HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial 2013-07-30 Item 3B - Index 7F - Natural Environment - Correspondence to Advisory Committee, Planning Commission and CouncilProperty Owner Control
Built in incentive to have trees
cn
E
o a)
C 4L.' -
0 0 L.
r 0 a)
L y i'
L
co a) >
cu
cG
u
cC a) >
, cn ro
-0 0.) L+ E v
b
L L >, _-- 0
p , s
L_. cu a) OD u) 0.
,'n >o v v Q O. n. c' o> .0 c C
E ti >, to) '- a) �' o ca 0 a Cl L L.+
CU L 4.," O C y j C L C L a) L' O O
cu p-0 C ._ 7 2. O O C a. CL u p O O —cu
,O L O ca C C E d. •,.e M .: CL L u u L
0 0
in CO v o L CI) ? c> 3 3 a v
C� p O L [� > i' -O L r• G) 0 0 a) 0> � a)
G u > F-' v+. LP) � .y a) a..' in 'O t -0 -'_. O v)
R '-' 0
z Cl.
and involve community
V' L
a) cn
a) L 0
G
:is if'. .0 a.
0 L VI
I y° C E O
L
d O ca a) p -' t C)
V) c^n a) y El..) r � v, ' cc
a, a' L c on \ a) n. a) >, in
t� u C; C COO O C v) C b0 u f,
>) P ti E p p
C m a) a) y r 'O N cc
u O y
o y a u in v u o o E
,..'mob , > C OD ti C C �' E v) v) 0 .9 0 a)
• �'c 0. V aeDi E- cn c y c v �, c� a a; L E v sa
GU` t' 'Z' bDa) c > ca ° o •� o o° p �'
> V ' Q i'- .0 °u .0 °u N C v) Q. O. u a) CJ
0
Trees Self- Sustaining
Reason to Remove
a)
C
D
P O
o 4. O 0 E cn
L_ L > `
a) O O .N 0 a)
cu 72, al 0 .O
u .-4
> a) _C 0
L
° a ° 'a. n •L cu u
E O a) — u a) an C L co
y
Q1 E a > c..., b0 C u ° o
aa)) a) O p 0 c4 p
C C
C °
cu E y cn O L. y
3 ,> CU Lo. CU u.o ca
O y u N >, v) a) a)
i >, .� d C yL:4;
U y U L
e) = x >, e, v L O O C a)
O. .63 Is] aCO=V) cn–a2 x
o E
0 0
o '
a o
0
no -o a �, o i�
L. to C '-- y O
b0 y >, p w V) L O co 0 L a) 3L-'
C >, O E p - 0 �, >
rG 01.0 E L. bc0 >, i • C
L. o CU to O >, o L
c..., y :0 - j ca L � f�LC ?� s- of a
o ton C O o y o r C 0° `' L L. Z E-'
L... v) & -0 L .0 � : C N- .E -0 ti. .�'
Daryl Tapio
P.O. Box 69736, Seattle WA 98168,
Email: dtolympic(a)vahoo.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
Daryl Tapio
P.O. Box 69736, Seattle WA 98168,
Email: dtolympic(d yahoo.com, 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 be adequately discussed and answered definitively. It also should 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 be met by the second approach described above with relative ease.
We are fortunate enough to live in a climate that is virtually ideal for growing trees. They grow
quickly and if properly selected and planted require very little maintenance or watering. I have
planted many trees in the area and some of the trees planted four years ago are now 8 to 10 feet in
height. On some of my property a grove of trees appeared without planting. both coniferous and
deciduous, and many grew to heights of 30 feet in 5 years.
The staff proposed Comp Plan embraces the negative approach. 1 have attached a copy of the Staff
Comp Plan Proposal with all of the sections highlighted in yellow that could result in regulations.
fees. permits. and ultimately transferring the control of trees from property owners to the city.
In the meetings I have attended and listened to it is apparent that there is nobody on the committee
or in the room with first -hand experience in the areas of building homes or small -site development.
This is a critical piece of the puzzle that is missing. The discussion of the committee is a one -sided
discussion. Without input from property owners who want to impro\e their property and have
permitting and construction experience it is impossible to create a policy that would allow efficient
redevelopment in a city that desperately needs more redevelopment.
Some of the discussion at the last meeting was offensive. outrageous and truly despicable. A
committee member referred to creating an enforcement policy that embraced high fines and
financial penalties on property owners for cutting or pruning their own trees as follows: "HIT
THEM HARD! We may not catch every one. but those that we do. MAKE THEM PAY! MAKE
AN EXAMPLE!" The most telling part of this discussion was that nobody in the room countered
this statement or said that the) disagreed. A policy created in this environment will not result in a
harmonious relationship between property owners and the city.
The committee and city staff are deliberately ignoring empirical data. presenting a one -sided
argument and proposing Comp Plan amendments that would lead to transferring the control over
trees from the property owners to the city. There is a better policy choice that would lead to better
relationships with property owners and builders and result in a better and greener cite. The Mayor.
Council. and management needs to provide clear direction on this issue prior to more cite resource
expenditures.
Sincerely.
7
Daryl Tapio
•
Attachments: Highlighted Comp Plan Proposal. Tree Canopy Report p. 17
Tapio Letter, Page 2 of 2
Landcover: High Density Residential ' .ex
t4'
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 %)
ho >isr/ /J 0 fj
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
Lost' 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 / canovv
Residential zone is canopy (47 %) while 29% is 4716
pervious. Impervious land cover represents 22% and
bare soil and open water represent 1% each.
f�c 6nacrq
r7.1,b‘
Impervious
56%
Pervious
11%
Figure 8 - High Density
Residential
Bare Soil
0.1%
Figure 9 - Medium Density
Residential
Pervious
29%
Impervious
22%
Figure 10 - Low Density
Residential
re Soil
1%
Open
Water
1%
Tukwila, WA
Urban Tree Canopy Assessment
17
Staff Proposed Goals /Policies for Urban Forestry
March 13, 2013 Meeting
Proposed Urban Forestry Goals, Policies for the Natural Environment Chapter
The following goals are an expansion of the existing goals and policies in Chapter 1 of the Comprehensive
Plan; See Goal 1.3 and Policies 1.3.1, 1.3.2; Goal 1.4 and policies 1.4.1 and 1.4.2; Goal 1.6, second bullet;
Policy 1.6.4; Goal 1.7 and policy 1.7.4; Goal 1.8, policy 1.8.3 and 1.8.6; Goal 1.10, Policy 1.10.12
Goal 1: Trees are recognized by Tukwila citizens, businesses, City staff and decision - makers for their
benefits to the environment (air quality, habitat, climate change), urban infrastructure (stormwater
attenuation, slope stability, temperature) and their aesthetic value (economic benefits, safety /crime
reduction, visual and recreational benefits, etc.) Note: a discussion of the benefits of trees will be
included in a narrative section that introduces the goal, so they won't need to be in the goal itself).
Policies for Goal 1:
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.
2. Ensure that the benefits of trees are factored into site design and permit decisions.
3. Ensure that regulations recognize that larger 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.
6. Develop tree valuation methods to reflect the value trees provide, for use in assessing fines,
determining damages or estimating loss 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.
/If 11# -Ce-64"4) kiwi) re)w I- /,; kcIA:Ji
1-cts /1-4-1 pp, 7)-)/ �ilt11 9H 7L 1t/ -
+ZeJ rr-47 p Iv./ cs.,, .
Page 1 of 3 2/28/2013 3:55 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry \Advisory Committee Materials \Agendas Memos \Meeting 7 \Staff Proposed Urban Forestry Policies
Staff Proposed Goals /Policies for Urban Forestry
March 13, 2013 Meeting
Goal 2. Tree Canopy Goal: Overall 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 Toss to maintain current 40% cover
Low Density Residential: No net Toss to maintain current 47% cover
Office and Commercial: 1% increase to 30% cover
Tukwila Urban Center and Tukwila South: 3% increase to achieve 16% cover
Policies for Goal 2:
1. 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 slope 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 all 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.
6. 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.
8. Collaborate with other government, non - profit organizations and private sector entities to
promote urban forest management and restoration.
Page 2 of 3 2/28/2013 3:55 PM
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee Materials \Agendas Memos \Meeting 7 \Staff Proposed Urban Forestry Policies
Staff Proposed Goals /Policies 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,
incentives, and education.
2. Develop tree /urban forest inventories and assess the health of trees and forests in Tukwila'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.
6. 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
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry \Advisory Committee Materials \Agendas Memos \Meeting 7 \Staff Proposed Urban Forestry Policies
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 5.
Tukwila, WA 98168
Carol Lumb
Daryl Tapio <dtolympic @yahoo.com>
.,ent: 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
ngle 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
eas.
i
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 <dtolynlpic@'vahoo.conl>
Date: March 12, 2013, 12:15:35 PM PDT
To: Carol Lumb <Carol.Lumb @TukwilaWA.17ov >, Sandra Whiting
<Sandra.Whitina @TukwilaWA.gov >, Nora Gierloff <Nora.Gierloff @TukwilaWA.Llov>
Subject: Comments on Tree Committee
Reply -To: Daryl Tapio <dtolympic @vahoo.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 Tapio
2
Gmail - TTEAC: note to the committee Page 1 of 1
TTEAC: note to the committee
1 message
De'Sean Quinn
brooke alford Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:19 PM
To: De'Sean Quinn
Councilmember Quinn,
I would like to submit some comments to the TTEAC for consideration. I was disconcerted to hear that a
delegation from another municipality (SeaTac) attended the Tukwila committee's meeting to give comment
and attempt to sway policy in our city. It is by choice that I live in this community and serve as a
community advocate here. So, as a resident and landowner in Tukwila I will 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 I 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, I 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. I commend the committee in their focuses on education and incentivization. And I value highly words
such as "encourage" and "collaborate." However, I also strongly urge the committee and staff to use
thoughtful caution in the overuse of such terms in the policy, as it could ultimately render the policy
ineffective.
I want to thank you, Chair, the Committee and staff for all of the hard work on this policy. I think sound
urban forestry management is crucial to a healthy community and look forward to a strong product from
your efforts.
Sincerely,
Brooke Alford
https: // mail .google.com /mail /u /0 / ?ui =2 &ik ec90f06eff &view =pt &search = inbox &th= 13df... 4/10/2013
The following three comments were submitted after the
Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee completed
its work:
1. Seattle City Light (SCL) presented to the Planning
Commission for its consideration at the public hearing
6/27/13 — staff has provided a response to the comments
of Seattle City Light following each SCL comment;
2. Kory Kramer, Forterra, general comments on the Natural
Environment Chapter, presented to the Planning
Commission for its consideration at the public hearing
6/27/13.
3. Ms. Kelli Turner, submitted June 27, 2013 for Council
consideration at its public hearing August 12, 2013 — staff
has provided a response to Ms. Turner's suggestions.
Carol Lumb
'rom: kellit ( Kelli Turner) < kellit @crab.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:39 PM
To: Carol Lumb
Cc: Laurel Humphrey; Sandra Whiting; Nora Gierloff
Subject: RE: Tree Ordinance Suggestions
Thanks again for your thorough explanation and reference to where I can find more information. You guys are doing a
great job. Thank you so much.
While I wish there were more regulations and guidelines for existing homeowners to retain existing older growth
habitat, education is great and certainly better than nothing and frequently solves many problems especially if it's
promoted and easy to access. Reaching out to the community is wonderful and I think is especially needed.
Yes I think incentives are key in encouraging homeowners to retain as much older growth canopy as possible when
managing their land and is usually preferable. I will think more on this and give you any suggestions I come up with, and
thanks again so much for allowing me to participate in this suggestion process.
Have a wonderful day.
Kelli O
From: Carol Lumb [mailto:Carol.Lumb @TukwilaWA.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:13 PM
To: kellit ( Kelli Turner)
Cc: Laurel Humphrey; Sandra Whiting; Nora Gierloff
Subject: RE: Tree Ordinance Suggestions
Hi Kelli,
On the issue of prohibiting removal of trees from property prior to issuing a development permit, the Advisory
Committee discussed at length whether to include developed parcels as well as undeveloped parcels and ultimately
decided to take the approach of using education programs and informational tools to inform property owners of
developed property about the value of trees. The urban forestry section of the Natural Environment chapter includes
several policies related to this issue — see policy 4.12.5, 4.13.1 and 4.14.3 as examples. Great emphasis is placed on
reaching out to inform property owners, businesses etc. about the value of trees, both in the policies and the
implementation strategies (see pages 4 -29 and 4 -30 of the formatted document for the list of implementation
strategies). Tree removal in sensitive areas will continue to be regulated, whether the site is developed or undeveloped.
Identifying incentives to retain trees will be explored when we work on the development regulations next year, as
directed by Policy 4.13.1 c. As a property owner, if you have suggestions on incentives to retain trees that you think
would work please let me know. We will be reaching out to the community during the next phase of work on this and
other issues.
Thanks again for your continued interest in this issue. Let me know if I haven't fully addressed your question.
Carol
From: kellit (Kelli Turner) [mailto:kellit @crab.orq]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 12:20 PM
1
To: Carol Lumb
Cc: Laurel Humphrey; Sandra Whiting; Nora Gierloff
Subject: RE: Tree Ordinance Suggestions
Thank you so much for your informative and thorough responses!
My Question #2, was not just about undeveloped land in Tukwila. Most land is developed and homeowners live there
and manage their land. I was referring to land already occupied and current regulations requiring a percentage of trees
be sustained vs. a number so that all are allowed to be removed regardless of whether the tree is healthy or not. Where
I live between 2 freeways and the airport, the air quality is poor and it is increasingly noisy. When homeowners start
taking down large healthy trees just because they are messy, it really impacts the quality of the neighborhood, and air -
quality and noise both are worse because of it.
I really hope you are working on some incentives and regulations for existing homeowners and guidance in managing
their land, at least requiring a permit and inspection in order to take down large healthy trees in Tukwila and some
parameters around that....incentives, whatever in the most positive way of course.
Thank you very much, and I would appreciate a response as to what is being done to address the current ordinance for
existing homeowners being allowed to take down trees on their land and what the parameters are around that.
Kelli
From: Carol Lumb [ mailto :Carol.Lumb @TukwilaWA.gov1
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 1:40 PM
To: kellit (Kelli Turner)
Cc: Laurel Humphrey; Sandra Whiting; Nora Gierloff
Subject: Tree Ordinance Suggestions
Dear Kelli,
Thank you very much for your comments on the proposed urban forestry goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive
Plan Natural Environment chapter. I have been asked to respond and have provided my comments after your
suggestions below.
If you would like to review the urban forestry goals and policies as recommended by the Tukwila Tree and Environment
Advisory Committee, you can find that material on this web
page: http:// records. tukwilawa. gov /WebLink8 /Browse.aspx ?startid= 10154 &row =1 &dbid =1. Click on the Planning
Commission link and then scroll down to the June 27, 2013 meeting at the bottom of the page. The materials provided to
the Planning Commission for the June 27, 2013 public hearing on the Natural Environment chapter are found here. The
Planning Commission made several minor revisions to the goals and policies recommended by the Advisory
Committee. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the material August 12, 2013 — as soon as their packets are
available on line I will send you the link.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about the responses below — I appreciate your interest in this
important topic and will keep you informed as the goals and policies move through the Council review process.
Carol
Carol Lurnb, Senior Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
206 -431 -3661
Carol Lumb ,Tukw/Jal'1�a. oer
2
Tukwila, the City of choice, the community of opportunity.
From: kellit (Kelli Turner) f mailto:kellit@crab.orgl
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:02 PM
To: CityCouncil
Subject: Tree Ordinance Suggestions
I went to the Tree ordinance meeting the other night. It's amazing the awesome job all the volunteers and city
representatives have pulled together.
1. My suggestion is try to come up with a price or value of trees in an existing urban forest environment in -tact
when they provide storm water management through soil permeability and erosion and flooding reduction
expenses. What are the costs of fixing flood damage, waste water treatment, and erosion damage.
Answer: The Natural Environment Chapter includes a chart prepared by Davey Resource Group, the consulting firm that
prepared the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, on the pollution benefits provided by trees to the City over the course of
a year - currently $493,000 (see page 4 -9 of the formatted chapter). We are also considering using a tool such as
iTree in the next phase after adoption of the goals and polices when we will be working on implementing
regulations. iTree calculates the value of a specific tree based on its species, size, health etc.
2. I would also like to propose, if you haven't already, requiring a percentage of trees remain on existing lands vs.
just a number of trees being allowed to be removed. If someone only has four trees and the limit is four trees, it
makes no sense that all the trees can be removed.
Answer: The Advisory Committee discussed this issue in great detail and recommended that trees on vacant parcels not
be removed until a development proposal is approved so that staff could work with the developer to identify ways to
organize the development on the site to preserve trees while still allowing site density to be achieved. In addition, the
Committee recommended tree canopy goals for different land use categories throughout the City. The Committee
discussed this issue at the April 10 and May 8, 2013 meetings if you would like to review the meeting summary. These
are also posted on the web page noted above.
The implementing regulations will look at a variety of ways to achieve these goals. One way would be to use a tree point
system such as the one used by the City of Federal Way that requires a certain number of tree points be provided for a
development — trees would be assigned a point value depending on their size, health etc, so mature trees would have a
higher point value than newer, smaller trees. This would hopefully provide an incentive to preserve some of the trees
on a site during development, although it would be up to the developer to decide how to obtain the required number of
tree points.
3. Also, it would be great for Tukwila to encourage or require a certain percentage of new development to include
the use of Permeable concrete and Rain garden installation or swales along sidewalks and between cars and
streets. I think we need to do more about parking lots and their run -off. The Tukwila Community Center has
the nicest parking lot design I have ever seen. Let's install more of those!
Answer: When the City updates its stormwater regulations to comply with the new NPDES permit requirements, low
impact development (rain gardens) will be an important factor for developments to consider in order to meet water
quality and quantity requirements. The Advisory Committee included a policy that encourages the City to incorporate
'ow- impact development techniques into City projects (see Policy 4.8.1). Development projects are currently
encouraged to utilize pervious pavement.
Thank you for your consideration and time.
3
Kelli Turner, Human Resources
Cancer Research And Biostatistics (CRAB)
1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1900
Seattle, WA 98101
206- 839 -1786
4
Carol Lumb
From: Kory Kramer <kkramer @forterra.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:53 PM
To: Carol Lumb
Cc: Hayes Swinney
Subject: Comment from Forterra for tonight's meeting
Hi Carol,
We'd like to submit comment on the Natural Environment Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan that is under
review by the Planning Commission in tonight's meeting.
We applaud the City for including the addition of policies and implementation strategies related to creating healthy
urban forests and recognizing the potential for community engagement in urban forest management. The goals and
strategies cited below have been successfully implemented in 6 Puget Sound cities — Seattle, Kirkland, Tacoma,
Redmond, Kent and Everett - through Forterra's Green City Partnerships Program. The Green City Partnerships are
public - private ventures between Forterra, local government agencies, businesses, non- profit organizations, and
community members to develop civic -based stewardship programs for urban forests and open spaces within cities.
Green City Partnerships build a city -wide strategic vision for urban forest restoration and long -term care by identifying
present conditions, assessing current capacity, and providing a full account of the resources required to realize the vision
documented in a 20 -year plan of action for each city. The long -term strategy embodied in these plans then becomes the
driving force to engage community groups and build a network of support to achieve forest and natural area restoration
goals for the entire park and open space systems within each municipality.
Forest health assessments have been done for nearly 7,000 acres of urban forested parklands and natural areas in these
6 Green Cities. Current implementation includes nearly 200 stewards who lead work parties in their neighborhood parks
to remove invasive plants and plant native trees, shrubs and groundcover, increasing the diversity, resilience and the
capacity for ecosystem services that these lands provide to the surrounding community and larger ecosystem.
Annually, Green City volunteers contribute 100,000 hours of their time to the stewardship of their urban forests and
natural areas. Those hours amount to an estimated value of over $2 million.
Goals 4.3 and 4.14 of the Natural Environment Element lay the foundation for a successful community stewardship
program in Tukwila. Forterra supports Tukwila's vision of educating, empowering and supporting its residents in
stewarding their natural resources and supports the inclusion of policies and implementation strategies that will help to
achieve that vision.
Goal 4.3
Environmental Quality and Stewardship Implementation Strategies
• 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.
Goal 4.14
Urban Forestry Implementation Strategies
• 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.
Sincerely,
Kory Kramer
Forterra 1 Green Cities Program Manager
Formerly Cascade Land Conservancy
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, Washington 98164
T 206 905 6923 I C 253 343 42931 V4' www.forterra.orq
CREATING GREAT COMMUNITIES
and CONSERVING GREAT LANDS
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter
2
Carol Lumb
From: Bayard, David <David.Bayard @seattle.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 11:52 AM
To: Carol Lumb
Subject: RE: Tree and Environment Advisory Committee Update and Volunteer Training
Opportunity
Attachments: Chapter 4 all goals - policies- FINAL.DB.SCL comments.docx
Hi Carol,
I've attached the Chapter 4 Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Policies and Goals document you sent us with my
comments as tracked - changes. All in all I think it looks great and there were only a few places we recommended adding
language to avoid future conflicts with City Light's policies and work practices. If you'd like this in a different format, of if
you have any questions about our comments please let me know and I'll try to clarify things.
Thanks again for the heads -up on this, we appreciate Tukwila's willingness to work with City Light in crafting your future
tree regulations.
Be well,
-Dave
David M. Bayard
Arboriculturist - Seattle City Light
Office: 206 - 386 -1902
Email: david.bayardPseattle.gov
ISA Certified Arborist - #WE -7213
Certified Tree Risk Assessor - #1715
Certified Treecare Safety Professional - #370
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not."
- the Lorax
From: Carol Lumb jmailto :Carol.Lumb @TukwilaWA.govl
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:33 PM
To: Brooke Alford; Dana Ramsey; Daryl Tapio; Bayard, David; Mutchler, David; DMBNate182 @hotmail.com; Eli Brocker;
Allen, Glen; Greg Al!wine, AIA; Heather McLeland- Wiser; Kelli Turner (greenrosel0 (amsn.com); meavotte @comcast.net;
pslinder @comcast.net; Rev. Allen Mosley; Roger; sebringl @tukwila.wednet.edu; Sunny Mulholland
(sunnvmulholland @hotmail.com); Vicki Lockwood
Subject: Tree and Environment Advisory Committee Update and Volunteer Training Opportunity
Dear Interested Party,
I wanted to let you know that the Tree and Environment Advisory Committee will present their recommendations on
revisions to the Natural Environment Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan to a joint Planning Commission /City
Council work session on Monday, June 24, 2013 beginning at 5:30 p.m. The work session will be held in the City Council
Chambers, located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, 98188. The work session will not provide an opportunity for
public comment, however, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Committee's recommended
revisions on Thursday, June 27, 2013, beginning at 6:30 p.m. where public comment will be taken. If you cannot attend
the hearing, you may submit written comments by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 27 to either me at
1
Carol.Lumb @Tukwilawa.gov or Nora Gierloff, at Nora.Gierloff@Tukwilawa.gov. The public hearing will also be held in
the City Council Chambers, located at the address above.
On a separate issue, since you have expressed an interest in the update of the City's natural environment and urban
forestry goals and policies I wanted to pass along information about a volunteer training opportunity that might be of
interest to you. The training opportunity would provide information about habitat restoration along the Duwamish River
and build your skills in restoration and monitoring with the ultimate goal of becoming a Puget Sound Steward. The
attached flyer provides more information about the training opportunity. If you do not wish to receive this type of
information to me, please let me know and I will not forward future information.
Please let me know if you have any questions. I will provide a link to the Planning Commission materials next Friday,
when they are posted on the City's web site.
Sincerely,
Carol Lumb
Carol Lupnb, Senior Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
206- 431 -3661
CarolLumb @Tuk ila J'Va.gor
Tukwila, the City of choice, the community of opportunity.
2
Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies
As Recommended by Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
5 -29 -13
Environmental Quality and Stewardship
Goal 4.1 The City's air, land and water resources are restored and protected for future
generations.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
Policy 4.1.4 Assist applicants in complying with Federal and State wildlife and
endangered species regulations for all public and private sector projects.
Policy 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
techniques, natural streambank restoration, non -toxic lawn care, composting and
recycling.
Goal 4.2 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.
Policy 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 on individual responsibilities for their stewardship.
Policy 4.2.2 Provide individualized education and technical support to residential
property owners and general guidance to businesses regarding environmental
stewardship.
I CL Page 1 of 14
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry \Advisory Committee \Chapter 4 ALL Revised Goals and Policies FINAL
07/09/2013G6,126,4844
1 Comment [W1]: Right tree right placement 1
Comment [P2]: This topic is dealt with In the
Urban Forestry subsection
Comment [W3]: Right tree right placement J
{Comment [P4]: In Urban forestry subsection 1
Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies
As Recommended by Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
5 -29 -13
Policy 4.2.3 Develop and continue to support community- oriented wildlife educational
programs such as the Tukwila Backyard Wildlife Program.
Goal 4.3 Increased number of Tukwila residents trained as environmental stewards and
actively participating in environmental restoration and maintenance.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
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, low impact development techniques, and other related; topics.
Distributelsuch 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.
1 CL Page 2 of 14
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee \Chapter 4 ALL Revised Goals and Policies FINAL
0109/201
Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies
As Recommended by Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
5 -29 -13
• 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.
Water Resources
IA statement will be inserted in the narrative portion of this section explaining that the Green Duwamish
Shoreline goals and policies are found in the Shoreline Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.}
Goal 4.4 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 43 Vital and self- sustaining fish and wildlife habitat areas that also provide, where
appropriate, opportunities for recreational and educational uses.
Policy 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.
Policy 4.5.2 Recognize, protect and enhance the value of watercourse and river riparian
zones and other natural areas as wildlife corridors.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
Policy 4.5.5 Prohibit piping of watercourses except where unavoidable for access
purposes. Where feasible and practical to create healthy riparian habitat, encourage
I CL Page 3 of 14 07. 09 20130-24.41-,;
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\Advisory Comm.ttee \Chapter 4 ALL Revised Goals and Policies FINAL
Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies
As Recommended by Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
5 -29 -13
removal of piped sections of watercourses as part of new or redevelopment and public
projects.
Policy 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 Watercourses and their buffers, wetlands and wetland buffers protected from
encroachment and degradation and improved through mitigation, enhancement and
restoration projects.
Policy 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.
Policy 4.6.2 Ensure mitigation sequencing is applied to avoid or minimize impacts to
sensitive areas consistent with Federal and State guidelines.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
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, including projects along the Green /Duwamish River shoreline.
1 CL Page 4 of 14
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry \Advisory Committee \Chapter 4 ALL Revised Goals and Policies FINAL
07/09/2013064b/-2&14
Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies
As Recommended by Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
5 -29 -13
Policy 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.
Wetlands /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.
Water Quality /Quantity
Goal 4.7 The water quality in Tukwila's wetlands, watercourses, fish and wildlife habitat
areas and the Green /Duwamish River is improved over time.
Policy 4.7.1 Improve surface water management and ensure provision of water quality
treatment where required.
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 inspections.
I CL PageSof 14 07:09/ 20136F, 26. 201=
W:\ \Long Range Projects+, Urban Forestry \Advisory Comm,ttee \Chapter 4 ALL Revised Goals and Policies FINAL
Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies
As Recommended by Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
5 -29 -13
Policy 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.
Policy 4.7.4 To protect water quality, promote natural yard care, alternatives to grass
lawns, and proper waste management through educational programs and publicity.
Policy 4.7.5 Continue City monitoring for illicit surface water discharges and ensure that
action is taken to eliminate any such discharges.
Policy 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.
Goal 4.8 Surface water generated by urban development does not exceed pre - development
discharge rates.
Policy 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.
Policy 4.8.2 Require that all proposed development identifies 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.
Policy 4.8.3 Continue inspection programs to ensure proper maintenance of public and
private surface water management systems.
I CL Page 6 of 14
W:\ \Long Range Projects Urban Forestry\Advisory Committee \Chapter 4 ALL Revised Goals and Policies FINAL
07/09/201306/26 /2013
Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies
As Recommended by Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
5 -29 -13
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.
Flood Control
Goal 4.9: 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.
Proposed Policies:
Policy 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.
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 flooding.
Policy 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.
Policy 4.9.4 Minimize adverse impacts to water resources by using bioengineering and
natural solutions for bank stabilization or flood control projects, wherever feasible.
Policy 4.9.5 Require mitigation to reduce adverse environmental impacts from
engineered flood control measures on a case -by -case basis.
CL Page 7 of 14
W \ \long Range Projects \Urban Forestry \Adv,sory Comm, ttee \Chapter 4 ALL Rev'sed Goals and Pohnes FINAL
07109 /201301E ;:a- 4
Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies
As Recommended by Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
5 -29 -13
Goal 4.10: The levee system south of 1 -405 is constructed, maintained and certified to meet
the accreditation standards of the Federal Emergency Management Administration.
Proposed Policies:
Policy 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.
Policy 4.10.2 Restrict levee encroachments by adjacent property 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 time protecting public safety.
Policy 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 Low- Impact Development for surface water management from
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.
I CL Page 8 of 14 07.09, 20130642440;-3
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\ Advisory Committee \Chapter 4 ALL Revised Goals and Pol,oes FINAL
Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies
As Recommended by Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
5 -29 -13
Earth Resources
Goal 4.11: 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.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
Policy 4.11.4 Require the use of, 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.
Policy 4.11.5 Incorporate information from geotechnical reports and documented landslide
and erosion -prone areas into the City's GIS data.
Policy 4.11.6 Ensure that proposed development projects in mapped coal mine hazard
areas adequately consider and mitigate for possible risks.
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.
I CL Page 9 of 14 07(09;201306'26(2J23
W'\ \ Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry \Advisory Committee \Chapter 4 ALL Revised Goals and Po .cies FINAL
Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies
As Recommended by Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
5 -29 -13
Archaeological, Paleontological, and Culturally Significant
Resources
The protection of archaeological, paleontological and culturally significant resources crosses
several Comprehensive Plan topic categories — these areas can be viewed as environmentally
sensitive but the City's Parks and Open Space Plan also includes a number of goals or policies on
natural areas and historical resources (including archaeological resources). For the purposes of
the Comprehensive Plan, these topics will be addressed in Chapter 1, Community Image.
Proposed Urban Forestry Goals, Policies
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.
Policy 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.
Policy 4.12.2 Ensure that the benefits of trees are factored into site design and permit
decisions.
Policy 4.12.3 Ensure that regulations recognize that larger trees provide more benefits
than small trees.
Policy 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.
Policy 4.12.5 Educate the public, elected officials and City staff about the importance of
and benefits provided 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 forestry budget and account.
I CL Page 10 of 14
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry \Advisory Committee \Chapter 4 ALL Revised Goals and Policies FINAL
07/09/201306/-26/40 -13
Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies
As Recommended by Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
5 -29 -13
Policy 4.12.8 Consider developing an "exceptional" or "heritage" tree program to foster
tree appreciation in the community.
Policy 4.12.9 Encourage public involvement in urban forest stewardship through volunteer
events, free training workshops, and other means.
Goal 4.13 Tree Canopy Goal: Overall city -wide tree canopy increased from 27% for the
zoning categories indicated below to a total of 28% 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 9.5% cover
Tukwila Urban Center and Tukwila South: 5% increase from 13 %to achieve 19% cover
Office and Commercial: 3% increase from 29 %to achieve 32% cover
Public Rights -of -Way: increase canopy coverage through street tree planting. Canopy
goal to be established based on future assessment.
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%
Policy 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 or trees that interfere with underground or overhead
utilities, 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 permiti;
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.
d. requiring financial assurances for required tree replanting and maintenance.
Policy 4.13.2 Improve retention of trees on steep slopes through modifications in
regulations, ensuring the evaluation of the role that trees play in slope stability during
geotechnical reviews, and by providing incentives.
CL Page 11 of 14
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\ Advisory Committee \Chapter 4 ALL Revised Goals and Policies FINAL
07/09 /2 013hF.y -r , rG1.3
Comment [W5]: We'd need an exception or a
broader definition of 'hazard'
Comment [P6]: Agree - see proposed edit
Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies
As Recommended by Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
5 -29 -13
Policy 4.13.3 Continue to protect trees in sensitive areas and the shoreline through
relevant regulations.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
Policy 4.13.9 Collaborate with other government, non - profit organizations and private
sector entities to promote urban forest management and restoration.
Policy 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 canopylgoalsi.
Policy 4.13.11 Evaluate current parking lot landscape requirements to identify
opportunities to increase tree canopy.
I CL Page 12 of 14
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\ Advisory Committee \Chapter 4 ALL Revised Goals and Policies FINAL
7/09/20130W-244284-3
Comment [W7]: Reference Trenching and
Tunneling Near Trees by Dr lames Fazio
Comment [P8]: We have this publication and it
would be one of the tools we would use for
implementing the policy -- not sure it need,
mentioned here - maybe as an implement
strategy instead?
Comment [W9]: 1 would include language
promoting large conifers (not always considered
large canopy) as well for storm water run -off
mitigation
Comment [CLIO]: We view large conifers as
falling within what is meant by "large canopy trees`
Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies
As Recommended by Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
5 -29 -13
Goal 4.14. Tukwila's streetscapes and landscaped areas are sustainable and attractive and its
urban forest is healthy, diverse, and safe.
Policy 4.14.1 Develop tree /urban forest inventories and assess the health of trees and
forests in Tukwila's public spaces.
Policy 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; diseases and
pest infestations are managed; hazardous trees are identified and managed in a timely
manner to reduce risks; and invasive vegetation is properly managed.
Policy 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.
Policy 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.
Policy 4.14.5 Develop a mechanism to ensure that tree removal and maintenance
companies have the necessary qualifications and liability insurance for work in Tukwila.
Policy 4.14.6 Modify landscape code to require diversity of tree species in landscape
plantings and consideration of species already present in the vicinity.
Policy 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,
including: minimum soil volume, soil quality, plant quality, planting techniques, irrigation,
mulching, tree pruning, and prohibition of topping.
Policy 4.14.8 Develop an approved /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 jconditions.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
• Prepare and publish technical specifications for landscape professionals and
landscape contractors reflecting best management practices /standards for achieving
I CL Page 13 of 14
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry \Advisory Committee \Chapter 4 ALL Revised Goals and Policies FINAL
07109(2013^x» 2-14
f Comment [W11]: And overhead utility
Il Infrastructure
Comment [P12]: Overhead utilities are Included
In' infrastructure conflicts" - no need to modify
policy
Natural Environment Chapter: Revised Goals and Policies
As Recommended by Tukwila Tree and Environment Advisory Committee
5 -29 -13
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 an "adopt -an- urban - forest" "ivy removal teams" or similar program 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;
• 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.
I CL Page 14 of 14
W:\ \Long Range Projects \Urban Forestry\ Advisory Committee \Chapter 4 ALL Revised Goals and Policies FINAL
07,109]201346{26JC1