail or telephone calls after the meeting.)
There was no public comment
3. Powerpoint presentation by Linden Lampman, Urban and Community Forestry Specialist for
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. A copy of her powerpoint will be posted on
the City's Urban Forestry web page and provided to the Committee members. Ms. Lampman
provided background information on urban forestry and the importance of having an urban
forestry program and she discussed the benefits of trees, including the social, environmental,
and economic benefits. Ms. Lampman provided some resource materials to the Committee
including: an article called "The Case for Large Trees vs. Small Trees; a brochure on Trees and
Parking Lots, and a brochure on "How to Prevent Tree /Sign Conflicts ". The Committee
exchanged questions and comments with Ms. Lampman, including:
• Getting away from a linear planting approach, and considering grouping of trees, especially
where there are space limitations — as well as not using only one or two types of trees for
street plantings — when a tree disease strikes, you can lose a substantial amount of your tree
canopy;
• Making sure underground utility lines are identified on landscape plans to avoid tree
root /pipe conflicts;
• Being mindful of where trees are planted - right tree (try developing approved tree lists for
various site conditions), right place — to avoid conflicts between structures and trees,
particularly during storm events;
• Trees and parking lots — the type and amount of trees required can depend on whether the
parking lot is serving commercial or industrial uses and conflicts between trees and lighting
can be minimized by carefully locating lights away from tree islands or installing lower lights
that won't be shaded by large trees;
• Urban areas are not a native setting — use of native trees falls in the "right tree -right place"
category — native trees are often too big for urban areas or the environmental conditions do
not support what native trees require;
• Using incentives to preserve trees is good policy
• Using structural soils for trees in parking lots or for street trees can allow for larger trees in
smaller planting spaces.
CL Page 1 of 2 11/13/2012 4:58 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting Notes 11 -1 -12
99
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
4. Powerpoint presentation by Ian Scott, Davey Resource Group, on the preliminary results of the
Urban Tree Canopy Assessment prepared by Davey Resource Group for the City of Tukwila. Mr.
Scott explained how the data was gathered, analyzed, and evaluated for accuracy for the City's
Canopy Assessment. He also discussed the results of the study for Tukwila overall and for
different land use areas of the City and presented a preliminary assessment of potential canopy
cover (taking into account non - impervious surfaces potentially available for planting trees). For
comparison purposes Mr. Scott provided information on the amount of tree canopy in other
local jurisdictions, recognizing that other cities have very different characteristics than Tukwila.
Mr. Scott noted that, based on the results of running a software program called I -Tree VUE, the
City's current tree canopy of 25% provides $423,000 in value to the City in terms of carbon
dioxide sequestration, ozone removal, etc. Staff pointed out that a revised report will include
additional information for tasks that were added to the contract later and are not in the current
draft version of the report.
The Committee had comments and questions as follows:
• Whether the economic benefits assessment analyzed the negatives of trees (such as leaf
drop) — the I -tree Vue software only looks at the benefits provided by trees;
• How to translate the benefits trees provide in a language that makes sense to private
property owners;
• Incentives versus regulations to encourage more trees;
• Determining what canopy goals would have the greatest effect on overall canopy cover in
the City (for example evaluating the actual acreage of different land uses and focusing
increasing tree canopy on areas that will have the largest impact).
5. Housekeeping items:
a. The meeting notes for 9/26/12 were approved by the Committee.
b. Staff clarified that the Parks Commission does not serve as the Tree Board for the City —
rather an ad hoc group of City staff from Parks and Public Works deals with tree issues
throughout the City.
c. A roster with contact information of Committee members was handed out to the
Committee.
d. Staff pointed out the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map and the Sensitive Areas Map
that were provided in the meeting room, as well as informing the committee that links
to these maps had been provided on the City's website.
e. Next meeting will begin review of current natural environment goals and policies in the
Natural Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan — the Committee will be asked
to provide guidance on revisions to these goals and policies.
Action Items
1. Staff will provide the Committee with proposed revisions to Natural Environment goals and
policies for their review prior to next meeting.
2. Committee members will provide to staff a list of issues they wish to discuss and /or questions or
information they feel they need to carry out their work.
The meeting closed at 8:15 pm.
CL Page 2 of 2 11/13/2012 4:58 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting Notes 11 -1 -12
100
City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 20, 2012
TO: Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
FM: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner
Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist
RE: November 28, 2012 Advisory Committee Meeting
At our next meeting, the work of the Advisory Committee will begin in earnest, as we start looking at
Comprehensive Plan goals (and then policies) that will guide City actions on the natural environment for
years to come. The Committee, acting to represent the larger Tukwila community, will make
recommendations for changes that will ultimately be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
I thought it might help to provide several definitions to help your preparation for the meeting and the
discussion on comprehensive plan goals and ultimately policies:
Goal: a broad statement of what should exist in a community or what the community wants to
achieve in the future. Ideally, the goals are shaped by the citizens in the community to guide
future actions by government.
Policy: a more specific statement than a goal; a policy describes a particular course of action to
accomplish the comprehensive plan goals.
As we begin our review of the Comprehensive Plan, we think this is an opportunity to step back and
think what should be accomplished by this chapter. To that end, staff developed a list of key topic areas
that, to us, comprise the natural environment. If the Committee agrees with this approach, we will
discuss whether there are other topic areas that should be added before moving on to review the existing
goals and staff - proposed goals.
To help set the context of the current Natural Environment goals and policies, Sandra will make a
presentation at the beginning of the meeting on the regulatory environment (Federal, State and local
laws) for wetlands, streams, rivers, stormwater, and steep slopes. Then she will talk about the City's
Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45) because it is the key ordinance that is used to implement our
current Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for the natural environment.
We look forward to seeing you on November 28th — please call or e-mail if you have any questions in the
meantime.
CPL Page 1 of 2
W:' \Long Range Projects\Urban Forestry \Advisory Committee Materials\Memo 3
06/10/2013
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -i51
November 20, 2012
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
November 28, 2012 Meeting
Enclosures:
• Agenda
• Draft 11 -1 -12 Meeting Notes
■ 11 -1 -12 Linden Lampman Powerpoint
• 11 -1 -12 Ian Scott Powerpoint
• Existing Natural Environment Goals
• Key Natural Environment Topic Areas
• Staff Proposed Topics and Goal Statements
■ Linden Lampman Handouts from 11/1 Meeting (for those who did not receive them): "How to
Prevent Tree /Sign Conflicts," and "Trees and Parking Lots"
cc: Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director, Department of Community Development
Kimberly Matej, Council Analyst
CPL Page 2 of 2
W: \\Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry \Advisory Committee Materials\Memo 3
102
06/10/2013 1:40 PM
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
Meeting 3, November 28, 2012
Committee Members in Attendance: Sean Albert, Nancy Eklund, Christian Faltenberger, De'Sean
Quinn , Stephen Reilly, Don Scanlon, David Shumate, Kathleen Wilson
Committee Members Absent: Heidi Watters
Members of the Public in Attendance: Daryl Tapio
Staff in Attendance: Carol Lumb, Sandra Whiting, Nora Gierloff
The meeting began at 6:05 p.m.
Topics of Discussion:
1. Welcome to Committee members and visitors.
2. Public comment: (Time will be set aside at the beginning of each meeting for brief public
comments; the Committee is meeting in work session format, therefore, questions or
comments from the public that come up during the course of the meeting should be directed to
staff via e-mail or telephone calls after the meeting.)
There was no public comment.
3. Check -in with Committee members: The Chair asked if Committee members have any questions
or comments from the previous meeting that they wanted to discuss
• The Committee asked whether staff agreed with Linden Mead's comments about use of
native trees (that due to their size at maturity they often are not a good fit for urban
settings) - staff agrees with Ms. Mead's comments and the general rule of thumb "right tree,
right place" — being sure you think about what the appropriate tree is for the space that you
have.
• There was general discussion that studies have shown that much wetland mitigation is not
successful, how the Federal and State governments have revised wetland mitigation
requirements and actions to improve success and the extent to which there is follow up
after mitigation is in place.
4. Housekeeping:
• The Committee discussed possibly meeting on either Tuesday, December 18th or Thursday,
December 20th instead of Wednesday, December 19th because two Committee members
have a conflict with the 12/19 meeting. Staff will check with Committee member Heidi
Watters on her availability for the alternate dates.
• The Committee approved the meeting notes from the 11- 1- 12meeting with no
corrections /revisions.
5. Powerpoint presentation by Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist, on the City's Sensitive
Area Ordinance (SAO), found in TMC 18.45, to provide background information to the
Committee since the current goals and policies in the Natural Environment Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan largely address sensitive areas issues. Sandra discussed the federal and
CL Page 1 of 3 11/13/2012 4:58 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting Notes 11 -28 -12
103
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
state context for the local regulations (Federal Clean Water Act, Washington State Growth
Management Act, Tukwila Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, SAO) purpose of the SAO,
general standards and requirements, how the ordinance is working, and issues on which the
committee might want to provide policy guidance. The powerpoint included photos of several
mitigation project sites in the City and Sandra discussed the City's experiences with carrying out
volunteer restoration projects in sensitive area buffers on public properties.
6. Key Natural Environment Topic Areas for the Natural Environment Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan: Committee consensus was that the list provided by staff captured the key
natural environment concepts except that for wildlife habitat "and corridors" should be added to
broaden this key topic area.
7. Natural Environment Chapter Goals: The Committee began to review the existing Natural
Environment goals and discuss possible revisions to the goals. The committee provided the
following direction:
• The Committee recommended that the archaeological /paleontological goals and
policies be moved to the Community Image chapter, to be grouped with the historic
resource goals and policies, but include a cross reference in the Natural Environment
chapter to recognize that many natural areas have archaeological and paleontological
resources. A question was raised about whether there are policies on culturally
significant resources (for example places important in Native American traditions, such
as North Winds Weir), and if not, it was suggested that this topic be added to the
Comprehensive Plan. Nora Gierloff clarified that the recently adopted regulations for
historic resources apply to the built environment and not to other types of cultural
resources. The Committee discussed whether a stewardship goal (referring to trained
volunteers that work on restoration projects) was needed. It was decided that the
proposed staff policies related to this topic would be evaluated and then a decision
would be made about whether an additional goal was needed.
• The Committee discussed whether there should be public access to public mitigation
sites, where appropriate, (for example direct public access might not be appropriate if
the goal of the mitigation was to enhance wildlife habitat, but some access feature like a
viewing platform might be useful for educational purposes). Staff will come back with
proposed language for a goal on this topic.
• The Committee recommended revising the language of the goals to change the action
verbs to "end statements" — i.e. statements of what outcomes we want to achieve . For
example, the first goal initially read: "Restore and protect the quality of the City's air,
land and water resources for future generations." The revised goal, based on
Committee direction, would read "The City's air, land and water resources are restored
and protected for future generations." The Committee continued review of the
remaining goals and provided guidance on end statement wording. Staff will revise all
the goal language for the Committee's review for the 12/19 meeting.
CL Page 2 of 3 11/13/2012 4:58 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting Notes 11 -28 -12
104
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
8. Check in — the Chair asked if there were any questions that the Committee has that need to be
addressed before the close of the meeting.
9. The meeting closed at 8:00 pm.
10. Action Items for staff follow -up:
a. Staff will provide the Committee with proposed revisions to Natural Environment goals
based on the direction provided on wording (end statements rather than action verbs).
b. Staff will provide a cross reference in the Natural Environment chapter regarding the
archaeological /paleontological goals /policies in the Community Image chapter.
c. Staff will research whether there are policies or regulations on culturally significant
resources and will prepare a draft goal to that effect for inclusion in the Community Image
chapter.
d. Staff will come back with proposed language for a goal or policy on public access to public
mitigation sites.
CL Page 3 of 3 11/13/2012 4:58 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting Notes 11 -28 -12
105
106
City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 12, 2012
TO: Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
FM: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner
Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist
RE: December 19, 2012 Advisory Committee Meeting
We will continue review of the Natural Environment goals at our next meeting. Staff has revised the
format of the goals to be "end statements" rather than use action verbs in the wording based on direction
of the Committee. Staff has also included for your review proposed policies that support the goals.
A reminder that we are meeting on our original date of Wednesday, December 19th — but the meeting
time will stay at 6:00 p.m. for this meeting in the hopes that the Committee members with another
commitment that evening will be able to join us for some of the evening's discussion. Our meeting start
time will switch to 5:30 p.m. in 2013.
We look forward to seeing you on December 19th — please call or e-mail if you have any questions in the
meantime.
Enclosures:
• Agenda
• Draft 11 -28 -12 Meeting Notes
• Revised Natural Environment Goals and Policies
cc: Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director, Department of Community Development
Kimberly Matej, Council Analyst
CPL Page 1 of 1
W: \\Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials\Meeting 4\Memo 4
06/10/2013
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431.31
108
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
Meeting 4, December 19, 2012
Committee Members in Attendance: Sean Albert, Nancy Eklund, Sharon Mann, De'Sean Quinn , Don
Scanlon, David Shumate, Heidi Watters
Committee Members Absent: Christian Faltenberger, Stephen Reilly, Kathleen Wilson
Members of the Public in Attendance: Brooke Alford
Staff in Attendance: Carol Lumb, Sandra Whiting, Nora Gierloff
The meeting began at 6:05 p.m.
Topics of Discussion:
1. Welcome to Committee members and visitors.
2. Public comment: (Time will be set aside at the beginning of each meeting for brief public
comments; the Committee is meeting in work session format, therefore, questions or
comments from the public that come up during the course of the meeting should be directed to
staff via e-mail or telephone calls after the meeting.)
There was no public comment.
3. Check -in with Committee members: The Chair asked if Committee members have any questions
or comments from the previous meeting that they wanted to discuss
• The Committee had continued comments about Comprehensive Plan goals and policies —
this discussion is reflected below.
• The Committee welcomed new member Sharon Mann, who is the new Planning Commission
representative to the Committee, replacing David Shumate who is moving out of state.
4. Housekeeping:
• The Committee approved the meeting notes from the 11- 28- 12meeting with no
corrections /revisions.
5. Goals and Policies: The Committee continued its discussion of the goals and policies for the
natural environment, reviewing the 12/11/12 draft provided in the materials for the 12/19/12
meeting. The following guidance on additions /revisions to goals and policies was provided by
the Committee:
• More detailed goals and policies for hillside development and flood control need to be
included — the City of Puyallup Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and objectives were
provided as an example of more detailed Comprehensive Plan language.
• Make sure that there is a goal /policy of no net loss for wetlands (note: there is already a
policy — second bullet down in Wetland, Watercourses and Fish Habitat section that
addresses NNL).
CL Page 1 of 2 11/13/2012 4:58 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting Notes 11 -28 -12
109
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
• More emphasis should be placed on educating Tukwila residents on tree canopy, yard care,
pesticide use etc.
• The policies should be written to include statements on how they will be implemented, or a
separate implementation section should be considered. Staff indicated they think having a
section that addresses implementation on a chapter -wide basis would be more useful than
the current approach in the Natural Environment Chapter.
• Is there an opportunity to use Channel 21 to inform the public about environmental
regulations?
• A reference should be added to shoreline goals and policies, which are located in another
chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Include (at least for now) footnotes or some way to indicate what regulations implement
the policies.
• Provide on -going training opportunities for City staff on environmental stewardship.
The Committee discussion concluded after the first bullet on the third page of the nine page goals
and policies document.
It was agreed that staff should indicate in black the changes already discussed and approved by the
Committee and show other changes in strike - out /underline.
6. Check in — the Chair asked if there were any questions that the Committee has that need to be
addressed before the close of the meeting.
Staff was asked about the schedule for the Committee's work to review the Natural Environment
goals and policies — the Committee is behind schedule according to the time line provided at the
second meeting. There may need to be adjustments to the review schedule to complete the tasks
identified in the Resolution establishing the Advisory Committee.
7. The meeting closed at 8:00 pm.
8. Action Items for staff follow -up:
a. Staff will provide the Committee with proposed revisions to Natural Environment goals
based on the direction provided 12- 19 -12.
b. Staff will provide a cross reference in the Natural Environment chapter regarding the
shoreline master program.
c. Staff will indicate which regulations implement the policies.
CL Page 2 of 2 11/13/2012 4:58 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting Notes 11 -28 -12
110
HCAI
City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
DATE: January 115, 2013
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
FM: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner
Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist
RE: January 23, 2013 Advisory Committee Meeting
We will continue review of the Natural Environment goals at our next meeting. Staff has revised the
goals and policies to reflect the direction from the Committee at the 12/19/12 meeting.
Please review the revisions to the first section of the document to make sure it reflects the direction of
the Committee. Staff is proposing that we not revisit the first three and a half pages of the Goals and
Policies document unless we have seriously missed the mark on Committee directed revisions to the
first section. We would instead pick up where we left off on December 19th - this place is marked on
page four of the Goals and Policies document with a series of X's two- thirds of the way down the
page. When the Advisory Committee has worked its way through the entire document, including
working on urban forestry goals and policies, the Committee will have an opportunity to go back and
review all the goals and policies in the context of the entire Chapter prior to finalizing the document to
forward to the Planning Commission for its review.
Some other explanatory notes on the revisions you will see in the goals and policies:
• The color has been used for totally new text that the Committee has not seen before -
staff has added this new goal /policy either at the direction of the Committee, or after reviewing
the City of Puyallup's objectives and policies or reviewing the City's flood plain and clearing
and grading regulations and adding goals /policies to address gaps in the current text.
• The Committee indicated at the last meeting that seeing how the goals and policies are
implemented would be helpful. After many goals or policies you will see text inw and
enclosed in parentheses — these are references to the regulations that would or currently do
implement the referenced item.
• The Committee had directed that once it reaches consensus on text, that the text color be
changed to black — staff will make this change with the next iteration of the document after the
Committee confirms that the revisions to the first three and a half pages reflect the Committee's
direction.
Since we are running a bit behind schedule, staff would like to take up each section of goals /policies —
water resources, beginning on page 4, water quality /quantity, flood control, earth resources — rather
CPL Page 1 of 2
W:c,\Long Range ProjectsAlrban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials\Meeting 5\Memo 5
06/10/2013
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3W
January 11, 2013
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
January 23, 2013 Meeting
than review each individual goal or policy. We would appreciate it if the Committee would review
each goal/policy carefully and come prepared to identify revisions that are needed.
A reminder that we will start meeting at the new time of 5:30 p.m.
We look forward to seeing you on January 23'd — please call or e-mail if you have any questions in the
meantime.
Enclosures:
• Agenda
• Draft 12 -19 -12 Meeting Notes
• Revised Natural Environment Goals and Policies
cc: Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director, Department of Community Development
Kimberly Matej, Government Relations
CPL Page 2 of 2
W:.\Long Range ProjectstUrban Forestry \Advisory Committee Materials\Meeting 5\Memo 5
112
06/10/2013 1:44 PM
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
Meeting 5, January 23, 2013
Committee Members in Attendance: Sean Albert, Nancy Eklund, Christian Faltenberger, Sharon
Mann, Don Scanlon, Heidi Watters Kathleen Wilson
Committee Members Absent: Stephen Reilly, De'Sean Quinn
Members of the Public in Attendance: Eli Brocker
Staff in Attendance: Carol Lumb, Sandra Whiting, Nora Gierloff
The meeting began at 5:40 p.m.
Topics of Discussion:
1. Welcome to Committee members and visitors. Nora Gierloff filled in for Chairperson De'Sean
Quinn.
2. Public comment: (Time is set aside at the beginning of each meeting for brief public comments;
the Committee is meeting in work session format, therefore, questions or comments from the
public that come up during the course of the meeting should be directed to staff via e-mail or
telephone calls after the meeting. These communications will be passed along to the
Committee)
Eli Brocker introduced himself— he is a City employee who works at the golf course, however he
is finishing up a degree in environmental studies at Green River Community College and has an
interest in environmental and tree issues. He had no comments or questions for the
Committee.
3. Check -in with Committee members: The Chair asked if Committee members have any questions
or comments from the previous meeting that they wanted to discuss
There was no follow up questions /comments from the last meeting.
4. Housekeeping:
• Staff confirmed that the Committee's meeting day will move to the second Wednesday of
the month beginning with the March meeting. The February meeting will be Wednesday,
February 27th and the March meeting will be Wednesday, March 13tH
• The Committee approved the meeting notes from the 12- 19- 12meeting with no
corrections /revisions.
5. Natural Environment Chapter Goals: The Committee continued its review the revised Natural
Environment goals and revisions to the goals. The committee provided the following direction:
• Organization /Structure: each goal should have the applicable policies follow it, rather
than grouping them all together after the goals;
• There don't seem to be policies to implement the second goal on page 1;
• Start numbering the goals and policies to make it easier to reference;
• Review the two new policies on page 2 for appropriate location;
CL Page 1 of 2 06/10/2013 1:46 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 5 \Mtg Notes Draft
113
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
• Develop a goal that addresses climate change /global warming — an aspirational
statement
• Have an overall goal regarding stewardship and education, then in each subsection,
include a policy that references back to the Stewardship section
• Pros /cons of allowing mitigation to be located outside Tukwila and fee -in -lieu programs
— the committee recommended including as policies, exploring the topics of fee -in -lieu
mitigation
• Include a policy to assist property owners interested in using their property for off -site
wetland mitigation
• Include policies or a policy to establish incentive programs to encourage property
owners to steward their sensitive areas, use low impact development techniques, etc.
Make sure one of the goals or policies addresses water quality of storm water that flows
in ditches to City's streams or directly to Green /Duwamish River.
• There was a great deal of discussion on whether to allow pesticides to be used in buffers
— no consensus from Committee on whether to change the language or take both
viewpoints forward.
• The Committee will not deal with open space issues, given that the Department of Parks
and Recreation is beginning a planning effort to update the current Parks and Open
Space Plan.
In the interest of moving the process forward, staff asked that the Committee review the revisions
to be sent out as a result of this meeting and also look at the sections of the Natural Environment
Chapter that have not yet been discussed, and submit comments in writing to staff, rather than
discussing them at the next meeting.
8. The meeting closed at 7:50 pm.
9. Action Items for staff follow -up:
a. Staff will re- organize the Chapter to place policies after the goals they implement;
b. Staff will draft a goal that uses aspirational language to address climate change /global
warming
c. Language revisions will be made to goals /policies as directed by the Committee
d. The Powerpoint presentation on the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance that was presented to
the Committee at Meeting 3 will be provided to those members that missed the meeting.
e. The report prepared to support the City's designation of properties that could be used for
off -site mitigation will be provided to the committee.
f. Provide reminder to committee members to submit written comments to staff on the new
revisions and the topic areas not yet discussed in committee meetings.
The February 27th meeting will begin the discussion on urban forestry — there will be a presentation on
the City's tree ordinance and a presentation on other jurisdictions' tree regulations and tree programs.
CL Page 2 of 2 06/10/2013 1:46 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 5 \Mtg Notes Draft
114
City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 11, 2013
TO: Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
FM: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner
Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist
RE: February 27, 2013 Advisory Committee Meeting
At our next meeting, we will begin the discussion of urban forestry by viewing two presentations, the first
on the City's current tree regulations and then second, a review of six other jurisdictions' approach to
trees and urban forestry.
We are sending this memo out to you a little early in order to give you more time to review the revisions
to the Natural Environment goals and policies based on the direction the Committee provided at our last
meeting. We will be taking these up only if there is time at the end of our next meeting. In the meantime,
staff would appreciate your reviewing the revisions and sending us any comments you may have,
particularly for the sections that we have not gone through as yet. If we don't have time to discuss the
revisions at the next meeting, we will take them up at the end of the Committee's work when we review
the entire package of goals and policies that will go to the Planning Commission for its review. A few
comments on the revisions that were made:
• A policy has been added to address climate change — 4.1.1
• The Committee had recommended revising policy 4.9.2 to prohibit development in the flood plain.
We talked with staff in Public Works on possible language but ended up retaining the current
language after that discussion. The current FEMA regulations that the City follows allow filling
in the flood plain if there is no net loss — i.e. compensatory storage is required elsewhere to offset
the fill. New FEMA regulations are under discussion — whatever those are the City will be
obligated to enforce. As a result, it seemed appropriate to just implement whatever the current
FEMA regulations are. As a point of information, there is very little area of the City that falls
within the flood plain — most is protected by levees currently.
• Some of the Committee had asked for copies of the report staff prepared on off -site wetland
mitigation as well as the powerpoint on the city's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Rather than print
these out for everyone, these will be posted on the City's web site with the other materials
included in your packet for the February 27th meeting. The web site is:
http:// www. tukwilawa .gov /dcd/treepolicy.html.
CPL Page 1 of 2
W't\Long Range Projects' Urban Forestry \Advisory Committee Materials\Agendas- Memos - Materials \Meeting 6\Memo 6
06/10/2013
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -315 &5
Tukwila Tree and Advisory Committee
February 27, 2013 Meeting
We hope to have materials for the March 13th meeting ready to distribute at the February meeting so that
you have some extra time to review them as we transition to our meeting date of the second Wednesday
of the month.
Two reminders: we will start the meeting again at the new time of 5:30 p.m; and in March, we move to a
new meeting day, the second Wednesday of the month, March 13t .
We look forward receiving any edits /revisions to the enclosed goals /policies from you and seeing you on
February 27th - please call or e-mail if you have any questions in the meantime.
Enclosures:
• Agenda
• Draft 1 -23 -13 Meeting Notes
• Revised Natural Environment Goals and Policies
cc: Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director, Department of Community Development
Kimberly Matej, Government Relations
CPL Page 2 of 2 06/10/2013 1:45 PM
116 W :V%Long Range Projects\Urban Forestry \Advisory Committee materials\Memos, Agendas\Meeting 6 \Memo 6
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
Meeting 6, February 27, 2013
Committee Members in Attendance: Sean Albert, Nancy Eklund, Christian Faltenberger, Stephen
Reilly, De'Sean Quinn, Don Scanlon, Heidi Watters, Kathleen Wilson
Committee Members Absent: Sharon Mann
Members of the Public in Attendance: Brooke Alford
Staff in Attendance: Carol Lumb, Sandra Whiting, Nora Gierloff
The meeting began at 5:35 p.m.
Topics of Discussion:
1. Welcome to Committee members and visitors.
2. Public comment: (Time is set aside at the beginning of each meeting for brief public comments; the
Committee is meeting in work session format, therefore, questions or comments from the public that
come up during the course of the meeting should be directed to staff via e-mail or telephone calls
after the meeting. These communications will be passed along to the Committee)
No public comments were presented.
3. Check -in with Committee members: The Chair asked if Committee members have any questions or
comments from the previous meeting that they wanted to discuss
Open Space: Since this committee will not directly deal with open space issues in the
Environment Chapter update due to the update of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan
(PROS Plan) there is still an opportunity for the Committee members have input. Please send
and comments, questions etc. to Carol, who will ensure that the Parks Department (and /or their
consultant) will receive it, since either Carol or Nora will be on an internal staff committee for
the plan update. Staff will provide a copy of the policies in Word so that the Committee can
make suggested edits /comments directly in the document.
4. Housekeeping:
• The Committee approved the meeting notes from the 1 -23 -13 meeting with no
corrections /revisions.
• Reminder that the next meeting will be on Wednesday, March 13, 2013.
5. PowerPoint presentation "Current Tukwila Tree Policies and Regulations ".
Sandra Whiting presented information on what the existing Comprehensive Plan goals and policies
say related to trees and other vegetation, which are all found in Chapter 1— the Community Image
chapter. She also presented a summary of Tukwila's tree regulations and clarified that the
presentation focusses on trees in general, and not landscape (meaning trees planted as part of
approved landscaping plans in conjunction with site development) or street tree regulations. Those
regulations will be discussed at a later meeting. The key points that were discussed follow:
CL Page 1 of 4 06/10/2013 1:47 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 5 \Mtg Notes Draft
117
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
a) Are property owners made aware of the presence of sensitive areas on their property and the
limitations that the sensitive areas regulations and tree regulations place on activities on the
property?
• Informing such property owners might improve compliance with the regulations. Staff
informed the committee that no formal, comprehensive steps have been taken to inform
property owners, but that this could be a new policy in the Environment Chapter update, if
the committee so desires.
b) Does the City have policies for requiring tree removal companies to be qualified and have
insurance?
• Right now the City does not require any evidence of qualifications for private tree removals,
but that recently the City has started to require that businesses doing work in Tukwila (but
without an actual office in Tukwila) obtain a business license. Possibly through this
mechanism, the City can require proof of insurance, and some sort of qualifications.
• Staff will research how other jurisdictions manage and regulate tree removal companies.
c) How is the removal of hazard trees handled? What is meant by a certified arborist and how
anyone can be sure that an arborist is qualified to determine if a tree is hazardous?
• Someone from DCD goes out to see the tree in question and when the hazards are obvious,
the property owner is allowed to remove the tree without a permit.
• When hazards are not obvious, the City may require an evaluation by a certified arborist.
• The City prefers that arborists certified by the International Society of Arborists (ISA) be
used and that they also have a risk assessment certification process for evaluating trees that
should be used.
• There is a list of ISA certified arborists that property owners can access through the ISA
website
• The committee suggested that the City's website could contain a link to that website.
d) There was a great deal of discussion about tree removal on steep slopes and how steep slopes
are defined in the tree regulations.
• Steep slopes are defined in the Sensitive Areas regulations as any slope over 15 %. Per the
Tree Regulations, a permit is needed for removal of trees on slopes, except that on single -
family zoned lots, up to 4 trees in a 36 month period may be removed without a permit.
• The committee pointed out the lack of clarity in the regulation regarding trees on steep
slopes and the fact that not all steep slopes may be unstable, or that short slopes may not
be a problem.
• The Committee recommended better defining "steep slopes" — staff indicated this would be
reviewed at the next update of the SAO regulations and that the policy for removal of trees
from steep slopes could be clarified through future modifications to the tree regulations.
e) How accurate is the steep slope mapping?
CL Page 2 of 4
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 5 \Mtg Notes Draft
118
06/10/2013 1:47 PM
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
• The mapping was prepared using aerial photography and that site topography is confirmed
by an applicant's surveyor when individual development is proposed.
• Does the City have the resources to carry out topographical surveys to confirm slopes? Staff
replied that such an effort would require a great of City resources and permission from
private property owners to enter their property for the survey work.
• Staff noted that under a proposed new policy the City would incorporate topographic data
from private development proposals into its GIS system.
f) There was discussion about tree protection best management practices and how they are
verified in the field. Also, the committee discussed Seattle's approach to instituting fines for
tree damage or tree removal without a permit that are based on the monetary value of the tree,
and that trees meant to be retained on construction sites have placards on them indicating the
value of each tree (which is an effective measure to promote good practices to protect the tree
during construction and also to make citizens aware of the value of the tree).
6. PowerPoint presentation on Tree Programs and Regulations in Other Jurisdictions:
Brooke Alford, a Master of Landscape Architecture candidate at the UW presented a PowerPoint
on a comparison of the urban forestry policies, canopy goals and tree regulations of five
jurisdictions' in the Pacific Northwest: Kirkland, Lacey, Renton, Vancouver (WA) and Portland,
Oregon (note: a copy of this presentation will be emailed to Committee members and will be
posted on the City's website.)
The committee asked what the basis was for setting canopy goals in Vancouver WA — was it
based on planned planting projects, the City's knowledge of future projects, other? The criteria
or information used for goal establishment was not immediately available, but such criteria may
be relevant for Tukwila's proposed canopy goals.
The committee commented on the various approaches that other cities use for funding tree
programs and found it particularly interesting that some cities use funds from stormwater
utilities, because of the link between the benefits of trees and stormwater management. It was
pointed out that something like that might be possible in Tukwila, but that the utility tax
structure would need to be evaluated. The committee was interested in one city's
establishment of a "trust fund" where fines and other funds related to tree management are
placed and are dedicated to tree programs. Seattle has a similar program, but the funds go into
the City's general fund and are not directed specifically to tree programs.
Brooke has information on exemplary incentive programs that she will provide to the Committee and
staff.
The committee requested that the PowerPoint presentation be made into a PDF for posting or emailing
out to committee members.
7. The meeting closed at 7:45 pm.
8. Action Items for staff follow -up:
CL Page 3 of 4 06/10/2013 1:47 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 5 \Mtg Notes Draft
119
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
• Provide Brook Alford's PowerPoint presentation to the Committee in PDF format (it will
also be posted on the City's web site).
• Add policy to Chapter 4 on periodic notification of property owners on sensitive areas
on their property — or incorporate into policy /goal on educating Tukwila residents and
businesses
• Research how other jurisdictions manage and regulate tree removal companies —
consider how to incorporate into goals /policies
• Provide a link to the ISA website from the City's website for a list of ISA certified
arborists
CL Page 4 of 4 06/10/2013 1:47 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 5 \Mtg Notes Draft
120
City of Tukwila
Jim Ilaggerton, Mayor
Department of Community Develop'inent Jack Pace, Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 1, 2013
TO: Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
FM: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner
Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist
RE: March 13, 2013 Advisory Committee Meeting
At our next meeting, we will begin the discussion of proposed urban forestry goals and policies. A
preliminary draft of goals and policies focused on general tree issues is enclosed. These policies do not
address landscaping or street tree policies (although sometimes it is difficult to separate them). We plan
to discuss the landscaping and street tree policies at the April Advisory Committee meeting.
Staff will e-mail you a Word copy of the proposed goals and policies so that, after reviewing the material,
if you have specific edits you would like to see, these can be provided to staff prior to the meeting. We
hope that by providing staff with specific edits prior to the meeting this will allow the discussion to focus
more on giving broader policy direction to staff.
We are also enclosing a copy of the final Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, completed by Davey Resource
Group. Recommendations from this Assessment form the basis for the proposed canopy goals included in
the Draft Goals and Policies document. This packet includes two other background reading pieces:
• City of Seattle "Private Property Tree Regulations Update" Director's Report, dated July 16, 2012.
• City of Tacoma Urban Forest Policy Element — Tacoma has had an urban forestry program for a
number of years — their Policy Element is more extensive, reflecting a larger City than Tukwila
and greater resources to devote to urban forestry efforts. We are including it as a good example of
an urban forestry comprehensive plan chapter. Over time, as Tukwila gains experience with an
urban forestry program and, as staffing and resources permit, the City may build to a more
extensive urban forestry program like this one.
We will post Brooke Alford's PowerPoint presentation from the February 27a' meeting on the City's
website ( http:// www. tukwilawa .gov /dcd/treepolicy.html) by early in the week of March 4th.
As has been mentioned, we are running behind schedule as we spent more time on the natural
environment goals and policies than expected. DCD is scheduled to present the Natural Environment
Comprehensive Plan chapter at the Planning Commission's June 27th meeting, which means the
Committee work needs to be wrapped up by late May. Would you please look at your calendars and see
CPL Page 1 of 2
W: \\Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry \Advisory Committee Materials\Agendas- Memos - Materials \Meeting 6\Memo 6
06/10/2013
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206-431-3U51
Tukwila Tree and Advisory Committee
March 13, 2013 Meeting
if it is possible to meet a little longer on our scheduled meeting nights, or, as an alternative, if it is
possible to schedule additional work sessions. We would like to discuss these options at the March
meeting, so please bring your calendars.
We look forward to seeing you on March 13th - please call or e-mail if you have any questions in the
meantime or if you will not be able to attend the meeting.
Enclosures:
• Agenda
• Draft 2 -27 -13 Meeting Notes
• Draft Urban Forestry Goals and Policies
• Final Tukwila Urban Tree Canopy Assessment
• City of Seattle "Private Property Tree Regulations Update ", Director's Report (July 16, 2012)
• City of Tacoma Urban Forest Policy Element
cc: Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director, Department of Community Development
Kimberly Matej, Government Relations
CPL Page 2 of 2 06/10/2013 1:47 PM
122 W: "tid.Long Range Projects' +,Urban Forestry \Advisory Committee materials\Memos, Agendas\Meeting 6 \Memo 6
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
Meeting 7, March 13, 2013
Committee Members in Attendance: Sean Albert, Nancy Eklund, Stephen Reilly, De'Sean Quinn,
Sharon Mann, Kathleen Wilson
Committee Members Absent: Christian Faltenberger, Don Scanlon, Heidi Watters
Members of the Public in Attendance: Daryl Tapio, Rick Forschler, Vicki Lockwood, George Fornald,
Richard Jordan
Staff in Attendance: Carol Lumb, Sandra Whiting, Nora Gierloff
The meeting began at 5:35 p.m.
Topics of Discussion:
1. Welcome to Committee members and visitors.
2. Public comment: (Time is set aside at the beginning of each meeting for brief public comments; the
Committee is meeting in work session format, therefore, questions or comments from the public that
come up during the course of the meeting should be directed to staff via e-mail or telephone calls
after the meeting. These communications will be passed along to the Committee)
Public comments were presented by 5 residents of Sea -Tac: Richard Jordan, Geroge Fornald,
Vicki Lockwood, Daryl Tapio and Rick Forschler, a member of the SeaTac City Council. One of
the attendees, Mr. Tapio, owns rental property in Tukwila, and is a developer who has done
projects in Tukwila. He sent a letter via email on 3/13/2013 directed to the Committee with a
request that copies be distributed by staff to the Planning Commission, City Council, Mayor and
City Administrator. In general all the comments from the public were aimed at recommending
that Tukwila not expand tree regulations to private property, particularly residential property -
that property owners and developers value trees and only remove trees for specific reasons. All
the commenters expressed the view that tree retention can be achieved through education and
incentive programs and that regulatory requirements are not needed to maintain existing
canopy coverage in residential areas. Mr. Tapio presented a hand -out to Committee members
on tree policy issues providing reasons trees are removed, benefits of trees, the negative
aspects of regulations and benefits of property owner control of trees. Mr. Tapio also believes
that there is no representation on the committee for small developers.
3. Check -in with Committee members: The Chair asked if Committee members have any questions or
comments from the previous meeting that they wanted to discuss.
• The Committee discussed the remaining meeting schedule in relation to deadlines for
completing work by the end of May, in time for preparing for staff presentation of the
Committee's recommendations on natural environment and urban forestry goals and
policies to the Planning Commission in June.
• Members in attendance agreed to meet until 8:30 pm at the April and May meetings and to
hold the date of May 29th open for a final meeting, if it is necessary.
CL Page 1 of 4 06/10/2013 1:51 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 5 \Mtg Notes Draft
123
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
4. Housekeeping:
• Following up the discussion about the remaining time left for work on the goals and policies
there was a discussion on whether too much time has been spent "word - smithing" the goals
and policies and whether this would slow down the remaining review process. It was stated
that the committee's role is to provide broad policy guidance and that staff should be
writing the actual language. Others felt that there had not been a lot of time spent at
Committee meetings reworking goal and policy language, but rather that time had been
split between receiving information at meetings often via PowerPoint presentations and
then discussing goal and policy language. Some members of the Committee felt that some
level of "word - smithing" was needed to ensure that goals and policies reflected what the
Committee intended to say.
• The Committee approved the meeting notes from the 2 -27 -13 meeting with no
corrections /revisions.
• Reminder that the next meeting will be on Wednesday, April 10, 2013.
5. Review of draft staff proposed urban forestry policies:
The Committee discussed the staff - proposed policies, using the edits submitted by Committee
member Nancy Eklund as a starting point for some of the language. Issues discussed were:
a. General: The Committee discussed the use of incentives and education versus regulation (in
general) as varying approaches to goals and policies for urban forestry. Tacoma's urban forestry
element of their Comprehensive Plan was cited as a good example of a "softer" tone than some
of the staff - proposed policies and uses words like "encourage" and "collaborate ".
b. Goal 1 and Policies. There were no suggested changes to the staff - proposed goal or policies.
Note: later in the meeting, the policy of establishing a heritage tree program was briefly
discussed — the committee supports this as a way to bring people together and to educate the
public.
c. Goal 2 and Policies.
• Committee members asked about the source of the proposed canopy goals. Staff indicated
that they were developed through discussions with the tree canopy study consultant (Davey
Resource Group) based on their experience in what cities have been able to achieve for
certain kinds of land use categories. In general, the Committee recommended considering
more aggressive goals, at least for office, commercial, the urban center and the Tukwila
South areas of the City. Since achieving goals in these areas will be mostly based on
landscaping and street tree installation as the areas develop /redevelop, staff suggested that
this issue be revisited after the discussion at the next meeting, which will deal with
landscaping and street tree policies. The Committee agreed.
• There was some discussion regarding the time frame for achieving the canopy goals
(currently shown as 15 years — which is the timing for updates to the Comprehensive Plan),
and staff was concerned about achieving higher goals in such a short time. The Committee
also questioned whether canopy studies will be done periodically to monitor progress - staff
replied in the affirmative, although the frequency has not been discussed.
CL Page 2 of 4 06/10/2013 1:51 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 5 \Mtg Notes Draft
124
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
• Staff proposed deleting policy 1.b as it will be duplicated by the proposed rewording for
policy 1.d. The Committee agreed.
• There was considerable discussion regarding proposed policy 1.d. - prohibiting the removal
of tree stands or groves on undeveloped property without an approved development
permit.
o Some Committee members thought that prohibiting tree removal until a site
development was approved was a good policy.
o Other Committee members thought that rather than tree retention through
regulation that tree retention should be achieved through education, incentives and
flexible development policies. There was concern that regulating trees on
undeveloped property would result in not allowing a property owner to realize the
full development potential and would be prohibitively restrictive for future
development.
o There was also concern that if the current tree replacement table was required, that
there would not be enough room to plant all required replacement trees on a
property in question. Concern was raised on the density requirement of 70 trees
per acre and of how does this translate to a 7200 sq. foot lot. Staff clarified that the
current tree replacement requirements only apply in sensitive areas and the
shoreline, and that these would not necessarily apply to development outside of
these areas — unless that is the direction provide by the Committee
o Staff also pointed out that the proposed policy would not mean that no tree
removal would be allowed to accommodate development —that it was merely a
proposal to prevent tree removal for no reason, without an actual plan for
development.
o Staff pointed out that since most of the undeveloped properties appear to be in
areas zoned for residential uses, there are really not that many incentives that could
be offered (such as additional building height or smaller setbacks) that would not
interfere with neighborhood character or be opposed by existing residential
property owners.
o It was suggested that not regulating trees on undeveloped property may result in
some "tragedies" regarding tree removal, but that the City should work with
property owners to discourage tree removal before there is an actual plan to
develop the site.
o It was suggested that staff hold some focus group meetings with developers and
property owners whose property is large enough to develop, to obtain input on how
such a policy would affect them before finalizing the Committee's
recommendations.
o Also, since it is not known at this time how much property with tree canopy might
be undeveloped, it was suggested that staff should obtain this information to inform
the discussion.
o The Committee was unable to reach consensus on this proposed policy and asked
staff to develop a new policy that would set forth a "middle ground" approach.
• The Committee agreed that the City should not regulate tree removal on already developed
private property (unless it is in a sensitive area, the shoreline or required as part of a
landscaping permit).
CL Page 3 of 4 06/10/2013 1:51 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 5 \Mtg Notes Draft
125
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
• The Committee agreed that the City should not regulate tree removal on underdeveloped
property — i.e. those that could be subdivided or short platted (with the same exceptions as
the previous comment).
• Policy 3 generated some concern about what is meant by "in- kind ". Staff proposed striking
the beginning of this policy to clarify the intent.
• Policy 4. The Committee expressed concern about limiting topping trees under overhead
utility lines. Staff replied that the policy was intended as protection of tree roots and not to
prevent utility companies from pruning trees beneath utility lines. The policy will be
clarified and a reference provided to the Utility Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan where
this issue is discussed in more detail.
• Policy 5 should be changed to make it sound less regulatory.
• Policy 6 was clarified by staff as applicable to trees required under landscaping plans or
street trees. The language will be modified to reflect that.
d. Goal 3 and policies. The Committee had no comments on this goal or policies. Staff proposed
deleting the first policy, as it is duplicated in one of the policies under Goal 2.
e. Other. One Committee member asked why the current tree code exempts only cottonwood
trees and not alders. Staff replied that they believe cottonwoods were targeted because they
are brittle and tend to drop branches — not a good characteristic for urbanized areas. Alders are
not necessarily compatible for highly urban uses — like street trees. However, both cottonwoods
and alders are important native trees for sensitive areas and the shoreline. Since the current
tree regulations only apply in those areas, exempting cottonwoods from permit requirements is
contradictory to the goals for sensitive area and shoreline protection.
6. The meeting closed at 7:45 pm.
7. Action Items for staff follow -up:
a. Staff will incorporate agreed changes discussed to policy language, using strike-
out /underline.
b. Staff will consider options for a "middle ground" for the policy regarding prohibiting tree
removal on undeveloped property and bring these options back to the Committee for its
consideration.
CL Page 4 of 4 06/10/2013 1:51 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 5 \Mtg Notes Draft
126
City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 2, 2013
TO: Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
FM: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner
Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist
RE: April 10, 2013 Advisory Committee Meeting
At our next meeting, we will begin the discussion of proposed landscaping and street tree goals and
policies. We are providing a table that summarizes the existing City regulations related to landscaping for
new development and for street trees (vegetation in the public right -of -way). Some new proposed goals
related to these topics (shown in light blue) have been added to the draft urban forestry goals and policies
section that is included in your packet.
The urban forestry goals and policies have been revised to reflect the Committee's input from our meeting
on March 13th. The revisions also reflect meetings held internally with the technical staff advisory team
that includes a representative from the Parks Department, Police, Fire and Public Works (storm water
engineers). Staff will be meeting with the street operations maintenance supervisor prior to the meeting
on April 10th to obtain his input, and, therefore, may recommend some additional changes during the next
Committee meeting. We are providing both a marked up version of the goals and policies, as well as a
clean version of the document, since the marked up version is difficult to read.
After we discuss the landscaping and street tree goals and policies, we will take up the discussion of the
"happy medium" alternative related to tree retention on undeveloped properties that the Committee asked
staff to prepare. We are still working on a separate memo (titled "Undeveloped Parcels ") addressing this
issue and will e-mail it to you by April 5, 2013.
At the March meeting, we discussed extending the meetings on April 10th and May 8th until 8:30 p.m.
Because of this, we will be ordering sandwiches for dinner — if you have any dietary needs that we need to
take into account (gluten free, vegetarian. etc.), please e-mail these to me ASAP.
At the March meeting, we also discussed reserving Wednesday, May 29th as a possible meeting date if
needed to wrap up any remaining issues. If you weren't in attendance at the last meeting, please advise
me about your availability for a May 29th meeting.
We look forward to seeing you on April 1Ot'. Please call or e-mail if you have any questions in the
meantime, or if you will not be able to attend the meeting.
CPL Page 1 of 2
W:`+,\Long Range Projects\Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials\Agendas- Memos- Materials\Meeting 8\Memo 8
06/10/2013
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -3
Tukwila Tree and Advisory Committee
April 10, 2013 Meeting
Enclosures:
• Agenda
• Draft 3 -13 -13 Meeting Notes
• Table of Landscaping and Street Tree Regulations
• Revised Draft Urban Forestry Goals and Policies — two versions — 1) with track changes and 2) a
clean copy with the revisions from the 3/13/13 meeting and the staff technical team input
accepted.
• Tree City USA Bulletin: "How to Prevent Tree /Sign Conflicts"
• Short article entitled "Trees, Parking and Green Law, Legal Tools and Strategies for
Sustainability"
• For those Committee members absent on 3/13, a copy of the handout provided by Daryl Tapio is
included along with a hard copy of the letter he sent via e-mail on March 13th that was e- mailed to
the Committee.
• A longer article entitled "Trees, Parking and Green Law: Strategies for Sustainability" will be
posted on the Tree and Environment web site as it is quite lengthy.
cc: Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director, Department of Community Development
Kimberly Matej, Government Relations
CPL Page 2 of 2 06/10/2013 1:48 PM
128 W: Long Range ProjectsWrban Forestry \Advisory Committee materials\Memos, Agendas\Meeting 8\Memo 8
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
Meeting 8, April 10, 2013
Committee Members in Attendance: Sean Albert, Nancy Eklund, Christian Faltenberger, Sharon
Mann, De'Sean Quinn, Stephen Reilly, Don Scanlon, Heidi Wafters, Kathleen Wilson
Committee Members Absent: None
Members of the Public in Attendance: None
Staff in Attendance: Carol Lumb, Sandra Whiting, Nora Gierloff
The meeting began at 5:35 p.m.
Topics of Discussion:
1. Welcome to Committee members and visitors.
2. Public comment: (Time is set aside at the beginning of each meeting for brief public comments; the
Committee is meeting in work session format, therefore, questions or comments from the public that
come up during the course of the meeting should be directed to staff via e-mail or telephone calls
after the meeting. These communications will be passed along to the Committee)
No members of the public were in attendance. Councilmember Quinn read two letters received
from the public to the Committee members, the first from Brooke Alford, Tukwila resident who had
made a presentation to the Committee about other jurisdictions' urban forestry regulations and the
second from David Shumate, former Committee member who owns property in Tukwila.
3. Check -in with Committee members: The Chair asked if Committee members have any questions or
comments from the previous meeting that they wanted to discuss.
• The Chair reviewed Resolution 1767, which established the Advisory Committee, including
the Committee make up, responsibilities of the Committee and staff, and schedule.
• The Committee briefly discussed member's roles and the importance of maintaining
impartiality.
4. Housekeeping:
• The Committee approved the meeting notes from the 3 -13 -13 meeting with a revision on
the second page, under #5, the introductory paragraph to the sections providing Committee
revisions to the urban forestry goals and policies.
5. Staff presentation on current landscaping and street tree regulations:
After the PowerPoint presentation, the Committee discussed the following:
a. Goal 2, Policies 10 and 11:
• The current landscape code requirement for 40% coverage in 10 years for multi-family —
unclear what this means and if it is a reasonable standard. Staff believes it means that
of the trees approved and planted in the landscape, they must have 40% canopy
CL Page 1 of 4 06/12/2013 9:15 AM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 8 \Draft Mtg Notes
129
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
coverage in 10 years. It does not mean that 40% of the total site area must have 40
percent canopy coverage. It is uncertain if this standard has been monitored and met.
• The need for ensuring that tree and landscape companies doing work in Tukwila meet
minimum training requirements for pruning and other tree work. One possible way to
do this, which the Committee has discussed previously is using the business license
process as a way to require that tree /landscaping companies have some type of
minimum training or certification for tree pruning work.
• How to handle any newly adopted landscaping requirements for a recently landscaped
property under an old code, on which redevelopment /new development takes place. If
there are newly adopted regulations would (for example) a parking lot be required to
conform? Staff responded that this could be examined and possibly a time period could
be applied — for example if a property were landscaped under an old code within the
previous 2 or 3 years, it might be able to be exempted from having to meet new
landscape codes.
• Because of commercial parking needs, the cost of providing parking, and potential
conflicts with the goal of having more or larger trees in parking lots , the City may need
to examine other opportunities to improve tree coverage by planting ROW and
establishing medians that can be planted.
• Can allowing projects to be built higher be used as an incentive to increase tree
planting /open space? It was discussed that in many areas of the City, the maximum
height permitted is not being built to, so that may not be much of an incentive to retain
or plant additional trees. However, in some cases surface water utility payments could
be an incentive (the less impervious surface, the lower the fee). It was pointed out that
the current structure of the surface water utility fees would not be enough of a financial
incentive to convert some parking area to trees.
• Using a point system (like the one used in Federal Way or the one proposed for Seattle)
to encourage the retention and planting of larger trees as part of a project where
landscaping is required; Seattle's urban forester could explain how the point system was
developed, especially since the development community was involved with crafting this
system.
• What about using green walls and /or roofs as a substitute for trees (where there might
not be enough room for additional trees).
• Flexibility is important to build into standards, but there should at least be minimum
requirements. Don't forget to incorporate wildlife benefits as part of any tree point
system.
• Why are the landscape standards for commercial areas different from those for
industrial areas? Is there a way to accommodate more landscaping on industrial sites
that takes into account the differing site conditions and development needs in these
areas? Allowing permanent landscaping in parking lot corners might be possible, and
CL Page 2 of 4 06/12/2013 9:15 AM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 8 \Draft Mtg Notes
130
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
also in employee parking lots, that aren't expected to be used for future truck traffic or
new structures.
• Landscape requirements for the industrial area need to take into account that parking
lots are considered an asset and that flexibility in their use /reuse for moving product,
placing a building should preserved.
• If the goal is to increase the tree canopy by 1% in the industrial area, how will that be
achieved? Can more landscaping/trees be required along the front for screening rather
than placing it in the parking lot?
b. Goal 3 Policies 6 -8.
Policy 6 — diversity of tree species
• More diversity is good, although it's nice to have the same species of street trees to achieve
a certain look — particularly at certain times of the year (like maples during the fall and
cherry trees in the spring).
• Why not have a street tree plan that everyone follows?
• Break policy 6 into two policies — have a separate policy for ROW trees. Have a generic
diversity statement and require diversity for landscape installations but allow some planting
of the same species for street trees (maybe different species between blocks but same
species allowed within a block).
Policy 7 — minimum standards
• The need for manuals and whether or not there is money for developing these manuals?
Can we adopt a professional organization's standards? Also, make the manual(s) or other
more simple manuals available to the public /homeowners for their use.
• Concern about regulations that aren't enforced and the need for ongoing training for staff
responsible for inspecting landscape installations and tree damage from construction or
other activities.
• Suggestion, when inspecting landscape installations, staff should pull out a couple trees to
see that they've been planted correctly.
• Develop handouts like Seattle's client assistance brochures
• Train city staff to know how to correctly prune street trees and trees in parks — send them to
training, or bring someone in to train. Also explore the possibility of using volunteers for
some tree care in public areas, as some cities do.
Policy 8 — approved /recommended tree list
• Add wildlife to the list of items to take into account for tree selection.
6. The Committee returned to the discussion of proposed policy 1.d. of Goal 1, initially begun at
the March 13, 2013 meeting, regarding whether and /or how much to regulate the removal of
trees from undeveloped parcels. Staff had prepared a memo with several alternatives for the
Committee's consideration. The Committee discussed the following issues:
CL Page 3 of 4 06/12/2013 9:15 AM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 8 \Draft Mtg Notes
131
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
• Use a point system to encourage creative site design once a site is ready for development.
• Safety of removal of trees over a certain height — this is why a permit should be required.
• Permit should be required for hazardous tree removal but no fee would be charged;
• Refine the policy to cover all significant trees, as defined by the Zoning Code — four inches or
larger in diameter at four feet (breast height).
• General consensus: prohibit removal of trees from undeveloped parcels until such time as a
development or other permit has been approved, (with the exceptions noted). This
provides the City and developer a chance to see where trees could be retained as part of
proposed development
7. Next Meeting: finish re- review of urban forestry goals and policies; return to Natural Environment
goals and policies to ensure consensus from the Committee on goals and policies to recommend to
the Planning Commission.
8. The meeting closed at 8:30 pm.
9. Action Items for staff follow -up:
a. Staff will incorporate agreed changes discussed to policy language, using strike-
out /underline.
CL Page 4 of 4 06/12/2013 9:15 AM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 8 \Draft Mtg Notes
132
s1
908
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
A,.
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 30, 2013
TO: Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
FM: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner
Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist
RE: May 8, 2013 Advisory Committee Meeting
At our next meeting, we will conclude our review of the urban forestry goals and policies by reviewing all
the edits /revisions provided by the Advisory Committee to -date. Proposed implementation measures have
been added to each goal section, identified in green type. Please be thinking about the proposed canopy
goals and what might be reasonable in light of our recent discussions about the possibilities and
limitations for increasing tree canopy in parking lots and in the public rights -of -way in industrial areas,
the Urban Center and Tukwila South. Keep in mind that tree planting will occur only as areas develop or
redevelop, and that trees grow slowly and newly planted trees may not provide measurable canopy for
many years after planting.
During the second half of the meeting, we will return to the Natural Environment goals and policies to
ensure that Committee consensus is accurately reflected. The enclosed set of goals and policies shows all
edits as "accepted," as of the January 23, 2013 meeting. Revisions in strikeout/underline reflect
comments received from the Committee after that date or further refinement by staff. Proposed
implementation measures, identified in green type, have been added for the Committee's review. There
are two "new" policies that the Committee has not seen before related to flood control that have been
moved from the Utilities Chapter to the Natural Environment Chapter. After reviewing these policies,
staff recommends integrating them into either the flood control goal or policies in that section. You will
see staff's proposed revisions and comments on these two policies on pages 7 and 8 of the enclosed
Natural Environment Chapter.
At the March meeting, we also discussed reserving Wednesday, May 29th as a possible meeting date if
needed to wrap up any remaining issues. If we do not finish up review of all the goals and policies on
May 8th, then we will need to meet on May 29th to conclude the Committee's work. This will allow staff
time to prepare materials for the June 27th Planning Commission meeting. Also, we are looking at
Monday, June 24, 2013 as a possible date when the Advisory Committee would brief a joint City
Council/Planning Commission meeting on the Advisory Committee's recommendations on goals and
policies, so please take a look at your calendars to see if this date works for you.
We look forward to seeing you on May 8th. As a reminder, this will be an extended meeting — going until
8:30 pm. Dinner will be provided. Please call or e-mail if you have any questions in the meantime, or if
you will not be able to attend the meeting.
CPL Page 1 of 2 06/12/2013
W: \\Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry \Advisory Committee Materials\Agendas. Memos- Materials\Meeting 9\Memo 9
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206-431-31560
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
May 8, 2013 Meeting
Enclosures:
• Agenda
• Draft 4 -10 -13 Meeting Notes
• Final 3 -13 -13 Meeting Notes
• Revised Draft Urban Forestry Goals and Policies
• Revised Draft Natural Environment Goals and Policies (excluding urban forestry goals and
policies)
cc: Nora Gierloff, Deputy Director, Department of Community Development
Kimberly Matej, Government Relations
CPL Page 2 of 2
134 W: \\Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee materials\Memos, Agendas \Meeting 9 \Memo 9
06/12/2013 9:13 AM
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
Meeting 9, May 8, 2013
Committee Members in Attendance: Sean Albert, Nancy Eklund, Christian Faltenberger, Sharon
Mann, De'Sean Quinn, Don Scanlon, Heidi Watters, Kathleen Wilson
Committee Members Absent: Stephen Reilly
Members of the Public in Attendance: None
Staff in Attendance: Carol Lumb, Sandra Whiting, Nora Gierloff
The meeting began at 5:35 p.m.
Topics of Discussion:
1. Welcome to Committee members and visitors.
2. Public comment: (Time is set aside at the beginning of each meeting for brief public comments; the
Committee is meeting in work session format, therefore, questions or comments from the public that
come up during the course of the meeting should be directed to staff via e-mail or telephone calls
after the meeting. These communications will be passed along to the Committee)
No members of the public were in attendance.
3. Check -in with Committee members: The committee discussed the May 6, 2013 letter from Mr. Daryl
Tapio, the March 12, 2013 letter from him that was attached (distributed via e-mail to the Committee
on March 12th and hard copies at the March 13th Advisory Committee meeting) as follows
• The Committee discussed issues raised in the letters and the approach that members have been
using to consider a variety of viewpoints when providing input to staff regarding goals and
policies. In addition, the Committee discussed its role: to provide "big picture" direction for the
City and not to write regulations, while recognizing that there will be considerable opportunity
for additional public input as the revisions to this element of the Comprehensive Plan move
forward through the approval process. The Committee has tried to balance competing demands
between increasing density and preserving trees. As an example, the proposed policy on tree
removal on any undeveloped parcel is not saying that trees can't ever be removed from vacant
parcels, rather that tree removal should be postponed until there is a plan for development so
staff can work with the developer on site lay -out to see if healthy trees can be preserved, while
still accommodating the proposed development.
• The Committee discussed the role of code enforcement and due process procedures in
enforcing any new regulations that result from adopted goals /policies and the need to recognize
that the City has limited resources. Nonetheless, it was agreed that the goals and policies are
important to give the City direction, to let decision makers know what the Committee thinks is
important and to identify the need for additional resources for implementing the new policies.
The Committee discussed the City's budget planning process with input from staff.
CL Page 1 of 4 06/10/2013 1:57 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 8 \Draft Mtg Notes
135
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
• The Committee also discussed the timing and process for adoption of the goals and policies, and
implementation through new programs and changes to regulations. Adoption of the goals and
policies will go to the Planning Commission in June and from there to the City Council for
adoption this year. Staff pointed out that not every new policy will be immediately
implemented, but instead will be implemented over time, as staff time and budget are available.
Staff informed the Committee that modifications to regulations would be scheduled for next
year, and that the Committee would be invited to advise on the regulatory changes.
After a lengthy discussion, the Committee agreed that their mission is to develop goals and policies and
that these are aspirational in nature — and that they had balanced a variety of viewpoints in their review.
The job of the elected officials, once goals and policies are adopted, is to steer the ship in the direction
set by these policies with incremental "course corrections" taking place over time.
4. Housekeeping:
• This was deferred to the end of the meeting.
5. Urban Forestry Goals and Policies — conclude discussion
The Committee discussed and reached consensus the following:
a. Goal 1: No changes
b. Goal 2: The committee suggested the following modifications to the policies and
implementation strategies:
• Keep the proposed increases in canopy coverage discussed at previous meetings and
create two tree canopy goal categories for industrial — light and heavy industrial to
recognize the different character of heavy industrial uses from light industrial.
• The Committee also directed that the public right of way be targeted for increases in
tree canopy and that a percentage tree canopy goal for these areas be established in the
future.
• The Committee suggested that it would be helpful to distinguish between parking lot
types in industrial areas for determining landscaping requirements such as
differentiating between employee parking areas and those with the need for large truck
movement — i.e. — a large manufacturing type parking lot vs. a light industrial warehouse
parking lot.
• Adjustments were made to the wording of polices 1b, 4, 5, 6,
• Regarding Policy 5, Committee consensus was that it is too onerous to require an ISA
certified arborist to be on site every time there is work in the root zone of a tree and
that this requirement should be on a case -by -case basis. Also, contractors should be
required to put up fencing to exclude work from an established root zone around a tree
that is being retained and protected. Staff indicated that the need for a certified
arborist most likely would be important when an underground utility is being installed
CL Page 2 of 4 06/10/2013 1:57 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 8 \Draft Mtg Notes
136
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
that cannot avoid the critical root zone. A certified arborist could ensure that
installation was done in such a way as to minimize damage to tree roots. The
Committee pointed out that requiring certified arborists demonstrates that the City
wants properly trained people working on trees, and turned to the proposed policy
under Goal 3 regarding minimum qualifications for tree companies through the business
license process. The Committee discussed what criteria or type of certification might be
required and recommended development of specifications to enclose with the business
license. The Committee also recommended looking at other cities' procedures, such as
Seattle's.
c. Goal 3
• Revisions were made to the wording of policies 2 and 6.
d. Implementation Strategies
• The Committee reviewed the proposed Implementation Strategies and made revisions.
6. The Committee returned to the Natural Environment goals and policies to conclude review and
revisions. The Committee discussed and reached consensus the following:
• Environmental Quality and Stewardship: Revise Policy 4.2.3 and two of the Implementation
Strategies ( bullets #7 and 10);
• Water Resources: Revise Policies 4.6.2 and 4.6.5 and Implementation Strategy bullet # 3
• Water Quality /Quantity: Revise Policy 4.7.4; and Policies 4.8.1, 4.8.2 and 4.8.3 and
Implementation Strategies bullet # 1;
• For the flood control Implementation Strategies, reference the City's flood plain ordinance
and make sure they don't conflict with FEMA regulations.
• Earth Resources: revise policy 4.10.2 and Implementation Strategies bullet # 2
7. Housekeeping:
a. Staff has prepared a summary of the work the Committee has done, with highlights of key
decisions for their use as speaking points or just for reference. It is draft — the Committee was
asked to provide edits to staff. Two suggestions are:
• clarify that the Committee worked on existing and new goals and policies for the
Comprehensive Plan; and
• reference the various informational presentations made to the Committee.
b. The joint Planning Commission /City Council work session is scheduled for Monday, June 24th —
where the Committee will be present its recommended goals, policies and implementation
strategies. The Committee discussed the organization of the meeting and reached this
consensus:
CL Page 3 of 4 06/10/2013 1:57 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 8 \Draft Mtg Notes
137
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
• staff will present a summary of the goals and policies;
• representatives of the Committee will speak to specific key issues to explain the nature of
their discussions in arriving at consensus;
• Committee members indicating a willingness to be "presenters" are Christian, Sean, Heidi
and Kathleen at this point.
• The Committee expressed the need to have a meeting prior to the joint meeting to prepare
and it was suggested that this meeting take place on May 29th, which was being held open
for a possible final meeting.
8. The meeting closed at 8:55 pm.
9. Action Items for staff follow -up:
a. Staff will prepare a PowerPoint presentation for the June 24th work session and identify
key issues and talking points for the Committee members to use in their comments at
the meeting on June 24th
b. The Committee members participating in the presentation will meet on May 29th to go
over the presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council.
CL Page 4 of 4 06/10/2013 1:57 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Meeting 8 \Draft Mtg Notes
138
Reason to Remove Trees Self-Sustaining
fear ofit failing
sunlight
solar energy
build ahome
remodel home
build a garage
have a bigger yard
unhealthy or dead
nota nice tree
7 utilities
infiltrations trench
driveway
private road
turn around 85 ft
Propery Owners like trees
They plant them an their own
Expensive to Rernove
Expensive to Reinove or Prune
Stump rernoval expensive
Many benefits oftrees
Beauty
Helps drainage
Stabilizes soil
Privacy
Shade
Lowers cooling costs
Makes for nice neighborhood
Make sure your solution doesn't create more problems
Test out any solutions to niake sure it is practical
Tree Policy issues
Uary|Tapio March 13, 2013
City Control - Regulations
- Negative Plan
permits
regulations
fines
financial guarantees
covenants
maintenance agreements
inspections
code enforcement
24/7 hotlines
neighbors calling
surveys/studies/reports
protect root zone huge dia.
poor relationships with owners
city micrornanages owners
expensive for city to administer
City becomes obstacle to plans
Property Owner Control
Built in incentive to have trees
many benefits
costly 10 rernove
Have a good track record
Tree Canopy Report
47% in Singfe Farnily Res
51% in Med Density Res
If they remove a tree, they have a reason
Positive PIan - Property Owners Control
education
tree planting programs
share best practices
develop tree lists
how to plant
how to care for
help property owners achieve their dreams
lower cost to city
share tree canopy goal and invofve community
better relationships
140
Daryl Tapio
P.O. Box 69736, Seattle WA 98168,
Email: dtolympic(a)yahoo.com, Phone (206)931 -3998
Carol Lumb and Sandra Whiting
Tukwila Planning Dept.
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila, WA 98188
March 12, 2013
SENT VIA EMAIL
CC: Tukwila City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor, and City Administrator
RE: Comments on Staff Comp Plan Amendment Proposal on Urban Forestry
Attn: Carol and Sandra
I reviewed the Tukwila Planning Department's proposed Comp Plan Amendments that were
posted on the city website for the March 13, 2013 Tree Committee meeting. I have also attended
two committee meetings and listened to the audio of the last meeting. I have the following
comments to share with the Committee, Staff, Mayor, Council, and Planning Commission. This
will also be shared with property owners in Tukwila and throughout the region.
There are two paths to choose with tree and environmental policy; paths that diverge significantly
in the cost of administration, reputation for a municipality, and the outcomes for positive
development and tree canopy.
One path is a positive approach that involves education, organizing tree planting programs,
preparing recommended tree lists and sharing best practices, and helping property owners achieve
their dreams of improving their property. This path recognizes the complexity of redevelopment
and the many factors that go into a property owner's decision to modify their homes or property.
The other path is a negative approach that starts with the assumption that property owners make
poor decisions regarding their landscaping and need to be micromanaged by the city and
monitored closely by neighbors utilizing methods such as 24/7 hotlines. This involves transferring
the control of trees from the property owners to the city and then requiring permits, expensive
surveys /studies /reports from so- called experts, regulations, code enforcement, penalties, tree
assessments, financial guarantees, covenants, maintenance agreements, and prohibiting any
construction activity in large diameter areas around trees. This path involves the city being an
obstacle for property owners in the effort to improve their property.
According to the Canopy Report dated Dec. 2012, residential property owners in Tukwila without
government regulations are currently doing an exceptional job protecting tree canopies in
residential areas. For single - family property the tree canopy is 47 %, and for multi - family 51 %,
numbers much higher than many other cities. This empirical data is being ignored and arbitrary
goals of desired canopy targets are being proposed.
Tapio Letter, Page 1 of 2
141
Daryl Tapia
P.O. Box 69736, Seattle WA 98168
dtolympicgyahoo.coin, Phone (206)931-3998
Is the goal of this effort about trees or is it about control? This is a fundamental question that
needs to he adequately discussed and answered detinitively. It also sbould be clearly specified in
the Comp Plan. If this effort is truly about trees and achieving a certain percentage of tree canopy
in each zone, then the goal can he mcI by the second approach described above with relative ease.
We are fortunatc enough to live in a climat.e that is virtually ideal for growing trees. They grow
quickly and if properly selected and planted require very little maintenance or waterinu. lhurc
planted many trees in the area and some of the trees planted four years ago are now 8 to 1 0 feet in
height. On some of my property 0 grove of trees appeared Nvithout planting, both coniferous and
deciduous, and many grew to heights oi' 30 feet in 5 years.
The staff proposed Comp Plan cmbraces the negative appr0uch. | have attached a copy ofthe Staff
Comp Plan Proposal with all of the sections highlighted in yellow that could result in regulations,
fees, permits, and ultimately transferring the control oftrees from property owners 10 the citv.
In the nleelings l have attended and listened to it is apparent that there is oobody on the committee
oriu the room v/i\hFirst-hand experience in the areas of building homes or small-site development.
This iamcritical piece of the puzzle that is missing. ithc is one-sided
discussion. Without input from property owners who want to improve their property and have
permitting and construction experience it is impossible to create a policy that would allow efficient
redevelopment 111 a city that desperately needs more redcvelopment.
Some ol the discussion at the last meeting was offensive. outrageous and truly despicable. A
cornrnittee member referred to crcating an enforcement policy that embraced hiuh fines and
financial penalties on property owners for cutting or pruning their own trees as fo}|ow's: ''HIT
THEM HARD! We may not catch every one, but those that we du, MAKE THEM PAY! MAKE
AN E}{f\MP[E|" The most telling part of this discussion was that nobody in the room countered
this statement or said that they disagreed. A policy created in this environment will not result in a
harmonious relationship between property owners and tlic city.
The committee and city staff are deliberately ignoring empirical data. presenting a one-sided
argument and proposing Comp Plan amendments that woLild lead to transferring the control over
trees ti-oru the property owners to the city. There is a better policy choice that would lead to better
relationships with propertv owners and builders and result in a better and greener city. ThcMuy0c,
Council, and management needs to provide clear direction on this issue prior 10 more city resource
expenditures.
Daryl Tapio
A1, chmcots Highlighted Comp Plan Proposal, Tree Canopy Report p. I
142
Landcover: High Density Residential
High-Density Residential: allows up to 22.0
dwelling units per net acre. Senior citizen housing is
allowed up to 60 dwelling units per acre, subject to
additional restrictions. The district is intended to
provide a high-density, multiple-family district which
is also compatible with commercial and office areas.
The majority of High Density Residential land cover
is impervious (56%), with 33% canopy. Pervious
surface represents 11% while bare soil represents
less than one percent (0.1%)
Pro/
7C-64
'obimu„, tof
Landcover: Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential: allows up to 14.5 dwelling
units per net acre. The district is intended to provide
areas _for family and group residential uses, and serves
as an alternative to lower density family residential
housing and more intensively developed group
residential housing and related uses.
Slightly over 'half of Medium Density Residential
landcover is canopy (51%), while 35% is impervious and
14% is pervious. Bare soil represents less than one
percent (0.05%).
Landcover: Low Density Residential
"Y.--------Low Density Residential: allows a maximum of 6.7
dwelling units per net acre. It is intended to provide
low density family residential areas together with a
full range of urban infrastructure services in order
to maintain stable residential neighborhoods and to
prevent intrusions by incompatible land uses.
Almost half of the landcover in the Low Density
Residential zone is canopy (47%) while 29% is
pervious. Impervious land cover represents 22% and
bare soil and open water represent 1%, each.
Oar pve-40
Figure 8 - High Density
Residential
\_ Bare Soil
0.1%
Figure 9 - Medium Density
Residential
L Bare Soil
0.05%
Figure 10 - Low Density
Residential
re Soil
Open
Water
1%
Tukwila, WA
Urban Tree Canopy Assessment
17
143
144
Staif Proposed Goats/Poticies for Urban Forestry
March 13, 2013 Meeting
Proposed Urban Forestry Goals, Policies for the Natural Environment Chapter
The foliowing goals are an expansion of the existing goals and policies in Chopter 1 of the Comprehensive
Plan: See Goal 2.J and Policies 13.I,1I2; Goal 14 and policies 2.4.1 and 14.2; Goal 2.6, second bullet;
Goal 1: Trees are recognized by Tukwila citizens, businesses, City staif and decision-makers for their
beneflts to the environment (air quatity, habitat, climate change), urban infrastructure (stormwater
attenuation, slope stability, temperature) and their aesthetic value (economic benefits, safety/crime
reduction, visuat and recreational beneflts, etc.) Note: odiscuss/onofthebenefitsoftreesw8/be
included in a narrative section that introduces the goal, so they won't need to be in the goal itself).
Policies for Goa 1:
I. Develop a formal urban forest management plan to promote and guide preservation,
restoration and maintenance of a sustainable urban forest, using the goals and policies of this
chapter (as a basis) for guidance.
2. Ensure that the benefits of trees are factored into site design and permit decisions.
3. Ensure that regulations recognize that Iarger trees provide more benefits than small trees.
4. Seek to create and fund an urban forester/municipal arborist position within the City, or
contract for such services, to provide expertise for urban forest management planning,
oversight of tree planting and maintenance, and assistance to all City departments that have
responsibilities for tree management.
5. Educate the public, elected officials and City staff about the importance of and benefits provided
by trees in Tukwila.
G. Develop tree valuation methods to reflect the value trees provide, for use in assessing fines,
determining damages or estimating oss of tree benefits.
7. Identify funding sources to support urban forestry planning and management and establish an
urban forestry budget and account.
8. Consider developing an "exceptional" or "heritage" tree program to foster tree appreciation in
the community.
9. Encourage public involvement in urban forest stewardship through volunteer events, free
training workshops, and other means.
kiou�
/4A04":1
/ 1 /'/A 1. ^?1/ 14/ ‘-t5' +/)'z'
riry .44
�
�� �
Page zof3 2/28/201 3:55 PM
Committee
Staff Proposed Goals/Policies for Urban Forestry
March 13, 2013 Meeting
Goal 2. Tree Canopy Goal: OveraH city-wide tree canopy increased to a total of 28% by 2028 by
achieving the following goals for different land use categories:
Industrial zones: 1 % increase to 14% cover
Medium and High Residential Density zones: No net loss to maintain current 40% cover
Low Density Residential: No net loss to maintain current 47% cover
Office and Commercial: 19& increase to 30Y6 cover
Tukwila Urban Center and Tukwila South: 3% increase to achieve 16% cover
Policies for Goal 2:
I. Promote tree retention throughout the City by:
a. implementing educational programs for property owners and managers;
b. exploring incentives for tree retention and planting;
c. prohibiting tree removal on all undeveloped property without an approved development
permit;
d. protecting healthy stands or groves of trees on property proposed for development through
changes in regulations, including incentives; and
e. requiring financial assurances for required tree replanting and maintenance.
2. Improve retention of trees on steep slopes through modifications in regulations, ensuring the
evaluation of the role that trees play in siope stability during geotechnical reviews, and by
providing incentives.
3. Require in-kind replacement of trees where removal is allowed to ensure that replacement trees
at maturity will have similar canopies to that of the removed tree(s), except where existing or
future infrastructure impedes the planting of large trees.
4. Require protection of trees for alt public and private infrastructure installation or maintenance,
and require the presence of a certified arborist when working in the critical root zone. Where
damage to trees is not avoidable, require replanting or payment into a tree replacement fund as
compensation.
5. Require professional assessment of damaged trees and require corrective actions to restore tree
health or replace trees that are not likely to survive and thrive,
G. When all required replacement trees cannot be accommodated on a site, require off-site
planting of replacement trees, or payment into a dedicated tree replacement fund.
7. Identify potential tree planting locations on publicly owned properties and develop tree planting
and urban forest rehabilitation programs for City parks and other publicly owned lands.
Collaborate with other agencies, such as Washington Department of Transportation to promote
planting in highway interchanges and other locations.
D. Collaborate with other government, non-profit organizations and private sector entities to
promote urban forest managernent and restoration.
Page 2 of 3 2/28/201 3:55 PM
w:\\Lo,gxangepnojpcts\uruanpnrestry\Aummryoummmeematena|s\«xenuaswemus\ Meeting 7\Staff Proposed Urban Forestry Policies
146
Staif Proposed Goals/PoIicies for Urban Forestry
March 13, 2013 Meeting
Goal 3. Tukwila's streetscapes and landscaped areas are sustainable and attractive and its
urban forest is healthy, diverse, and safe.
Policies for Goal 3:
1. Encourage retention of existing healthy trees wherever possible, through regulations,
incentves, and education.
2. Develop tree/urban fores inventories and assess the health of trees and forests in Tukwia's
public spaces.
3. Develop maintenance plans and programs for trees on City property or rights-of-way to ensure
that maintenance pruning is properly carried out, diseases and pest infestations are managed,
hazardous trees are identified and managed in a timely manner to reduce risks, and invasive
vegetation is managed.
4. Modify codes and educate property owners, property managers, landscape maintenance
companies and tree companies to promote best practices for soil preparation, planting
techniques, pruning, trenching, and general tree care.
5. Ensure that landscaping and replacement trees in new development or re-development are
properly cared for and thrive in perpetuity, through such means as maintenance agreements,
monitoring and enforcement,
G. Develop a mechanism to ensure that tree removal and maintenance companies have the
necessary qualifications and liability insurance for work in Tukwila.
Page 3 of 3 2/28/2013 3:55 PM
eA\ Long Range projects\ubanpore,try\Au,/sory Committee Materials A enua,memos\Meetinnr\Stan Proposed Urban Forestry Policies
148
Carol Lumb, Senior Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
April 9`h, 2013
As a current property owner and former resident of Tukwila, I'm writing to comment on the work ahead
of the Tree Commission. I am very supportive of policy development that preserves existing trees in
Tukwila and encourages the cultivation of new trees through city sponsored education and planting
programs. It is my belief, and many residents of Tukwila, that a more progressive and enforceable tree
plan needs to be put in place to maintain and preserve tree canopy and green space. This in turn will
enhance the environment and increase property values.
This issue is especially important concerning the few remaining undeveloped lots in Tukwila. These are
a treasure store of mature trees that have taken generations to grow and could not be duplicated in our
lifetime. If there is any doubt as to the financial and aesthetic value of mature trees in a neighborhood,
please envision Seattle's E. Capitol Hill, Montlake or The Highlands neighborhoods.
I would hope that the Tree Committee, the Planning Commission and eventually the City Council will
consider the voices of the Tukwila citizens over transient developers and outside agitators in developing
new tree ordinances that will guide the direction of a modern, enlightened Tukwila.
Thank you,
David Shumate
Property Owner:
11534 E. Marginal Way S.
Tukwila, WA 98168
149
150
Carol Lumb
From: Daryl Tapio <dtolympic @yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:10 PM
To: Carol Lumb; Sandra Whiting; Nora Gierloff
Subject: Fwd: Comments on Tree Committee
Attachments: Tukwila Tree Letter 031213.pdf; ATT00001.htm
Carol,
Can this letter dated March 12th be added to the Tree Committee website along with the letters from Alford and
Shumate? Since they rebutted my letter it seems appropriate that my letter be included as well.
It is a shame that they have decided to resort to name calling such as "transient developers" and "outside
agitators" and have avoided the substantive issues raised in the letter and in the public comments. The people
who attended the meeting are interested in good policy not in agitating.
I have built many houses in Tukwila, am a former resident of Tukwila and used to have an office in Tukwila
near the mall. I have owned property in Tukwila for the past 15 years and currently own multiple properties. I
also currently live within 1/2 mile of Tukwila.
The committee continues to lack representation from experienced people who have gone through the permitting
process and built and developed residential projects. Without that representation Tukwila will suffer from a
decreased amount of redevelopment in a city that desperately could use investment and redevelopment in the
single family residential areas if more regulations and penalties are implemented regarding trees.
The committee and certain individuals can attempt to discredit my arguments but time will tell and if the city
passes more regulations there will be fewer new homes built.
The current regulations are already limiting development in the city. Adding regulations will limit development
even more.
I am very disappointed that builders and developers have not been involved with the city of Tukwila to share
their concerns and inform the staff and Council of the effects of the many regulations that have been
passed. This is likely the result of so little residential building in the city that it is not worth the time and effort
of the Master Builders Association or individual builders.
The committee and the city may think that they are saving trees and the environment but in reality the number
of saved trees will be trivial and the effect on development will be great.
I was at Lowes in Tukwila last week and observed an estimated 200 trees in their inventory ready to sell to
customers. Other home improvement stores and nurseries have even more. Homeowners buy these trees and
plant them on their property, not because of a government regulation, but because they like trees. Trees are
self - regulating because of the many benefits they provide. Nobody on the tree committee brings this point
out. They only choose to think that the only way to increase the tree canopy is through regulations and
penalties. The empirical data of the Tukwila Tree Canopy Report supports my position not theirs in residential
areas.
1
151
Please forward this email to the Tree Committee, Planning Commission, and Council and include this email on
the tree committee website along with the letter dated March 12th. I, along with others in the region, will
monitor the recommendations of this committee and the ongoing process.
Sincerely,
Daryl Tapio
Tukwila Property Owner
Begin forwarded message:
From: Daryl Tapio <dtQl_yippic @yahoo.com>
Date: March 12, 2013, 12:15:35 PM PDT
To Carol Lumb <CaroLLutnb@Y-Fukwil IV■/ A. 2ov>, Sandra Whiting
<Sandra.Whit in (2 (El'I'Llkwi laWA. 2(')■,,>, Nora Gierloff <Nora. cri off O'Tuk wila A. Lzov>
Subject: Comments on Tree Committee
Reply-To: Daryl Tapio <cltol ynipic @)y4hoo,com>
Hi Carol, Sandra, and Nora,
Attached are my comments on the Comp Plan proposal on Urban Forestry and the Tree
Committee.
Can one of you forward this letter to the Council, Planning Commission, Mayor, City
Administrator, and management?
Thanks,
Daryl Tapia
152
2
Gmail TTEAC: note to the committee
TTEAC: note to the committee
1 message
brooke alford
To: De'Sean Quinn
Councilmember Quinn,
De'Sean Quinn
Page 1 of 1
Wed, Apr 10. 2013 at 2:19 PM
1 would Ike to submit some comments to the TTEAC for consideration, 1 was disconcerted to hear that a
delegation from another municipality (Sea Tac) attended the Tukwila committee's meeting to give comment
and attempt to sway policy in our city. It is by choice that 1 flve in this community and serve as a
community advocate here. Go, as a resident and landowner in Tukwila |vv0 be very dismayed if this
delegation from another city serves to sway policy in this one, or take up this committee's precious time.
Pertaining to tree regulation on undeveloped property: During the urban forestry research conducted
in review of other municipality programs and policies, all of the municipalities sampled regulated the
removal of trees on undeveloped property. It was my impression from discussion with staff from some of
these municipalities that this policy was necessitated by the continued actions on undeveloped properties
whereby these properties were clearcut prior to submission for development permits, thereby avoiding any
kind of tree preservation requirements. These kinds of actions serve to undermine any canopy retention
goals the City might craft.
Other comments. Upon reviewing the minutes from last months meeting, 1 would like to submit a few
more comments.
1. I agree with the committee members who felt the canopy targets too low, particularly in the areas of
office, commercial, the Urban Center and Tukwila South.
2. 1 commend the committee in their focuses on education and incentivization. And 1 value highly words
such as "encourage" and "collaborate." However, | also strongly urge the committee and staff to use
thoughtful caution in the overuse of such terms in the po|icy, as it could ultimately render the policy
ineffective.
1 want to thank you, Chair, the Committee and staif for all of the hard wor on this policy 1 think sound
urban forestry management is crucial to a healthy community and look forward to a strong product from
your efforts.
Sincerely.
Brooke Alford
154
111111111 1:
tiliiiiiiiiiiiiii
TO:
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner
Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist
DATE: June 17, 2013
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update— Shoreline Element
BACKGROUND
Ordinance 2345, approved by the Tukwila City Council on August 11, 2011, adopted new
Comprehensive Plan shoreline goals and policies as part of the update of the City's Shoreline
Master Program. The narrative background section in the Shoreline element of the
Comprehensive Plan was not updated at that time — only the goals and policies were updated.
For the 2015 update of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the narrative section of this Element
needs to be updated to reflect the legislative intent behind the revisions to the new goals and
policies. Materials related to the update of the City's shoreline Master Program can be found
here: htt:// www. tukwilawa .qov /dcd /shoreline.html
DISCUSSION
A public hearing will be held on June 27, 2013 to consider the proposed revisions to the
Shoreline Element narrative. Attached to this memo are two documents:
1. Shoreline Element narrative— Strikeout/Underline: this is the current Element from the
Comprehensive Plan with proposed narrative revisions identified.
2. Shoreline Element narrative — Formatted: this is a clean version of the Shoreline
Element with all proposed revisions accepted.
Please note that no revisions to the Shoreline goals and policies are proposed. The
Washington State Department of Ecology would need to review and approve any revisions to
shoreline goals and policies for consistency with the Shoreline Master Program.
RECOMMENDATION
Hold the public hearing to receive testimony on the revised narrative. Once the public hearing is
closed, staff requests that the Planning Commission review staff proposed revisions to the
narrative, consider public testimony and then make changes to the Shoreline Element narrative
for City Council consideration.
Attachments:
CL
1. Shoreline Element narrative — Strikeout/Underline
2. Shoreline Element narrative — Formatted
Page 1 of 1 06/19/2013 2:02:39 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \2014 Comprehensive Plan \Shoreline \PC Memo - Shoreline Element
155
156
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SHORELINE
PURPOSE
This element of the City's Comprehensive Plan presents goals and policies
related to development and restoration along the Green /Duwamish River,
a shoreline of statewide significance subject to the Washington State
Shoreline Management Act (SMA), that flows northerly through the entire
length of Tukwila. A small fragment of the Black River flows into the
Duwamish River just north of Fort Dent Park and is also subject to the
SMA and the goals and policies of this chapter
In 1971, the Washington State Legislature passed the Washington State
Shorclinc Managcmcnt Act, that requires each local government to
develop and implement a Shoreline Master Program to guide the
appropriate design, location, and management of shorclinc uses.
Tukwila's first Shorclinc Master Program was adopted in 1974 More
recently annexed areas of Tukwila will remain subject to the standards and
policies contained in the King County Shorclinc Master Program (areas
Program is updated.
In response to the Growth Managcmcnt Act, Tukwila has developed a new
Shorclinc Master Program, which reflects an expanded shorclinc and new
Shoreline
Comment [CU]: The text of the history of
shoreline planning in the Shoreline Element has
been shortened - the Shoreline Master Program
can be consulted where more detailed
information is desired.
December 2013
0
1
157
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
community goals. This new Master Program will provide the 20 year
framework for shoreline development and restoration.
The Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan represents the
Shoreline Master Program's role in the community -wide planning process.
It reflects the relationship between shoreline development and other
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, and the importance of a shoreline
vision to a community vision. The Shoreline Element identifies existing
local and regional policies, land use conditions, and shoreline conditions,
and sets forth shoreline goals and the policies for achieving them. These
goals and policies reflect Tukwila's priorities in directing change in these
areas:
❖ Facilitating redevelopment and prioritizing water - dependent
industrial uses in of the Manufacturing /Industrial Center (MIC)
and encouraging redevelopment in the Tukwila Urban Center
TUC that recognizes the river as a valuable resource.
❖ Increasing public access to the river.
®g® Ensuring the safety of new development from flooding and
from destabilized riverbanks by establishing setbacks for new
construction. Setbacks will allow for eventual replacement of
existing flood control levees and regrading of over - steepened
banks.
❖ Supporting restoration of habitat along the river through a
restoration plan in the Shoreline Master Program. Restoration
is accomplished in part, through removing invasive vegetation
and replacing it with native species, constructing off - channel
habitat and setting back levees to incorporate a mid -slope
bench that can be planted to improve habitat.
• Increasing the amount of trees and landscaping in the river
environment
Shoreline policyies recommendations encourage high- quality development
and redevelopment along the river. At the same time they recognize the
value of the Green/Duwamish River as an aesthetic resource by
encouraging new development in the urban center to "face" the river,
provide views and public or private access to the shoreline. The policies
also recognize the shoreline as an important as a natural resource -13t-
encouraging protection of remaining wildlife habitat, tree planting, and
that requires protection and restoration
of shoreline ecosystem functions (such as habitat, stormwater and flood
attenuation, water quality improvement and others). Policies in the Master
Program support restoration of shoreline ecological functions, particularly
December 2013
158
Comment [CL2]: Replaced and expanded by
bullet above.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
to improve habitat for endangered fish species (Chinook salmon and
Pacific Bull Trout).
As a whole, the Tukwila Shoreline Master Program acts as the imple-
mentation mechanism for achieving these goals and policies. Existing
r3horelinc regulations will be updated to include provisions for how shoreline-
uses will be designed and located.
ISSUES
Department of Ecology guidelines, and the City's obligations as a
artici ant in the implementation of the Green /Duwamish Salmon Habitat
Restoration plan, dictate that Shoreline Master Program policies and
regulations be established to ensure no net loss and restoration of shoreline
ecosystem functions. The major issue facing the City is balancing the
existing and lanned future urban develo ment along the river with these
requirements.
The Green /Duwamish River valley has evolved from an agricultural area
to a regional industrial and retail area. Land use along the river is mostly
commercial and industrial, although there are a few residential areas.
With the designation of the Tukwila Urban Center and the MIC in the
Duwamish Corridor, development along the shorclinc will continue to
evolve into more intensive commercial and industrial uses.
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT
PRIORITIES
The asfin sn Qat en nline Mangy f ^u ment °t...SMA designates the
Green/Duwamish River as a shoreline of statewide significance. "Because
these shorelines are major resources from which all people in the state
derive benefit, the [development] guidelines and master programs must
give preference to uses which favor public and long -range goals." [WAC
173- 16- 040N] The State SMA Act states that master programs for
shorelines of statewide significance shall should give preference to uses
that (in order of preference):
1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline
3. Result in long -term over short -term benefit
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the
shoreline
Shoreline
Comment [CL3]: This quotation will be
moved to a sidebar.
December 2013
0 •
3
159
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100
deemed appropriate or necessary (that is, which further the
state's shoreline policies).
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act requires that, where
alterations in the natural condition of a shoreline are authorized, priority
shall should be given to the following uses:
❖ Single - family residences
• Ports
• Shoreline recreational uses
❖ Industrial and commercial developments dependent upon a
shoreline location
❖ Other developments that will provide an opportunity for a
substantial number of people to enjoy the shoreline.
$
A
"shorelines of the state," local shoreline master programs must reflect
these priorities and preferences. At the same time, however, policies must
respond to local conditions. The policies Set forth in the established in the
Tukwila Shoreline Master Program attempt to balance the river's value as
a long -term natural resource for the region with the demands of intense
urban development. The City's Shoreline Master Program also recognizes
that except for the area north of the Turning Basin, most of the Green
River is not navigable for large vessels, and therefore opportunities to
establish water dependent uses are limited.
GOALS AND POLICIES
t tlE. fle t lie...rwtatHa e "
Waslf�uffff °Qa�ln.ffff "&n�A°
flonf ef-v
fe f-eatieit...e °;ill11; 11''nie -dIev l;
ill` wln�� ...f "fbi�wl"f " "b''f�Gffllll.f f° inf";" n�QGfbi� ..f!1- ��li���Q'f�f "ef�'All11a�� f" �ll�t -0.flf "'f�'f`ro'�rol��`w'f6f�:...
pf i ", 'e+tt f1 . -Of iiif i fti V +g Reed dfiff'f 'f `w tef 'f e-g afns, - - --
Tukwila's 2011 approved Shoreline Master Program, which is
incorporated by reference as part of this Plan, revised some of the 1995
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and added new ones to address
new issues, changed conditions along the river, or new requirements
established by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
At the same time, these policies reflect Tukwila's unique conditions and
goals. Tukwila shoreline policies give priority to the economic vitality of
the MIC, and focus intense multi - purpose urban uses, such as water -
enjoyment commercial activity and public access, in the Tukwila Urban
December 2013
160
Comment [CL4]: Corrected to reflect
language in the state law.
Comment [CL5]: This text is redundant, so
proposed for deletion.
Comment [CL6]: Text updated to reflect
recent approval by DOE of the City's 2011 SMA.
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Center. These policies also emphasize the importance of a variety of
shoreline public access ,methods, both physical and visual, linked to other
areas of the region. They recognize the value of the river as a natural
resource by encouraging restoration of
wildlife habitat, tree planting and restoration of and native riverbank
vegetation, including tree planting.
Tukwila's adopted Shorclinc Master Program, which is adopted by
reference as part of this Plan, is generally consistent with the goals and
policies contained in this Plan. There are certain portions of Tukwila's
shoreline which were recently annexed to the City. The City intends to
update its Shorclinc Program in 1996 to include these areas. Tukwila
will, as part of its 1996 update of its Shorclinc Master Program, conduct
additional review of the Shorclinc Master Program to assure its
consistency with this Plan and the development regulations adopted by the
City from time to time.
Shoreline Environment Designations
Shoreline
Comment [CL7]: Outdated text.
Comment [CL8]: New explanatory text has
been added throughout the goals and policies
subsections. Goals and policies are not shown in
strikeout /underline as they were revised when
the Shoreline Master Program was adopted in
2011.
The two hundred foot shoreline jurisdiction that comprises each shoreline envinoiHem is
divided lengthwise into a buffer and outside- buffer area and allowed uses are specified
for each. The shoreline environments are 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 impr ve 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
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Shoreline Master Program provides more information on buffer size and function.
The adopted buffers for each shoreline environment balance shoreline ecological
function, human life and property protection (including future levee
repair /reconstruction), existing land use patterns, and state and federal agency policies.
Goal 5.1 Shoreline Environment Designations
Shoreline Environment designations that meet Washington State Shoreline
Management Act requirements, and reflect local conditions and Tukwila's
long -term vision for its shoreline. The shoreline zone generally extends for
200 feet on either side of the Ordinary High Water mark, consistent with
the Washington State Shoreline Management Act. (Figure5-1)
December 2013
0
5
161
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
Ordinary high
water mark.
(OH41WIM)
Well end in 1100 yea
Roo d iralDe'in
oral;.;
1111 "mm 1111111
.111111 1101 al
4 0101 .0100 0 011 11 0 010
10111 11111 alga :P° 11 11
VIPI 111411 ..r 11101 01111
111111 00=00 1001 00000000 0
loll X1111111! 1111
11110 =1. 110101
111111 01111 . 1011
204'
1101 0000000 1111011 ;i 0010 000e 1011 000401 1000 0000000
101_ 1101 0101 0110 � 0110 1011 ?:
1114V --- 10 0 --- 41011 Itlll _ 111,
100 Year Flood r 0air1
200 rrom OHWM or flood way and
all marshes, bogs, and swamps in
100 year flood plain
H
nO 100 year
d p
Figure 5 -1 Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction
Policies
5.1.1 Shoreline Residential Environment. In the Shoreline Residential
Environment, priority shall be given to the following:
• Uses that preserve or restore the natural character of the shoreline
or promote preservation of vegetation, open space, flood plain or
sensitive area lands; and
• Development that is compatible with the natural and biological
limitations of the land and water and that will not require extensive
alteration of the shoreline or new "hard" structural shoreline
stabilization. Where possible the removal of bulkheads,
revetments, levees or other "hard" structural shoreline stabilization
is required. Hard structural shoreline stabilization may be replaced
with alternative bioengineered bank stabilization; and
• On publicly owned property, water- dependent or water- related
recreational activities that are compatible with the character of the
shoreline residential areas.
• Maintenance of existing single - family residential development
patterns and public open space and recreation uses;
• Residential and recreational development that promotes vegetation
conservation and enhancement, sensitive areas protection, and
maintenance of water quality to assure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions;
• Residential and recreational development that contributes to the
restoration of ecological functions over time in areas where
ecological degradation has occurred.
December 2013
162
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
5.1.2 Urban Conservancy Environment: In the Urban Conservancy
Environment priority shall be given to the following:
• Development that promotes vegetation conservation and
enhancement, sensitive areas protection, and preservation of water
quality to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
• Water enjoyment uses
• Uses that remove shoreline armoring, unless required for a
shoreline dependent use, and uses that prevent and /or minimize
flood damage;
• Uses that preserve or restore shoreline ecological functions
provided by vegetation, open space, flood plain or sensitive area
lands;
• Uses that minimize interference with navigation and flood control,
consider impacts to public views, and allow for the safe,
unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife, particularly those
species dependent on migration;
• Uses that provide public access and public recreation whenever
feasible and when ecological impacts can be mitigated;
• Development that is compatible with the natural and biological
limitations of the land and water that do not require extensive
alteration of the shoreline or new shoreline stabilization, except for
restoration projects.
• Uses that provide public access and public recreation whenever
feasible and ecological impacts can be mitigated;
• Enhancement and restoration of ecological functions; and
• Redevelopment of underutilized areas and development of
commercial and industrial activities where shoreline impacts are
minimized and where there is no net loss of shoreline functions.
5.1.3 High Intensity Shoreline Environment: In the High Intensity
Environment, priority shall be given to the following:
• Water dependent commercial and industrial uses;
• Development that promotes vegetation conservation and
enhancement, sensitive areas protection, and preservation
of water quality to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions.
• Uses that remove shoreline armoring, unless required for a
shoreline dependent use, and uses that prevent and/or
minimize flood damage;
• Uses that preserve or restore shoreline ecological functions
provided by vegetation, open space, flood plain or sensitive
area lands;
• Uses that minimize interference with navigation and flood
control, consider impacts to public views, and allow for the
December 2013
I
7
163
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
safe, unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife, particularly
those species dependent on migration;
• Uses that provide public access and public recreation
whenever feasible and when ecological impacts can be
mitigated;
• Development that is compatible with the natural and
biological limitations of the land and water that do not
require extensive alteration of the shoreline or new
shoreline stabilization, except for restoration projects.
• Uses that provide public access and public recreation
whenever feasible and ecological impacts can be mitigated;
• Enhancement and restoration of ecological functions; and
• Redevelopment of underutilized areas and development of
intensive commercial and industrial activities where
shoreline impacts are minimized and where there is no net
loss of shoreline functions.
fir• ��ii t�lYI1N1�� 0 \Lm
,,,,
0 N0
MJNpWW10NNalW�v�
r�u,��l�,���iil `���i�����l���w�xuo�s�, .�rr II 01{1000
Hy 111111111111
JJJJJJJJJi JJ�� »�)ligmo )�J111111JJJ »' �J) J1 mmWa
Policy 5.1.4 Shoreline Aquatic Environment. In the Shoreline
Aquatic Environment, priority shall be given to the following:
• Uses that preserve or restore the natural character of the
shoreline or promote preservation of vegetation, open
space, flood plain or sensitive area lands;
• Water dependent uses
• Uses that remove shoreline armoring, unless required
for a shoreline dependent use, and uses that prevent
and /or minimize flood damage;
• Uses that minimize interference with navigation and
flood control, consider impacts to public views , and
allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and
December 2013
164
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
wildlife, particularly those species dependent on
migration;
• Uses that provide public access and public recreation
whenever feasible and ecological impacts can be
mitigated;
• Development that is compatible with the natural and
biological limitations of the land and water that do not
require extensive alteration of the shoreline or new
shoreline stabilization, except for restoration projects.
• Uses that provide public access and public recreation
whenever feasible and ecological impacts can be
mitigated;
• Enhancement and restoration of ecological functions;
and
• Uses compatible with the adjoining shoreline
environments.
Tukwila is located in the lower reach of the Green /Duwamish River
watershed, which covers 482 square miles and includes over 93 river miles
from the Cascade Mountains to Elliott Bay. The City's portion of the river
covers approximately 13 river miles — as a result, the City's Shoreline
Master Program recognizes that to be successful, protection and
enhancement of shoreline resources is not only a City responsibility, but
also a regional one. The City is a member of the Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) 9, which covers the Green /Duwamish River
watershed, and has adopted the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan which
identifies specific actions and restoration projects to improve salmon
habitat.
Goal 5.2 Shoreline Planning and Management
Expanded value of the river as a community and regional resource through
regional coordination of shoreline management programs and through
programs that foster river appreciation and awareness, involving
partnerships among businesses, schools, residents and government and
community organizations.
Policies
5.2.1 Coordinate shoreline planning and management activities with
other local jurisdictions and their plans such as the WRIA 9
Salmon Habitat Plan and the King County Flood Hazard
Management Plan to establish region -wide consistency in
addressing river issues with regional implications, such as
economic development, public access, wildlife habitat, water
quality control, and flood control.
December 2013
0
9
165
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
5.2.2 Promote river stewardship and increase river awareness
through actions which further shoreline goals, such as
educational programs, community activities, and partnerships
with Tukwila residents, businesses, schools, government, and
community organizations.
5.2.3: Promote and participate in the implementation of the Watershed
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Plan, including supporting the
recommended projects located in Tukwila to improve the habitat functions
of the Green/Duwamish River, as well as the Plan policies and goals.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
• WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan
• Tukwila SMP Restoration Plan
• King County Flood Hazard Management Plan
December 2013
166
I
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
17771 t
tip
PAA t
t
1'"= 1/2 mile
Map 3
Shoreline
Environments
Legend
Tukwila City Limits
Cr.] PAA Potential Annexation Areas
] Aquatic Environment
,m Urban Conservancy Shoreline Environment
«�• High Intensity Shoreline Environment aim,
-�.• Shoreline Residential Environment
so.G
aoycounras
.710.ap I,: Shoreline Environment Designations
December 2013
0
11
167
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
An objective of the City's Shoreline Master Program, identified in the
Issue section of this Chapter, is to allow continued and increased urban
development in recognition of the City's role as a regionally significant
industrial and commercial center, while also ensuring no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions. The following policies address these
objectives.
Goal 5.3 Land Development Use and Economic Vitality
Development along the shoreline that fosters the economic vitality of
Tukwila while preserving the long -term benefits of the river.
General Policies
5.3.1 Implement shoreline design guidelines to:
• Encourage design that views the river as an amenity;
• Guide the design of shoreline multiple uses;
• Establish techniques for increasing shoreline multiple
use;
• Prioritize locations for uses; and
• Encourage removal of invasive species with
nonchemical methods and maintenance of native
planted vegetation to minimize the presence of invasive
species.
5.3.2 Design and locate all shoreline development to minimize
impacts on areas identified as important for other river uses,
such as wildlife and aquatic habitat, river vegetation, public
access and recreation, historical resources, and flood control.
5.3.3 Allow structures to be placed in the water, or structural
reinforcement of the riverbank, only when this provides a
significant, long -term public benefit, does not interfere with
navigation or flood management, does not cause a loss of
shoreline function or is essential to a water - dependent use.
5.3.4 Prohibit the construction of new flood control facilities unless
constructed to incorporate habitat restoration features and
work to remove existing shoreline armoring where possible
to restore habitat functions.
5.3.5 Recognize and promote the river's contribution to the economic
vitality of Tukwila, as a valuable amenity for existing and
future businesses which depend on or benefit from a shoreline
location.
December 2013
168
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
5.3.6 Ensure that shoreline development does not diminish the
commercial navigability of the river.
Tukwila Urban Center Development Policy
5.3.7 Design and locate shoreline development in the Tukwila Urban
Center to encourage water enjoyment uses that:
Provide for shoreline multiple uses that are consistent with
the underlying zoning; and
Provide additional benefits, such as riverbank restoration,
fishing piers, non - motorized boat launches, river views, or
interpretive signs; and
Support public access to and along the shoreline; and
Provide water - enjoyment uses as a transition between the
river and non -water uses; and
Encourage efficient use of land through such techniques
as clustering, mixed -use projects, cooperative parking or
parking located under principal structures, and shared
utility and access corridors.
Ensure that new development and re- development in the
Urban Center acknowledges the goal of a continuous
street facade along Christensen Road and the riverfront
and locates parking facilities to the interior of the lot.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
• Shoreline Design Guidelines
• Development standards
• Tukwila Urban Center Plan
Policy for Development Outside the Tukwila Urban Center or
MIC
5.3.8 Design and locate shoreline development outside of the
Tukwila Urban Center and the MIC to:
Provide for shoreline multiple uses; and
Provide water - enjoyment uses as transitions between the
river and non - water - dependent uses; and
Encourage efficient use of land through such techniques
as clustering, mixed -use projects, cooperative parking or
December 2013
0
13
169
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
parking located under principal structures, and shared
utility and access corridors.
Treat the river as an amenity in the design and location of
the project.
MIC Development Policies
5.3.9 Ensure that non -water dependent shoreline development in the
MIC provides for shoreline multiple uses to the extent that site
security and the success of industrial operations are not
jeopardized, ensures no net loss of shoreline function and
provides adequate mitigation for loss of shoreline multiple use
opportunities.
5.3.10 Allow opportunities for commercial and recreational marinas
to locate in Tukwila downstream of the turning basin, where
compatible with existing and future navigability and existing
and future ecological restoration projects.
Goal 5.4 Private Property Rights
Protect rights of property owners to reasonable use and enjoyment of
private property through appropriate location, access to, and design of
shoreline uses.
Policies
5.4.1 Design, locate and manage shoreline uses in a manner which
maintains reasonable use and enjoyment of private property.
5.4.2 Design and locate public access in a way that is appropriate
for the site, depending on site conditions and private property
concerns.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
• River design guidelines
• River access guidelines
• Shoreline development standards
5.4.3 Special sensitivity is required for residential property;
therefore, all single-family residential development of four or
fewer single-family residential lots is excluded from
requirements to provide private or public access. Single family
property owners are not exempt from the responsibility to
improve the habitat value of the shoreline environment.
December 2013
170
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
5.4.4 Maintain flexibility in methods of obtaining access, to allow for
different site conditions and private property concerns that
might conflict with access, such as privacy, safety, and
security.
5.4.5 Obtain additional easement area to permit the improvement of
river habitat by setting back levees or removing revetments and
other hard shoreline armoring and replacing with more
habitat friendly shoreline treatment.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
• Shoreline design guidelines
Goal 5.5 Shoreline Design Quality
Enhanced identity of the river as a unique community asset through high -
quality development and public activities that reflect Tukwila's history
and sense of community pride.
Policies
5.5.1 Require that shoreline development outside of the MIC:
Ensures no net loss of shoreline function; and
Is designed to be consistent with Tukwila river design
guidelines; and
Reflects principles of high - quality design in such areas as
site planning, architecture, and landscaping; and
Includes setbacks, bulk, height, density, landscape buffers,
and provisions for open space that enhance the shoreline
environment.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
• River design guidelines
• Shoreline development standards
• Tukwila Urban Center Plan
December 2013
0
15
171
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
ifif/'''''7X(411111;..,.,,..„!1.„,p,,,,..,.,,.v...... , /
u44i11111uul IVV0uuuuuu
/ / / / / / %;
1111011111111111110100W$
1M°°°°°1111 i°t) ,i
110 111111
001000000000006111 000V1 '11110011i 100
it 00,00000000000000000.001000010000no ,„ ,„„„„,I„„
� 10000000000000000000 100101110 III1IIIIIII00 10IIIIIIIIIIIIII�0II 01
} i
1111111111111111111111111111 "'
000000 00001111111111111111111111111111
VIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 0 1 I o u I
5.5.2 Require that shoreline development in the MIC:
Is designed to be consistent with Tukwila shoreline design
guidelines; and
Maintains or enhances the existing visual quality along
the river; and
Provides trees and other landscaping to buffer industrial
uses that are incompatible with other river uses; and
Provides amenities that enhance enjoyment of the river by
employees.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
• Shoreline design guidelines
• Shoreline development standards
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 recreation.
In addition to the Green River Trail, which runs along much of the length of the river
through the City, Tukwila is fortunate to have a number of other public access sites along
the river. The following goals and policies support preserving existing public access sites
and providing additional public access to the river. To support implementation of these
goals and policies, the City's development regulations include incentives for private
development projects to provide public access to the shoreline.
Goal 5.6 Access and Recreational Use
Increase the amount and diversity of opportunities for public recreation
and access to and along the river, including visual and cultural access,
December 2013
172
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
access to the water's edge, opportunities for small boat navigation and
access, and connections to other neighborhoods consistent with the
shoreline character.
General Policies
5.6.1 Retain and improve areas identified as important in the
network of public access to the river, including cross -town
connections, former railroad rights -of -way and unimproved
street -end rights -of -way, historic sites, unique natural features,
or other areas valuable for their interpretive potential.
5.6.2 Maintain existing parks along the shoreline and acquire
additional park land to increase access and recreation
opportunities.
5.6.3 Incorporate river access requirements to guide the design,
location, and management of shoreline public access in short
plats over 4 lots and all subdivisions as well as multi family,
commercial and industrial development; to identify types of
access appropriate and feasible for various site conditions and
locations; and to establish strategies, funding sources, and
priorities for acquisition and enhancement of shoreline public
access.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
• Shoreline design guidelines
• Shoreline public access guidelines
• Shoreline development standards
December 2013
0
17
173
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
• Walk and Roll Plan
• Parks and Open Space Plan
5.6.4 Design, locate and manage public access for diverse types and
variable levels of intensity, in order to minimize impacts on
vulnerable features of the natural environment and to minimize
conflicts with private property uses.
5.6.5 Where shoreline development provides public access areas,
reserve such areas through the means most appropriate for the
type, scale, and impacts of the development, such as donation
or sale of an easement or right -of -way to the City.
5.6.6 Support the implementation of the King County Green River
Trail, per the existing King County Green River Trail Master
Plan as well as pedestrian/bicycle connections with the Trail
from properties on the opposite bank and the expansion of this
Trail where appropriate.
Policies for Development Outside MIC
5.6.7 Require subdivisions, multi family residential uses and
commercial and industrial uses along the shoreline to provide
a trail for public access along the river in areas identified for
trail connections, consistent with the King County Green River
Trail Master Plan, Shoreline Master Program or any other
approved access plan. Require any property not included in
the King County Green River Trail Plan to provide public
access or a private natural area in lieu of physical public
access.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
• King County Green River Trail Master Plan
amendment
• Shoreline public access standards
• Walk and Roll Plan
• Parks and Open Space Plan
5.6.8 Where shoreline public access is provided, ensure that it is
designed to be safe and convenient and includes access
amenities such as benches, drinking fountains, public parking
areas, handicapped access, and appropriate lighting,
consistent with the shoreline access guidelines.
December 2013
174
I
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
• Shoreline access guidelines
• King County Green River Trail Master Plan
• Walk and Roll Plan
• Parks and Open Space Plan
5.6.9 Except for single-family residential development of four or
fewer single-family residential lots, shoreline developments
shall maintain views of the water from the shoreline and from
upland areas, through appropriate design of building height,
bulk and modulation, windows, breezeways, and outdoor
spaces.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
• Shoreline design guidelines
5.6.10: Public access improvements should be designed and
constructed to:
• Look and "feel" welcoming to the public;
• Connect to public areas, street ends, and other pedestrian or
public through fares;
• Enhance the character of Tukwila;
• Avoid conflicts with water- dependent uses;
• Provide for public safety and minimize impacts to private
property and individual privacy and security;
• Require a low level of operation and maintenance;
• Ensure that construction (i.e. structures and access
pathways) incorporates environmentally sensitive design
and materials (e.g., non - toxic, natural materials)
5.6.11: Improve pedestrian connections between the river, Green River
Trail and the Urban Center's commercial, office and residential uses.
Policy for Development in MIC
5.6.12 For MIC properties included in the King County Green River
Trail Master Plan, require shoreline development to provide a
trail for public access along the river.
5.6.13 Where shoreline public access is provided, ensure that it is
designed to be safe and convenient and includes access
amenities such as benches, drinking fountains, public parking
areas, handicapped access and appropriate lighting, consistent
with the river access guidelines.
December 2013
I
19
175
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
5.6.14 For MIC properties not included in the King County Green
River Trail Plan, require shoreline development to provide
public access or a private natural area in lieu of public access,
or otherwise mitigate the loss of public access.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
• Shoreline design guidelines
• Shoreline access guidelines
• Walk and Roll Plan
• Parks and Open Space Plan
Goal 5.7 Transportation Within the Shoreline Zone
Safe corridors and amenities for pedestrians, cyclists, and users of public
transportation, allowing more citizens to access and enjoy the river.
Policies
5.7.1 Design and locate transportation uses within the shoreline
jurisdiction to be compatible with shoreline vegetation or other
habitat features, turn -outs or parking areas for public access,
boat ramps, biofiltration swales to protect water quality, public
art, or interpretive signs.
5.7.2 Ensure that transportation uses within the shoreline
jurisdiction and within those corridors identified as river cross
connections provide safe, convenient, and attractive
pedestrian, bicycle and boater access and facilities for public
transportation.
5.7.3 Minimize transportation impacts on the natural environment
(such as noises, odors, and air or water pollution) and enhance
the natural environment wherever possible through planting
trees and other habitat features.
5.7.4 Encourage maintenance of the river's navigability up to the
turning basin, where this achieves a greater public interest and
a balance between costs and benefits to the broader community
and impacts to the habitat functions of the river, in recognition
of the historical significance of navigation and its importance
to the economic vitality of water - dependent uses and the MIC.
Goal 5.8 Historical Resource Use
Recognition of the river's contribution to Tukwila history and community
identity through identification, enhancement, restoration, and protection of
December 2013
176
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
sites with historic and cultural value and through development of
interpretive and educational programs.
Policies
5.8.1 Ensure that shoreline development reflects the river's
important role in Tukwila history and that long -term public use
of the river as a historical resource is protected by providing
for the identification, protection, and interpretation of unique
historic and archaeological features.
5.8.2 Ensure that public shoreline development reflects the river's
natural features and community traditions.
5.8.3: Ensure that archaeological artifacts and sites are protected
when development takes place in the shoreline jurisdiction.
The Green /Duwamish River has undergone extensive modifications in the
past 10 reduce channel migration and limit the extent and duration of
valley flooding by constructing levees and revetments. These
modifications 10 the river system have negatively impacted ecological
functions, including hydrology, water quality, riparian habitat and in-
stream habitat. River flows have been modified by dam construction,
stream diversion, and urban development. River management and levees
have reduced the connection between the rivers and their floodplains,
changing the spatial extent of habitat, and increasing the potential for
negative water quality impacts. Disturbances 10 the channel hanks have
resulted in areas that are dominated by non - native invasive species.
Wood, in the form of riparian trees and in- channel wood, is generally
lacking throughout the system, which has a negative impact on riparian
and aquatic habitats. The following goals and policies seek 10 improve
the ecological,f inction of the river system.
Goal 5.9 Natural Environment and Habitat Use
Restored, enhanced, and protected natural environmental resources along
the river, including trees, wildlife habitat, and features with value for long-
term public, scientific, and educational uses.
December 2013
0
21
177
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
111111111111111111111111111111 nun..
illiol000loiollhoohhhhh° 11111111' 11 ,
u il 06 )1,i141,11111 11111111111111111111111111111111111
OlhillOOLOOOhloh
!oy
mm b �,
Aerial View of North Winds Weir Off- Channel Habitat (photo courtesy of WRIA 9
Policies
5.9.1 Ensure that shoreline development results in no net loss of
shoreline ecological function, minimizes impacts on wildlife and
that significant vegetation, sandbars, wetlands, watercourses,
and other critical areas identified as important for habitat are
maintained through the proper location, design, construction,
and management of all shoreline uses and activities.
5.9.2 Ensure that shoreline development and activities protect
riverbank vegetation and, where feasible, restore degraded
riverbanks in accordance with the vegetation management
provisions of the Shoreline Master Program, in order to
minimize and compensate for impacts on fish and wildlife
habitat.
5.9.3 Mitigate unavoidable disturbances of significant vegetation or
habitat through replacement of habitat and provision of inter-
pretive features consistent with the shoreline access guidelines.
5.9.4: Support relief from certain Shoreline Master Program
requirements for properties affected by habitat restoration
projects that result in the movement of the ordinary high water
mark.
5.9.5: Support establishing the Transition Zone as the priority area
for habitat restoration projects given its importance for
subtidal and intertidal habitats to allow salmonids to gradually
December 2013
178
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
adjust to the change between fresh and saltwater conditions.
A system of levees and revetments have been constructed along a major portion of the
river in Tukwila. The City has adopted a minimum levee profile to promote river bank
stability, protect structures, and enhance shoreline ecological functions. The minimum
levee profile incorporates a mid -slope bench that provides a wider river channel to
accommodate higher flows during storm events and allows planting of native
vegetation to improve habitat functions. The vegetation on the mid -slope bench will
also reduce the speed of water flows during storm events.
Goal 5.10 Water Quality, Surface Water, and Flood Control Use
Improved water quality and quantity control programs affecting the
Green/Duwamish River that improve the river's water quality, provide
habitat for fish and wildlife, protect public health and safety, and enhance
public enjoyment of the river.
Policies
5.10.1 Design, locate, and manage shoreline development including
streets, flood control projects, surface water drainage and
sewer systems, clearing and grading activities, and
landscaping in a manner that minimizes opportunities for
pollutants to enter the river, provides erosion control, and
otherwise protects water quality.
5.10.2 Design, manage, and mitigate flood control uses to minimize
impacts on other shoreline uses such as trees and riverbank
vegetation, public access and recreation, and fish habitat; and
set them back from the river, where feasible for the project,
with land areas between the water and the levee set aside as
open space for public recreation or wildlife habitat.
5.10.3 Consistent with project feasibility, mitigate unavoidable
negative impacts on other shoreline uses owing to flood control
uses through such measures as restoration of trees and native
riverbank vegetation, provision of public access to the water's
edge, interpretive features, or other mitigation of loss of
opportunities for shoreline multiple uses.
5.10.4: Obtain additional easements, where needed, from property
owners to set back levees to improve flood control and
shoreline habitat functions. Where possible, as redevelopment
occurs, replace bulkheads, revetments or other hard bank
stabilization with more natural levees, riverbanks or other
December 2013
0
23
179
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Shoreline
shoreline treatments, to improve flood control, ecological
functions and habitat.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
• Where possible, increase levee setback
• Shoreline access guidelines
• Surface Water Management Plan
• WRIA 9 Plan water quality policies
Typical Shoreline Buffer in Leveed Areas -Width Will Vary
Reconfigured Levee
18'
2*
tk\\k%
V VI
Vegetated Bench
Willows
1.5 Existing Levee
Maintenance Easement
Ordinary High
Water Mark
OHWM
Reconfigured Slope averages 2.5:1 with bench
Minimum Levee Profile
Not To Scale
Goal 5.11 Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Shoreline uses that do not endanger public health, safety, and welfare or
the capacity of the river to provide long -term benefits and resources to the
community.
5.11.1 Design, locate, and manage shoreline uses, such as capital
improvement projects and private development, in a manner
that does not endanger public health, safety and welfare, and
enhances the capacity of the river to provide long -term
benefits and resources to the community.
December 2013
180
000000
1 11 1111111111111111 1111111 11111 1111111 1111111 11111 111111 1111 1 1 111 111111 1111II IIIII IIIII II 11111II 111111 11111 11
IttVllllliul
0111101m 0111
IIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIII
WHAT YOU WULL FAD
N THUS CHAPTER:
• A discussion of shoreline areas in the City of Tukwila;
• An overview of the Shoreline Management Act and how of applies in Tukwila;
• Goals and Policies for managing development in shoreline areas; and
• A map of Tukwila's adopted Shoreline Environment Designations.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
'' U III°°
This element of the City's Comprehensive Plan presents goals and policies related to development
and restoration along the Green /Duwamish River, a shoreline of statewide significance subject to
the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), which flows northerly through the entire
length of Tukwila. A small fragment of the Black River flows into the Duwamish River just north of
Fort Dent Park and is also subject to the SMA and the goals and policies of this chapter.
The Shoreline Element of the Comprehensive Plan represents the Shoreline Master Program's
role in the community -wide planning process. It reflects the relationship between shoreline
development and other Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, and the importance of a shoreline
vision to a community vision. The Shoreline Element identifies existing local and regional policies,
land use and shoreline conditions, and sets forth shoreline goals and the policies for achieving
them. These goals and policies reflect Tukwila's priorities in these areas:
• Facilitating redevelopment and prioritizing water - dependent industrial uses in the
Manufacturing /Industrial Center (M IC) and encouraging redevelopment in the Tukwila
Urban Center (TUC) that recognizes the river as a valuable resource .
182 ' "1 "VJIK NIIIL..A COMIPIRIEIHIIFIWSIIVIF IPIL..AIW CII'pII'')A "'V "'II':....II''1: JU N E 11, 2 01 3
What is the Shore Une Vanage ent
Act?
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was
approved by Washington voters In 1972 and is
designed to prevent degradation of the state's
shorelines from uncoordinated development.
Where does the Shoreline
V anage Ilent Act apply?'
Each city and county defines their own shoreline
jurisdiction based on the provisions of the SMA
and regulations from the Department of Ecology.
The SMA applies to the following areas:
• Marine waters,
• Streams and rivers that have an average
annual flow of at least 20 cubic feet per
second,
• Upland areas within 200 feet of regulated
waterbodles, and
• Wetlands and flood -prone areas associated
with regulated waterbodles.
Additional information on the Shoreline
Management Act is available on the Department
of Ecology's webslte at: htt
•: / /www.e ;,.was ®v/
proc�,, ramsfseafsmafstquuudefuntro .html.
• Ensuring the safety of new development from flooding
and from destabilized riverbanks by establishing
setbacks for new construction. Setbacks will allow
for eventual replacement of existing flood control
levees and regrading of over - steepened banks.
• Increasing public access to the river.
• Supporting restoration of habitat along the river
through a restoration plan in the Shoreline Master
Program. Restoration is accomplished in part,
through removing invasive vegetation and replacing
it with native species, constructing off - channel habitat
and setting back levees to incorporate a mid -slope
bench that can be planted to improve habitat.
Shoreline policies encourage high - quality development and
redevelopment along the river. At the same time they recognize
the value of the Green /Duwamish River as an aesthetic
resource by encouraging new development in the urban center
to "face" the river, provide views and public or private access
to the shoreline. The policies also recognize the shoreline
as an important natural resource that requires protection and
restoration of shoreline ecological functions (such as habitat,
surface water and flood attenuation, water quality improvement
and others). Policies in the Master Program support restoration
of shoreline ecological functions, particularly improved habitat
for endangered fish species (Chinook salmon and Pacific Bull
Trout).
As a whole, the Tukwila Shoreline Master Program acts as
the implementation mechanism for achieving these goals and
policies.
fVJIKWIIII...A COMPREHENSIVE IPII...AIW jUNI11183013
qi
The Shoreline Management Act promotes
increased recrea ionai opportunities and public
access to the shoreline environment.
184
SSu
.S
Department of Ecology guidelines, and the City's obligations
as a participant in the implementation of the Green /Duwamish
Salmon Habitat Restoration plan, dictate that Shoreline Master
Program policies and regulations be established to ensure
no net loss and restoration of shoreline ecological functions.
The major issue facing the City is balancing the existing and
planned future urban development along the river with these
requirements.
5 �0 I
R
1,
E
MAI
,AC ° °11
The SMA designates the Green /Duwamish River as a shoreline
of statewide significance. "Because these shorelines are major
resources from which all people in the state derive benefit,
the [development] guidelines and master programs must give
preference to uses which favor public and long -range goals."
[WAC 173 -16- 040(5)] The SMA states that master programs
for shorelines of statewide significance shall give preference to
uses that (in order of preference):
1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local
interest
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline
3. Result in long -term over short -term benefit
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the
shoreline
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the
shoreline
7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW
flJIKWIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPIL..AN UIPII)ATIE ID, JUNE 11, 2013
JJI
®5
llllluuuuullll
90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary (that is, which further the state's shoreline
policies).
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act requires that, where alterations in the natural
condition of a shoreline are authorized, priority shall be given to the following uses:
• Single- family residences
• Ports
• Shoreline recreational uses
• Industrial and commercial developments dependent upon a shoreline location
• Other developments that will provide an opportunity for a
substantial number of people to enjoy the shoreline.
The policies established in the Tukwila Shoreline Master Program attempt to balance the
river's value as a long -term natural resource for the region with the demands of intense urban
development. The City's Shoreline Master Program also recognizes that except for the area north
of the Turning Basin, most of the Green River is not navigable, and therefore opportunities to
establish water dependent uses are limited.
G
AIII„„„,,5 ,A►I
c
.S
Tukwila's 2011 approved Shoreline Master Program, which is incorporated by reference as part of
this Plan, revised some of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and added new ones
to address new issues, changed conditions along the river, or new requirements established by the
Washington State Department of Ecology .
Tukwila shoreline policies give priority to the economic vitality of the MIC, and focus intense
multi - purpose urban uses, such as water - enjoyment commercial activity and public access, in the
Tukwila Urban Center. The policies also emphasize the importance of a variety of shoreline public
access methods, both physical and visual, linked to other areas of the region. They recognize the
value of the river as a natural resource by encouraging restoration of wildlife habitat and native
riverbank vegetation, including tree planting.
flJIKWIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPII...AIW JUNE 11, 2013
185
llllluuuuullll
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS
The two hundred foot shoreline jurisdiction that comprises each shoreline environment is divided
lengthwise into a buffer and outside -buffer area and allowed uses are specified for each. The
shoreline environments are 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Shoreline Master Program provides more information on buffer size and function. The
adopted buffers for each shoreline environment balance shoreline ecological function, human life
and property protection (including future levee repair /reconstruction), existing land use patterns,
and state and federal agency policies.
Ordinary high
water mark
(OHWM)
Wetland in 100 year
Flood plain
IIII
=IIII=
11111 =1111-
' 1111 =1111 =1111
111111 = 1111 = 111110 = 1111. .11111. = .111'1 III
. ..1111 11111 1111 .7,111 IIII 11111. . II
200`
1 11111
1111= 1111 = If =1111= IIII =11111 =IIII=
111111 II11 ::11111 111 IIII - 1111 - .1IIII :IIII - 1111:
1111 = 1111 = 111 = 3111 = 1111 = 11111 = 1111 1111 =
200'
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 OIHWM and 100 year flood plain
Figure 5 -1: Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction
186 1 "VJIK NIIII...A COMPREHENSIVE IPII...AIW U lCpll'.:')A"'I"'lll: ll:'1: JUyIIVllll: 11, 2013
llllluuuuullll
Goal 5.1 Shoreline Environment Desi nations
Shoreline Environment designations that meet Washington State Shoreline Management Act
requirements, and reflect local conditions and Tukwila's long -term vision for its shoreline. The
shoreline zone generally extends for 200 feet on either side of the Ordinary High Water mark,
consistent with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (as illustrated in Figure 5 -1).
Policies
5.1.1
Shoreline Residential Environment. In the Shoreline Residential Environment, priority
shall be given to the following:
• Uses that preserve or restore the natural character of the shoreline or promote
preservation of vegetation, open space, flood plain or sensitive area lands; and
• Development that is compatible with the natural and biological limitations of the
land and water and that will not require extensive alteration of the shoreline or
new "hard" structural shoreline stabilization. Where possible the removal of
bulkheads, revetments, levees or other "hard" structural shoreline stabilization is
required. Hard structural shoreline stabilization may be replaced with alternative
bioengineered bank stabilization; and
• On publicly owned property, water - dependent or water - related recreational
activities that are compatible with the character of the shoreline residential areas.
• Maintenance of existing single - family residential development patterns and public
open space and recreation uses;
• Residential and recreational development that promotes vegetation conservation
and enhancement, sensitive areas protection, and maintenance of water quality to
assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions;
• Residential and recreational development that contributes to the restoration of
ecological functions over time in areas where ecological degradation has occurred.
flJIKWIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPIL..AN UICpIC'1A "'I "'IC: IC'1: JUNE 11, 2013
187
illllg1111
lllllouuuollll
5.1.2 Urban Conservancy Environment: In the Urban Conservancy Environment priority
shall be given to the following:
• Development that promotes vegetation conservation and enhancement, sensitive
areas protection, and preservation of water quality to assure no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions.
• Water enjoyment uses
• Uses that remove shoreline armoring, unless required for a shoreline dependent
use, and uses that prevent and /or minimize flood damage;
• Uses that preserve or restore shoreline ecological functions provided by vegetation,
open space, flood plain or sensitive area lands;
• Uses that minimize interference with navigation and flood control, consider impacts
to public views, and allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife,
particularly those species dependent on migration;
• Uses that provide public access and public recreation whenever feasible and when
ecological impacts can be mitigated;
• Development that is compatible with the natural and biological limitations of the
land and water that do not require extensive alteration of the shoreline or new
shoreline stabilization, except for restoration projects.
• Uses that provide public access and public recreation whenever feasible and
ecological impacts can be mitigated;
• Enhancement and restoration of ecological functions; and
• Redevelopment of underutilized areas and development of commercial and
industrial activities where shoreline impacts are minimized and where there is no
net loss of shoreline functions.
88 fVJIKWIIII...A COMPREHENSIVE IPIL..AN Ull'pll'')ATIP: II''1: JUNE 11, 2013
illllg1111
llllouuuollll
5.1.3 High Intensity Shoreline Environment: In the High Intensity Environment, priority shall
be given to the following:
• Water dependent commercial and industrial uses;
• Development that promotes vegetation conservation and enhancement, sensitive
areas protection, and preservation of water quality to assure no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions.
• Uses that remove shoreline armoring, unless required for a shoreline dependent
use, and uses that prevent and /or minimize flood damage;
• Uses that preserve or restore shoreline ecological functions provided by vegetation,
open space, flood plain or sensitive area lands;
• Uses that minimize interference with navigation and flood control, consider impacts
to public views, and allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife,
particularly those species dependent on migration;
• Uses that provide public access and public recreation whenever feasible and when
ecological impacts can be mitigated;
• Development that is compatible with the natural and biological limitations of the
land and water that do not require extensive alteration of the shoreline or new
shoreline stabilization, except for restoration projects.
• Uses that provide public access and public recreation whenever feasible and
ecological impacts can be mitigated;
• Enhancement and restoration of ecological functions; and
• Redevelopment of underutilized areas and development of intensive commercial
and industrial activities where shoreline impacts are minimized and where there is
no net loss of shoreline functions.
fVJIKWIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPIL..AN Ull'pll'1A"'I "'IP: II''1: JUNE 11, 2013
189
IIIIIUUUUUIIII
r
1 "= 1/2 mile
Legend
Tukwila City Limits
PAA Potential Annexation Areas
I Aquatic Environment
• Urban Conservancy Shoreline Environment
ffitm• High Intensify Shoreline Environment
Pr2011
•n••• Shoreline Residential Environment
Soup
City, of Tubfala GIS
Kng Coady QS
Map 5 -1: Shoreline Environment Designations
.flJIKWIIII...A COMPREHENSIVE IPIL..AN UUIPII)ATIC: IC:1: JUNE 11, 2013
goo 11
1111110 Oho
llllouuuollll
FM 10
The Aquatic Environment applies to areas below the Ordinary High Water Mark of a lake,
stream, or marine water body.
5.1.4 Shoreline Aquatic Environment. In the Shoreline Aquatic Environment, priority shall
be given to the following:
• Uses that preserve or restore the natural character of the shoreline or promote
preservation of vegetation, open space, flood plain or sensitive area lands;
• Water dependent uses;
• Uses that remove shoreline armoring, unless required for a shoreline dependent
use, and uses that prevent and /or minimize flood damage;
• Uses that minimize interference with navigation and flood control, consider impacts
to public views , and allow for the safe, unobstructed passage of fish and wildlife,
particularly those species dependent on migration;
• Uses that provide public access and public recreation whenever feasible and
ecological impacts can be mitigated;
• Development that is compatible with the natural and biological limitations of the
land and water that do not require extensive alteration of the shoreline or new
shoreline stabilization, except for restoration projects;
fVJIKWIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPIL..AN Ull' IDA"'I "'IP: II''1: JUNE 11, 2013
191
jIII1III I
lllllouuuollll
• Uses that provide public access and public recreation whenever feasible and
ecological impacts can be mitigated;
• Enhancement and restoration of ecological functions; and
• Uses compatible with the adjoining shoreline environments.
Tukwila is located in the lower reach of the Green /Duwamish River watershed, which covers 482
square miles and includes over 93 river miles from the Cascade Mountains to Elliott Bay. The
City's portion of the river covers approximately 13 river miles — as a result, the City's Shoreline
Master Program recognizes that to be successful, protection and enhancement of shoreline
resources is not only a City responsibility, but also a regional one. The City is a member of the
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9, which covers the Green /Duwamish River watershed,
and has adopted the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan which identifies specific actions and restoration
projects to improve salmon habitat.
Goal 5.2 Shoreline Plannin and Manas ement
Expanded value of the river as a community and regional resource through regional coordination
of shoreline management programs and through programs that foster river appreciation and
awareness, involving partnerships among businesses, schools, residents and government and
community organizations.
Policies
5.2.1 Coordinate shoreline planning and management activities with other local jurisdictions
and their plans such as the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan and the King County Flood
Hazard Management Plan to establish region -wide consistency in addressing river
issues with regional implications, such as economic development, public access,
wildlife habitat, water quality control, and flood control.
5.2.2 Promote river stewardship and increase river awareness through actions which
further shoreline goals, such as educational programs, community activities,
and partnerships with Tukwila residents, businesses, schools, government, and
community organizations.
1:92 1 "VJIK NIIII...A COMPREHENSIVE IPIL..AN UUlC: II)A"'U"'IC: IC:1: JUNE 11, 2013
illllg1111
llllouuuollll
5.2.3 Promote and participate in the implementation of the Watershed Resource Inventory
Area (WRIA) 9 Plan, including supporting the recommended projects located in
Tukwila to improve the habitat functions of the Green /Duwamish River, as well as the
Plan policies and goals.
VMPLEMENTATON STRATEGES
• WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan
• Tukwila SMP Restoration Plan
• King County Flood Hazard Management Plan
An objective of the City's Shoreline Master Program, identified in the Issue section of this Chapter,
is to allow continued and increased urban development in recognition of the City's role as a
regionally significant industrial and commercial center, while also ensuring no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions. The following policies address these objectives.
Goal 5.3 Land Develo ment Use and Economic Vitalit
Development along the shoreline that fosters the economic vitality of Tukwila while preserving the
long -term benefits of the river.
General Policies
5.3.1 Implement shoreline design guidelines to:
• Encourage design that views the river as an amenity;
• Guide the design of shoreline multiple uses;
• Establish techniques for increasing shoreline multiple use;
• Prioritize locations for uses; and
• Encourage removal of invasive species with nonchemical methods and
maintenance of native planted vegetation to minimize the presence of invasive
species.
flJIKWIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFIWSIIVIF IPIL..AN CICpIC.:1A"'I "'IC: IC.:1: JCIIVIC:.... 11, 2013
193
llllouuuollll
5.3.2 Design and locate all shoreline development to minimize impacts on areas identified
as important for other river uses, such as wildlife and aquatic habitat, river vegetation,
public access and recreation, historical resources, and flood control.
5.3.3 Allow structures to be placed in the water, or structural reinforcement of the riverbank,
only when this provides a significant, long -term public benefit, does not interfere with
navigation or flood management, does not cause a loss of shoreline function or is
essential to a water - dependent use.
5.3.4 Prohibit the construction of new flood control facilities unless constructed to
incorporate habitat restoration features and work to remove existing shoreline
armoring — where possible — to restore habitat functions.
5.3.5 Recognize and promote the river's contribution to the economic vitality of Tukwila, as
a valuable amenity for existing and future businesses which depend on or benefit from
a shoreline location.
5.3.6 Ensure that shoreline development does not diminish the commercial navigability of
the river.
Tukwila Urban Center Development Policy
5.3.7 Design and locate shoreline development in the Tukwila Urban Center to encourage
water enjoyment uses that:
• Provide for shoreline multiple uses that are consistent with the underlying zoning;
and
• Provide additional benefits, such as riverbank restoration, fishing piers, non -
motorized boat launches, river views, or interpretive signs; and
• Support public access to and along the shoreline; and
• Provide water - enjoyment uses as a transition between the river and non -water
uses; and
.1. 94 "1 "VJIK NIIII...A COMPREHENSIVE IPIL..AIW UyICpII:')AUll': II:'1: JUNE 11, 2013
illllg1111
llllouuuollll
• Encourage efficient use of land through such techniques as clustering, mixed -use
projects, cooperative parking or parking located under principal structures, and
shared utility and access corridors.
• Ensure that new development and re- development in the Urban Center
acknowledges the goal of a continuous street facade along Christensen Road and
the riverfront and locates parking facilities to the interior of the lot.
VMPLEMENTATON STRATEGES
• Shoreline Design Guidelines
• Development standards
• Tukwila Urban Center Plan
Policy for Development Outside the Tukwila Urban Center or MIC
5.3.8 Design and locate shoreline development outside of the Tukwila Urban Center and
the MIC to:
• Provide for shoreline multiple uses; and
• Provide water - enjoyment uses as transitions between the river and non- water-
dependent uses; and
• Encourage efficient use of land through such techniques as clustering, mixed -use
projects, cooperative parking or parking located under principal structures, and
shared utility and access corridors.
• Treat the river as an amenity in the design and location of the project
Policy for Development Outside the Tukwila Urban Center or MIC
5.3.9 Ensure that non -water dependent shoreline development in the MIC provides for
shoreline multiple uses to the extent that site security and the success of industrial
operations are not jeopardized, ensures no net loss of shoreline function and provides
adequate mitigation for loss of shoreline multiple use opportunities.
flJIKWIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPIL..AN Ull'pll'1A"'I "'IP: II''1: JUNE 11, 2013
195
jIIII�II I
lllllouuuollll
5.3.10 Allow opportunities for commercial and recreational marinas to locate in Tukwila
downstream of the turning basin, where compatible with existing and future
navigability and existing and future ecological restoration projects.
Goal 5.4 Private Pro ert
Ri hts
Protect rights of property owners to reasonable use and enjoyment of private property through
appropriate location, access to, and design of shoreline uses.
Policies
5.4.1 Design, locate and manage shoreline uses in a manner which maintains reasonable
use and enjoyment of private property.
5.4.2 Design and locate public access in a way that is appropriate for the site, depending on
site conditions and private property concerns.
VMPLEMENTATON STRATEGES
• River design guidelines
• River access guidelines
• Shoreline development standards
5.4.3 Special sensitivity is required for residential property; therefore, all single - family
residential development of four or fewer single - family residential lots is excluded
from requirements to provide private or public access. Single family property owners
are not exempt from the responsibility to improve the habitat value of the shoreline
environment.
5.4.4 Maintain flexibility in methods of obtaining access, to allow for different site conditions
and private property concerns that might conflict with access, such as privacy, safety,
and security.
.1. 96' "I" 1,1 NIIII...A COMPREHENSIVE IPIL..AN UJIC:pIO)AUII': II:'1: JUNE 11, 2013
llllluuuuullll
5.4.5 Obtain additional easement area to permit the improvement of river habitat by setting
back levees or removing revetments and other hard shoreline armoring and replacing
with more habitat - friendly shoreline treatment.
VMPLEMENTATON STRATEGY
• Shoreline design guidelines
Goal 5.5 Shoreline Desi n Qualit
Enhanced identity of the river as a unique community asset through high - quality development and
public activities that reflect Tukwila's history and sense of community pride.
Policies
5.5.1 Require that shoreline development outside of the MIC:
• Ensures no net loss of shoreline function; and
• Is designed to be consistent with Tukwila river design guidelines; and
• Reflects principles of high - quality design in such areas as site planning,
architecture, and landscaping; and
• Includes setbacks, bulk, height, density, landscape buffers, and provisions for
open space that enhance the shoreline environment.
VMPLEMENTATON STRATEGES
• River design guidelines
• Shoreline development standards
• Tukwila Urban Center Plan
flJIKWIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFIWSIIVIF IPIL..AN CICpIC.:1A"'I "'IC: IC.:1: JCIIVIC:.... 11, 2013
197
llllluuuuullll
iii
+cia
10e-fl P 1) is
1111111 111111111111111111111111'11111
11111111 111111111111111111
%to pelf
rti
11111111 1111
11111111111 1111
Impun1 11111 1111
1 1111111111111111,1,1,1,1,111 loo 11111111 IIII
It
1J00.000010 iiilli1;11111111111111,111111.1111111,1,110, 1N, . in o
ufi� , h�IV 0d�
I
uu i n
.1111111111111111— 1111111 P uuuuuuuu �dW a 11110111111 11111111,1,i l 1 I�I IIQ
0
� mi
l d j �� II I � � IPIV
111.1111.1111
Tukwila s Manufacturing /Industrial Center is an important regional industrial center located
along the Duwamish River.
5.5.2 Require that shoreline development in the MIC:
• Is designed to be consistent with Tukwila shoreline design guidelines; and
• Maintains or enhances the existing visual quality along the river; and
• Provides trees and other landscaping to buffer industrial uses that are
incompatible with other river uses; and
• Provides amenities that enhance enjoyment of the river by employees.
VMPLEMENTATON STRATEGY
• Shoreline design guidelines
• Shoreline development standards
Public access to 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 recreation.
.1.98' 1 "VJIK NIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIENSIIVIF. IP�...AIW CICrII:')Aft "'11':...11:'1: UCIIVII':.... 11, 2013
In addition to the Green River Trail, which runs along much of the length of the river through
the City, Tukwila is fortunate to have a number of other public access sites along the river. The
following goals and policies support preserving existing public access sites and providing additional
public access to the river. To support implementation of these goals and policies, the City's
development regulations include incentives for private development projects to provide public
access to the shoreline.
Shoreline trails provide important public access opportunities for Tukwila residents.
Goal ®‘) Access and F reational Use
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Increase the amount and diversity of opportunities for public recreation and access to and along
the river, including visual and cultural access, access to the water's edge, opportunities for small
boat navigation and access, and connections to other neighborhoods consistent with the shoreline
character.
General Policies
5.6.1 Retain and improve areas identified as important in the network of public access
to the river, including cross -town connections, former railroad rights -of -way and
unimproved street -end rights -of -way, historic sites, unique natural features, or other
areas valuable for their interpretive potential.
7 "VJIKWIIIL..A C®INBIPIRIFIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPIL..AIW Vyll'pll'1A "'V "'Il': II''1:.UVyIIVIIP: 11, 2013
199
llllluuuuullll
5.6.2 Maintain existing parks along the shoreline and acquire additional park land to
increase access and recreation opportunities.
5.6.3 Incorporate river access requirements to guide the design, location, and management
of shoreline public access in short plats over 4 lots and all subdivisions as well as
multi - family, commercial and industrial development; to identify types of access
appropriate and feasible for various site conditions and locations; and to establish
strategies, funding sources, and priorities for acquisition and enhancement of
shoreline public access.
VMPLEMENTATON STRATEGES
• Shoreline design guidelines
• Shoreline public access guidelines
• Shoreline development standards
• Walk and Roll Plan
• Parks and Open Space Plan
5.6.4 Design, locate and manage public access for diverse types and variable levels
of intensity, in order to minimize impacts on vulnerable features of the natural
environment and to minimize conflicts with private property uses.
5.6.5 Where shoreline development provides public access areas, reserve such areas
through the means most appropriate for the type, scale, and impacts of the
development, such as donation or sale of an easement or right -of -way to the City.
5.6.6 Support the implementation of the King County Green River Trail, per the existing
King County Green River Trail Master Plan as well as pedestrian /bicycle connections
with the Trail from properties on the opposite bank and the expansion of this Trail
where appropriate.
2 flJIKWIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFIWSIIVIF IPIL..AN UPIIII)ATIC: IC.:1: JCIIVIC:.... 11, 2013
llllluuuuullll
Policies for Development Outside MIC
5.6.7 Require subdivisions, multi - family residential uses and commercial and industrial
uses along the shoreline to provide a trail for public access along the river in areas
identified for trail connections, consistent with the King County Green River Trail
Master Plan, Shoreline Master Program or any other approved access plan. Require
any property not included in the King County Green River Trail Plan to provide public
access or a private natural area in lieu of physical public access.
VMPLEMENTATON STRATEGES
• King County Green River Trail Master Plan amendment
• Shoreline public access standards
• Walk and Roll Plan
• Parks and Open Space Plan
5.6.8 Where shoreline public access is provided, ensure that it is designed to be safe and
convenient and includes access amenities such as benches, drinking fountains, public
parking areas, handicapped access, and appropriate lighting, consistent with the
shoreline access guidelines.
VMPLEMENTATON STRATEGES
• Shoreline access guidelines
• King County Green River Trail Master Plan
• Walk and Roll Plan
• Parks and Open Space Plan
flJIKWIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPIL..AN Ull'pll'1A "'I "'IP: II''1: JUNE 11, 2013
201
llllluuuuullll
5.6.9 Except for single - family residential development of four or fewer single - family
residential lots, shoreline developments shall maintain views of the water from the
shoreline and from upland areas, through appropriate design of building height, bulk
and modulation, windows, breezeways, and outdoor spaces.
VMPLEMENTATON STRATEGY
• Shoreline design guidelines
5.6.10 Public access improvements should be designed and constructed to:
• Look and "feel" welcoming to the public;
• Connect to public areas, street ends, and other pedestrian or public through fares;
• Enhance the character of Tukwila;
• Avoid conflicts with water - dependent uses;
• Provide for public safety and minimize impacts to private property and individual
privacy and security;
• Require a low level of operation and maintenance;
• Ensure that construction (i.e. structures and access pathways) incorporates
environmentally sensitive design and materials (e.g., non - toxic, natural materials)
5.6.11 Improve pedestrian connections between the river, Green River Trail and the Urban
Center's commercial, office and residential uses.
Policies for Development in MIC
5.6.12 For MIC properties included in the King County Green River Trail Master Plan, require
shoreline development to provide a trail for public access along the river.
2 2 flJIKWIIII...A COMPREHENSIVE IPIL..AN UJIIplII)A"'"'IIIIII'.III`:'1: JUNE 11, 2013
llllluuuuullll
5.6.13 Where shoreline public access is provided, ensure that it is designed to be safe and
convenient and includes access amenities such as benches, drinking fountains, public
parking areas, handicapped access and appropriate lighting, consistent with the river
access guidelines.
5.6.14 For MIC properties not included in the King County Green River Trail Plan, require
shoreline development to provide public access or a private natural area in lieu of
public access, or otherwise mitigate the loss of public access.
VMPLEMENTATON STRATEGES
• Shoreline design guidelines
• Shoreline access guidelines
• Walk and Roll Plan
• Parks and Open Space Plan
Goal 51 Trans ortation Within the Shoreline Zone
Safe corridors and amenities for pedestrians, cyclists, and users of public transportation, allowing
more citizens to access and enjoy the river.
Policies
5.7.1 Design and locate transportation uses within the shoreline jurisdiction to be
compatible with shoreline vegetation or other habitat features, turn -outs or parking
areas for public access, boat ramps, biofiltration swales to protect water quality, public
art, or interpretive signs.
5.7.2 Ensure that transportation uses within the shoreline jurisdiction and within those
corridors identified as river cross connections provide safe, convenient, and attractive
pedestrian, bicycle and boater access and facilities for public transportation.
flJIKWIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPIL..AN Ull' IDA"'I "'IP: II''1: JUNE 11, 2013
203
llllluuuuullll
5.7.3 Minimize transportation impacts on the natural environment (such as noises, odors,
and air or water pollution) and enhance the natural environment wherever possible
through planting trees and other habitat features.
5.7.4 Encourage maintenance of the river's navigability up to the turning basin, where this
achieves a greater public interest and a balance between costs and benefits to the
broader community and impacts to the habitat functions of the river, in recognition of
the historical significance of navigation and its importance to the economic vitality of
water - dependent uses and the MI C.
Goal 5.8 Historical Resource Use
Recognition of the river's contribution to Tukwila history and community identity through
identification, enhancement, restoration, and protection of sites with historic and cultural value and
through development of interpretive and educational programs.
Policies
5.8.1 Ensure that shoreline development reflects the river's important role in Tukwila history
and that long -term public use of the river as a historical resource is protected by
providing for the identification, protection, and interpretation of unique historic and
archaeological features.
5.8.2 Ensure that public shoreline development reflects the river's natural features and
community traditions.
5.8.3 Ensure that archaeological artifacts and sites are protected when development takes
place in the shoreline jurisdiction.
The Green /Duwamish River has undergone extensive modifications in the past to reduce
channel migration and limit the extent and duration of valley flooding by constructing levees
and revetments. These modifications to the river system have negatively impacted ecological
204 TUKW11II...A COMPREHENSIVE PII...AN UPDATE UU; ICS: JUNE 'U'U, 2013
functions, including hydrology, water quality, riparian habitat and in- stream habitat. River flows
have been modified by dam construction, stream diversion, and urban development. River
management and levees have reduced the connection between the rivers and their floodplains,
changing the spatial extent of habitat, 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. Wood, in the form of riparian trees and in- channel wood, is generally
lacking throughout the system, which has a negative impact on riparian and aquatic habitats. The
following goals and policies seek to improve the ecological function of the river system.
Goal 5.9 Aatural Enviror ALA!: anHabitat Use
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Restored, enhanced, and protected natural environmental resources along the river, including
trees, wildlife habitat, and features with value for long -term public, scientific, and educational uses.
1111111111HE
MIN
Aer►al view of North Winds Weir Off- Channel Habitat (photo courtesy of W RIA 9)
1"VJIKWIIIL..A COMPREHENSIVE IPIL..AIW .UUJIIVIIP: 11, 2013
205
llllluuuuullll
Policies
5.9.1
Ensure that shoreline development results in no net loss of shoreline ecological
function, minimizes impacts on wildlife and that significant vegetation, sandbars,
wetlands, watercourses, and other critical areas identified as important for habitat are
maintained through the proper location, design, construction, and management of all
shoreline uses and activities.
5.9.2 Ensure that shoreline development and activities protect riverbank vegetation and,
where feasible, restore degraded riverbanks in accordance with the vegetation
management provisions of the Shoreline Master Program, in order to minimize and
compensate for impacts on fish and wildlife habitat.
5.9.3 Mitigate unavoidable disturbances of significant vegetation or habitat through
replacement of habitat and provision of interpretive features consistent with the
shoreline access guidelines.
5.9.4 Support relief from certain Shoreline Master Program requirements for properties
affected by habitat restoration projects that result in the movement of the ordinary
high water mark.
5.9.5 Support establishing the Transition Zone as the priority area for habitat restoration
projects given its importance for subtidal and intertidal habitats to allow salmonids to
gradually adjust to the change between fresh and saltwater conditions.
A system of levees and revetments have been constructed along a major portion of the river in
Tukwila. The City has adopted a minimum levee profile to promote river bank stability, protect
structures, and enhance shoreline ecological functions. The minimum levee profile incorporates
a mid -slope bench that provides a wider river channel to accommodate higher flows during storm
events and allows planting of native vegetation to improve habitat functions. The vegetation on the
mid -slope bench will also reduce the speed of water flows during storm events.
206 .T.UIK IIII...A COMPREHENSIVE IPII...AN UPDATE U II ICS JUNE 'U'U, 2013
llllluuuuullll
Goal 5.10 Water Quit , Surface Water, and Flood Control Use
Improved water quality and quantity control programs affecting the Green /Duwamish River that
improve the river's water quality, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, protect public health and
safety, and enhance public enjoyment of the river.
Policies
5.10.1 Design, locate, and manage shoreline development including streets, flood control
projects, surface water drainage and sewer systems, clearing and grading activities,
and landscaping in a manner that minimizes opportunities for pollutants to enter the
river, provides erosion control, and otherwise protects water quality.
5.10.2 Design, manage, and mitigate flood control uses to minimize impacts on other
shoreline uses such as trees and riverbank vegetation, public access and recreation,
and fish habitat; and set them back from the river, where feasible for the project,
with land areas between the water and the levee set aside as open space for public
recreation or wildlife habitat.
5.10.3 Consistent with project feasibility, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts on other
shoreline uses owing to flood control uses through such measures as restoration of
trees and native riverbank vegetation, provision of public access to the water's edge,
interpretive features, or other mitigation of loss of opportunities for shoreline multiple
uses.
5.10.4 Obtain additional easements, where needed, from property owners to set back
levees to improve flood control and shoreline habitat functions. Where possible, as
redevelopment occurs, replace bulkheads, revetments or other hard bank stabilization
with more natural levees, riverbanks or other shoreline treatments, to improve flood
control, ecological functions and habitat.
fVJIKWIIII...A COMIPIRIEIHIIFJWSIIVIF IPIL..AN UIPIDA"'I "'IC: IC'1: JUNE 11, 2013
207
llllluuuuullll
T!i' Storre %r w r'd aiy
IFteoon5gurett Lar
71
ut ui a mi i
uuir �� I� I uu II
I 11
�I IIu0 0. m
i%I'�I C'u° I:a? ul JI
/IGu111t/
III Viu V11
Re ur ope∎ average 2„11 +0u ru tr
L f(rr4lflnari iJ
Water
CKNIA
Minimum Levee Pr
Ts' caOs
1'111
ile
Proposed profile for reconfigured Levees.
�:u
6III r
VMPLEMENTATVON STRATEGVES
• Where possible, increase levee setback
• Shoreline access guidelines
• Surface Water Management Plan
• WRIA 9 Plan water quality policies
Goal ® ,
2 $' 7 "VJIK NIIIL..A
Nfi col 111 101'1[1 lllnll
and Welfare
Shoreline uses that do not endanger public health, safety, and welfare or the capacity of the river to
provide long -term benefits and resources to the community.
5.11.1 Design, locate, and manage shoreline uses, such as capital improvement projects
and private development, in a manner that does not endanger public health, safety
and welfare, and enhances the capacity of the river to provide long -term benefits and
resources to the community.
COMPREHENSIVE IPIL..AN VyICpII':')A"'V"'ll': II':'1: JVyIIVIP:... 11, 2013