The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCAP 2007-06-26 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET City of Tukwila P! Carter S. V. Kerslake W 1 LA, V. Griffin G. Labanara t Z Community Affairs and P. Linder K. Matej D. Robertson M. Miotke N Parks Committee Mayor Mullet C. O'Flaherty R. Berry J. Pace 1908r Pam Linder, Chair E. Boykan D. Speck Pam Carter J. Cantu R. Still B. Fletcher CC File (cover) Dennis Robertson K. Fuhrer N. Gierloff AGENDA Monday, June 26, 2007 Conference Room #3; 5 PM ITEM ACTION TO BE TAKEN Page 1. PRESENTATION(S) 2. BUSINESS AGENDA Code amendment issues; Nora Gierlofi; DCD Planning Supervisor.• a. Sensitive Areas ordinance a. Forward to 7/9 COW. P9. 1 b. Code amendment SEPA b. Forward to 7/9 COW. P9.31 c. Zoning Code amendments c. Forward to 7/9 COW. P9.37 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. MISCELLANEOUS Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, Ju /y 10, 2007 The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate those with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 433 -1800 for assistance. INFORlVIATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet ~ Community Affairs and Parks Committee Jack Pace, Acting Director Department of Community Development June 15,2007 Code Amendment - Sensitive Areas Ordinance From: Date: Subject: ISSUE Should the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) be amended to allow the DCD Director to establish a mitigation ratio on a case-by-case basis for off-site mitigation carried out at a wetland mitigation bank? BACKGROUND The CAP discussed this at their April 24th meeting. They had some suggested changes to the code language which have been incorporated into the proposal but did not have a consensus recommendation. The COW discussed this at the May 14th meeting and while they opted to forward the amendment on to the PC there were concerns about the use of mitigation sites outside of Tukwila and the degree of flexibility granted to the DCD Director's decision. The PC held a public hearing on May 24th and discussed the desirability of mitigation sites within Tukwila and the Director's special permission decision-making process, though they ultimately recommended approval of the amendment as 'written. DISCUSSION Only isolated Type 3 wetlands or wetlands in the path of an essential public facility may be filled and mitigated off-site under the City's Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO). This off-site mitigation requires a Special Permission approval from the DCD Director, and may be inside or outside the city limits of Tukwila as long as the mitigation site is within the same river basin, see criteria at TMC 18.45.090 E listed in Attachment A. The current proposal would not change this process or the criteria that must be met. Tukwila's Urban Environmentalist has investigated the opportunities for off-site mitigation in Tukwila, including establishment of a wetland mitigation bank, and has found them to be limited. Staff's recommendation was to make appropriate City-owned properties available for individual mitigation projects that would be designed and implemented by the developer, see a summary of the "Off-Site Wetland Mitigation Program for Tukwila" report at Attachment B. CL Q:\2007 SAO Amendment\CAP Memo.doc Page 1 on 06/19/2007 10:26:00 A1"1 / The Council adopted this policy direction in Resolution 1608. However due to the limited area available for creation and enhancement these sites are unable to meet the mitigation needs of larger projects. Wetland mitigation banking as a tool for off setting unavoidable impacts to wetlands is increasingly becoming more important, and the City is starting to see proposals for off-site mitigation at banks. A wetland mitigation bank is the consolidation of small, fragmented wetland mitigation projects into a large contiguous site where creation, restoration and enhancement is carried out in advance of the impacts. Banks are established under a formal and rigorous permitting process that establishes how many wetland mitigation "credits" will be available for sale. The mitigation ratios established in the SAO apply to both on-site and off-site mitigation and are used to determine a mitigation area requirement when multiplied by the acreage of fill or impact due to the project. The SAO does not address transferring mitigation to a mitigation bank, which uses credits as opposed to acreage in determining the amount of mitigation needed. Determining the number of mitigation bank credits needed to meet the City's mitigation ratios is not straightforward. Credits in a mitigation bank are based on the net ecological benefit provided and are determined on the basis of Department of Ecology mitigation ratios, the kinds of mitigation carried out at the bank (wetland creation, restoration, and/or enhancement), the type (class) of wetland that has been created, rehabilitated or enhanced and the total acreage for each type of mitigation. The number of credits needed for mitigation is based on the type (classification) of the wetland being impacted. The amount of mitigation built into the value of a credit does not directly equate to Tukwila's SAO mitigation ratios, which are based on acreage impacted and do not distinguish between types of wetlands in applying the mitigation ratios. Mitigation ratios applied to projects that are carrying out wetland mitigation in conjunction with a development project are typically higher than those ratios in a mitigation bank, because they factor in the element of risk that the wetland mitigation might fail. In wetland mitigation banks, however, the theory is that the wetland will already be mitigated well in advance of any development proposal - thus reducing the risk of mitigation failure (if the bank fails, credits cannot be released). The Springbrook mitigation bank established by the City of Renton and WSDOT was reviewed and approved by the State Department of Ecology, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Federal Highway Administration and underwent rigorous review for compliance with both State and Federal requirements for wetland and stream protection and restoration. This review process is required for the establishment of any mitigation bank. See Attachment B for the relationship between the acreage of mitigation, ratio applied and resulting credit value at the Springbrook Creek Bank in Renton. :J; NG Q:\CODEAMND\ WetIandBank\SA06-26CAP.DOC Page 2 00 06/19/2007 10:26:00 AI,,! The City recently processed two land use applications submitted by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) that provide examples of the problem presented by transferring wetland mitigation to a wetland mitigation bank, see Attachment D. WSDOT sought approval to transfer mitigation for impacts to wetlands along H wy 518 and 1-405 to the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank, a mitigation bank area of over 125 acres located in Renton. The location of the highway construction on both Hwy 518 and 1-405 and the sensitive areas made it difficult to find room to adequately mitigate for wetland impacts in the remaining right-of-way. In addition, the size ofthe remaining sensitive areas available in the right-of-way would limit the effectiveness of any mitigation implemented. Thus off-site mitigation made sense in these two cases. WSDOT proposed withdrawal of a certain number of credits from the bank as the proposed wetland mitigation. This issue will arise again when applications are submitted for the Strander Blvd. extension, which will disturb Type 1 wetlands. The City of Renton will be requesting permission to carry out wetland mitigation in the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. WSDOT will also likely want to use the bank for future highway construction in Tukwila. Unless our SAO is amended to permit a determination of the equivalency of a specific bank's credits to the mitigation area required per our SAO requirements we will not be able to ensure that the net ecological benefits at the mitigation bank compensate for the wetland impacts. The current proposal would not change the process or the criteria for approval of off-site mitigation. If permission is granted for off-site mitigation the applicant must identify a site capable of providing an equivalent ecological benefit to the filled wetlands. The argument for carrying out the mitigation at a Mitigation Bank is that mitigation is completed in advance of impacts and generally results in improved hydrologic, water quality and habitat functions in a consolidated location. Studies of wetland mitigation banks have shown this to be true as long as the mitigation bank is maintained and monitored. Staff recommends amending the SAO as identified in Attachment A to permit the DCD Director to establish a ratio of mitigation acreage to wetland bank credit for off-site mitigation proposed in wetland mitigation banks that have been approved by appropriate agencies. This would be a Type 2 decision, similar to most of the other discretionary approvals in the SAO. REQUESTED ACTION Send the PC endorsed changes to the full Council for discussion, a final public hearing and adoption of the ordinance. Attachment A - Draft Amendment to TMC 18.45.090 Attachment B - Summary of the "Off-Site Wetland Mitigation Program for Tukwila" Report Attachment C - Springbrook Creek Mitigation Credit Table Attachment D - Sample Sensitive Area Special Permission Staff Report Attachment E - PC Minutes from 5/24/07 NG Q:\CODEAJvlND\ WetlandBank\SA06-26CAP .DOC Page 3 of3 06/1912007 10:26:00 Ai'-I 3 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE 18.45.090 Wetlands Uses, Alterations and Mitigation A. No use or development may occur in a Type I, Type 2 or Type 3 wetland or its buffer except as specifically allowed by TMC Chapter 18.45. Any use or development allowed is subject to review and approval by the Director. Where required, a mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45. B. Alterations 1. Alterations to wetlands are discouraged and are limited to the minimum necessary for project feasibility. Requests for alterations must be accompanied by a mitigation plan, are subject to Director approval, and may be approved only if the following findings are made: a. The alteration will not adversely affect water quality; b. The alteration will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitat; c. The alteration will not have an adverse effect on drainage and/ or storm water detention capabilities; d. The alteration will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create an erosion hazard or contribute to scouring actions; e. The alteration will not be materially detrimental to any other property; and f. The alteration will not have adverse effects on any other sensitive areas. 2. Alterations are not permitted to Type 1 wetlands unless specifically exempted under the provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45. 3. Alterations to Type 2 wetlands are prohibited except where the location or configuration of the wetland provides practical difficulties that can be resolved by modifying up to .10 (one-tenth) of an acre of wetland. Mitigation for any alteration to a Type 2 wetland must be provided at a ratio of 1.5:1 for creation or restoration and 3:1 for enhancement and must be located contiguous to the altered wetland. 4. Isolated Type 3 wetlands may be altered or relocated only with the permission of the Director. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45. Attachment A 1 CL Q:\2007 SAO Amendment\Draft Amendment.doc Page 1 of5 05/1712007 1:29:00 PM Proposed Amendment to TMC 18.45.090 5. Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging, filling, alterations and relocation of wetland habitat allowed in TMC Chapter 18.45. 6. Isolated wetlands formed on fill material in highly disturbed environmental conditions and assessed as having low overall wetland functions may be altered and/ or relocated under TlVlC Chapter 18.45. These wetlands may include artificial hydrology or wetlands unintentionally created as the result of construction activities. The determination that a wetland is isolated is made through the Type 2 permit process. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45. C. Mitigation Sequencing. Applicants shall demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers. When an alteration to a wetland or its required buffer is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized or compensated for in the following order of preference: 1. Avoidance of wetland and wetland buffer impacts, whether by finding another site or changing the location of the proposed activity on-site; 2. Minimizing wetland and wetland buffer impacts by limiting the degree of impact on site; 3. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing, enhancing, or substitution shall occur in the following order of preference: a. restoring wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands; b. enhancing significantly degraded wetlands; c. creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species or noxious weeds. D. Mitigation Plans. 1. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a sensitive area study by a specialist approved by the Director. Wetland and/ or buffer alteration or relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan clearly demonstrates that the changes would be an improvement of wetland and buffer quantitative and qualitative functions. The plan shall follow the performance standards of TMC Chapter 18.45 and show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general wetland quality would be improved. 2. In order to achieve the City's goal of no net loss of wetland functions and acreage, alteration of wetlands will require the applicant to provide a restoration or creation plan to compensate for the impacts to the wetland and will compensate at a ratio of 1.5 to 1. 3. Impacts to wetlands may be mitigated by enhancement of existing significantly degraded wetlands, however, in order to achieve the City's goal of CL Q:\2007 SAD Amendment\Draft Amendment.doc Page 2 of5 05/08120072:25:00 PM05!0812007 10: 11 :00 l\M 5 Proposed Amendment to TMC 18.45.090 no net loss of wetland functions and acreage, mitigation through enhancement must be compensated at a ratio of 3:1. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce a sensitive area study that identifies how enhancement will increase the functions of the degraded wetland and how this increase will adequately mitigate for the loss of wetland area and function at the impact site. An enhancement proposal must also show whether existing wetland functions will be reduced by the enhancement actions. 4. The DCD Director mav approve through a Tvpe 2 decision the transfer of mitigation to a wetland mitigation bank using the criteria in a) - d) below. The Director must determine the number of wetland mitigation bank credits required to meet the mitigation ratios established in this Chapter. a) Off-site mitigation is proposed in a vVetland Mitigation Bank that has been approved bv all the appropriate agencies including the Deparhnent of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, EFA or other regulatory agencies; and b) The applicant provides a justification for the number of credits proposed; and c) The mitigation achieved through the number of credits required meets the intent of this Chapter; and d) The Director bases the decision on a vvritten staff report evaluating the equivalence of the lost wetland functions with the number of wetland credits required. E. Mitigation Location. 1. On-site mitigation shall be provided, except where the applicant can demonstrate that: (a) On-site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves or other factors; or (b) Mitigation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding land uses; or (c) Existing functional values created at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or (d) That established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site. 2. Off-site mitigation shall occur within the same watershed where the wetland loss occurred. 3. Mitigation sites located within the Tukwila city limits are preferred. However, the Director may approve mitigation sites outside the city upon finding that: l (J CL Q:\2007 SAO Amendment\Draft Amendment.doc Page3 of 5 05/1712007 1:21 :00 PM05/1712007 9:13:00 ,^.M Proposed Amendment to TMC 18.45.090 (a) Adequate measures have been taken to ensure the non- development and long-term viability of the mitigation site; and (b) Adequate coordination with the other affected local jurisdiction has occurred. 4. In selecting mitigation sites, applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of preference: (a) Upland sites that were formerly wetlands; (b) Idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds or emergent vegetation; (c) Other disturbed upland; (d) Existing degraded wetland. F. Mitigation Standards. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case-by-case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The components of a complete wetlands mitigation plan are as follows: 1. Baseline information of quantitative data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site; 2. Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should include a description of site-selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species and resource functions; 3. Performance standards of the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria; 4. A detailed construction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence and construction management, and be accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal; 5. Monitoring and/ or evaluation program that outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress; 6. Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met; and CL Q:\2007 SAG Amendment\Draft Amendment.doc Page 4 of 5 05/17120071:21:00 PM05/17.'2007 9:13:lJO :\M 7- Proposed Amendment to TMC 18.45.090 7. Performance security or other assurance devices as described in TMC 18.45.210. G. l\rIitigation Timing. Mitigation projects shall be completed prior to activities that will permanently disturb wetlands and either prior to or immediately after activities that will temporarily disturb wetlands. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife, flora and water quality, and shall be completed prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. The Director may allow activities that permanently disturb wetlands prior to implementation of the mitigation plan under the following circumstances: 1. To allow planting or re-vegetation to occur during optimal weather conditions; 2. To avoid disturbance during critical wildlife periods; or 3. To account for unique site constraints that dictate construction timing or phasing. H. Permitted Uses Subject to Exception Approval. Other uses may be permitted upon receiving a reasonable use exception pursuant to TMC 18.45.180. A use permitted through a reasonable use exception shall conform to the procedures of TMC Chapter 18.45 and be consistent with the underlying zoning. \j CL Q:\2007 SAO Amendment\Draft Amendment.doc Page 5 of5 05/17120071:21:00 PM05!17!2007 9:13:ll9 :\H Staff Report Off-site Wetland Mitigation Program for Tukwila April 17, 2006 Attachment B EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LIST OF FIGURES APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AiND BACKGROUND 1 2. OBJECTIVES AND RATIONALE OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAM 1 3. ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY AND PLANNING CONTEXT 3 4. ALTERNATIVE WETLAND MITIGATION MANAGEMENT APPROACHES AND L ISTRUMENTS EVALUATED 6 5. ESTIMATE OF "DEMAND" 12 6. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF AVAILABLE MITIGATION SITES ON CITY -OWNED LAND 13 7. POTENTIAL WETLAND MITIGATION SITES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN TUKWILA 29 8. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDED PROGRAM 30 Figure 1 Map showing City -Owned sites 15 Figure 2. Aerial view of Existing Macadam Wetland 17 Figure 3. Macadam, Type 1 Wetland from Macadam Road S 18 Figure 4. Macadam, Type 3 Wetland 18 Figure 5. Fire Station 53 site showing existing wetland boundaries 21 Figure 6. Fire Station 53 wetland, looking east. 22 Figure 7 North end of Fire Station 53 wetland looking northeast 22 Figure 8. Green River/Riverview Plaza site 24 Figure 9. Green River/Riverview Plaza. site 25 Figure 10. Green River/Riverview Plaza Site, lower trail, looking easterly 25 Figure 11. Green River/Riverview Plaza Site 26 APPENDIX A PROPOSED WRIA 9 PROJECTS IN TUKWILA APPENDIX B MAP OF TYPE 3 WETLANDS ON PRIVATE LAND AND RIGHTS OF WAY IN TUKWILA APPENDIX C MAP OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTIES, WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES APPENDIX D CITY -OWNED SITES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FOR WETLAND CREATION OR ENHANCEMENT APPENDIX E. CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN FIRE STATION SITE APPENDIX F. CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN MACADAM SITE APPENDIX G. CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN GREEN RIVER SITE S. Whiting 04/24/2006 12:11:00 PM Q \TUK2 \VOL3\HOME\SANDRA \WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING POLICIES \STAFF REPORTWINAL \WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction In an effort to address the increasing pressure for development in Tukwila on properties that have wetlands, staff is proposing a program for off-site wetland mitigation when on- site alternatives are not adequate. The program has been conceived as a way to help facilitate development, particularly for small developers, while at the same time providing an innovative mechanism for mitigating wetland impacts. It could be beneficial environmentally, by directing mitigation for many small wetland losses to larger or more highly functioning sites. This report summarizes the key points of a study carried out by staff, with the support of a wetland consultant. It also establishes program objectives and components, presents conceptual mitigation plans for selected sites on city-owned properties, and identifies the next steps necessary for implementing the program. Regulatory and Planning Context As part of the study, staff analyzed the regulatory and planning context related to wetland mitigation. Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC18.45) establishes mitigation sequencing that first requires avoidance of wetland impacts, then minimization of impacts, and finally compensation through mitigation. It allows for off-site mitigation under certain circumstances. The proposed program respects the intent of the ordinance. The US Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology also regulate wetland impacts, but the Corps does not have jurisdiction over isolated wetlands (those not "connected" hydrologically to waters of the United States). The proposed program would be limited, at least initially, to wetlands not regulated by the Corps. Tukwila's commitment to implementing the WRIA 9 Salmon Enhancement Plan is also an important consideration when thinking about off-site wetland mitigation, as some wetland mitigation projects could be directed to also enhancing salmon habitat, thus achieving some ofthe objectives of the plan. Alternative Wetland Mitigation Management Approaches Staff evaluated three alternative wetland mitigation management instruments that could be used to implement the program: 1) Alternative 1: wetland banking; 2) Alternative 2: consolidated mitigation at designated sites; and 3) Alternative 3: in-lieu fee program S. Whiting i 04/24/200612:11:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT II Wetland banking (Alternative 1) would require the City to implement mitigation up front at a designated site and later "sell" credits to developers,that need to do off -site wetland mitigation. This approach would require a complicated and lengthy authorization process with the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology. Consolidated mitigation (Alternative 2) would be an informal program that directs off site mitigation to designated sites (both City -owned and privately -owned properties), but the mitigation would be carried out by the developer under City supervision. An in -lieu fee program (Alternative 3) would establish fees to be charged to developers in -lieu of them carrying out wetland mitigation. The City would then use the fees to implement a mitigation plan and to conduct ongoing monitoring and maintenance. The following table summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Instrument Wetland Mitigation Bank Consolidated mitigation at designated sites (city and privately -owned sites) In -lieu fee program at designated sites Advantages Consolidates mitigation for greater environmental benefit Mitigation in advance, ensures success, no lag between impact and mitigation Consolidates mitigation for greater environmental benefit Applicants would prepare and carry out detailed mitigation plans under City oversight Minimal lag time between impact and mitigation Potential for coordinating with WRIA 9 projects Could consolidate mitigation for greater environmental benefit Mitigation would be entirely under City control Would allow for fees to be contributed towards WRIA 9 projects with wetland components Disadvantages Difficult and lengthy process for set -up City (or other sponsor) would have to fund mitigation up -front Risk of not being able to sell credits /recoup investment Potential adverse environmental impacts to some existing wetlands due to repeated interventions over time Possible long period between when impact occurs and mitigation takes place Risk of not receiving enough fees to carry out a full mitigation or long -term maintenance Risk of cost overruns that would have to be borne by City Comments No suitable city owned sites available Not as feasible for Macadam or Green River sites unless a proposed project needed a medium to large site for mitigation. Actual availability over time of privately owned sites is uncertain Modification to TMC 18.45 needed Sufficient staff needed to implement (contracting, construction oversight, monitoring, long -term maintenance) S. Whiting ii 04/24/2006 12:11:00 PM Q: TUK2 \VOL3\1 \WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING POLICIES\STAFF REPORT\FINAL \WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Identification of Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites on City-Owned Land Staff mapped all City-owned sites and overlaid this information on the Sensitive Areas Map to determine possible locations suitable for wetland creation or enhancement. Criteria were applied for evaluating the sites and Public Works, the Fire Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department were consulted in the process to ensure that there were no conflicts with future proposed uses of the sites. The results of the analysis of available sites for wetland mitigation indicate that: . feasible sites do not exist for every sub-basin where there is potential demand; . it will not be possible to achieve "in-kind" mitigation in every case (i.e. to match wetland classifications between the wetlands impacted and the wetland sites to be used for mitigation); and . Tukwila suffers from a shortage of suitable areas on City-owned land (and in general) and there are no large amounts of contiguous acreage that would be suitable as a large bank or mitigation site. As a result of this effort, three sites were initially identified for preparation of conceptual mitigation plans: 1) Macadam wetlands, located on the east side of Macadam Road and just south of S. 144th (mostly south of the proposed Winter Garden). A small amount of wetland creation and considerable wetland enhancement would be possible at this site and would also complement the Winter Garden project. Buffers would not be extended any further on to private property. 2) Fire Station 53 (undeveloped portion), located 4202 S. 115th, behind the fire station. This site presents opportunities for wetland enhancement and a small amount of creation, without causing buffers to be expanded. 3) A site on the Green River, located adjacent to and north of the Riverview Plaza development, and across the river from the Best Western Hotel. The site has an upper and lower bicycle trail managed by the Parks Department. The lower trail periodically floods during high water. The site presents an opportunity for wetland creation along the river (while leaving the upper trail in place) that would also provide off-channel salmon habitat. An access point for boat launching could also be incorporated into the project. Additional city-owned sites, such as Tukwila Pond, could be candidates for off-site mitigation in the future. /3 S. Whiting 111 04/24/2006 12: 11 :00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPOR1\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites on Private Property Off-site wetland mitigation on private properties is allowed under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and is already an established practice in Tukwila. However, with the idea of helping to facilitate off-site mitigation, especially for small developments, staff researched the availability ofprivately-O\.vned sites in Tub-vila. The idea would be to serve as a matchmaker between developers needing mitigation sites and property owners interested in making their sites available for mitigation. Negotiations regarding financial compensation and easements would be between the property owner and the developer. We identified potential wetland mitigation sites on privately-owned properties using the same process and criteria that were used for identifying city-owned sites and began contacting the property owners to see if they would be interested in the program. Staff has been unable to reach all of the property owners as of this writing, but some interest by has been expressed those reached. Recommended Approach Staff recommends the consolidated mitigation approach, using designated City or privately-owned properties, but requiring that the developer be responsible for preparation and implementation of detailed mitigation plans under the City's oversight. The consolidated mitigation approach could work well at Fire Station 53, where there are separate, well-defined small sections of the site that could be mitigated by different applicants at different times. The Macadam site would best accommodate one or two large projects to avoid repeated interventions into the wetland. Smaller projects are not out of the question, but this would require very careful planning and coordination to accommodate small projects. The Green River site would be better suited to large projects (such as a WSDOT or Sound Transit project), where a one-time intervention would be preferable due to costs and to minimize negative impacts. The consolidated approach could lend itself to supporting WRIA 9 projects in some circumstances, where a WRIA 9 project is underway or close to starting up, and an applicant could provide part of the restoration as mitigation (such as purchasing plants, planting, or some other discrete task related to the restoration project). In order to implement the proposed plan staff is seeking CAP Committee approval of program and a Council resolution approving the use of City properties for wetland mitigation under the program and establishing criteria for determining fees on a case-by- case basis. Ii S. Whiting iv 04/24/200612:11:00 PM Q:\\ TUK2\VOL3\HOME\SANDRA\WETLAi~D MITIGATION BANKING & POLICIES\STAFF REPOR1\FINAL\WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT I I I I I I I I I I i I [ I. r FINAL Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat .Mitigation Bank Instrument 4.0 BAl~K OPERATION 4.1 CREDIT DETERl\1lL~ATION Credits are the "currency" of a mitigation banle The value of credits that a mitigation bank generates equals its net ecological benefit. The 129.37-acre Springbrook Bank includes 116.82 acres that qualify for bank credit. The remaining 12.55 non-credit acres have been designated for protection setback and the Trail Zone to minimize disturbances from adjacent roads, development, and the trail through Unit A. Units D and E each have an existing 20-foot utility easement inside the parcel boundary that will not generate mitigation credit (see Figures 2-4 and 2-3). The 45.12 credits expected to be generated at Springbrook Bank represents the number of acres of impacts to Category II wetlands (Hruby 2004) for which the bank could be used as compensation (Table 4-1). These mitigation credits will become available as performance standards and other measures are achieved (see Tables 3-1 through 3-4 and Table 4-3). The precise number of credits actually generated by the Springbrook Bank cannot be determined until the project is constructed and the success of restoration and enhancement activities is assessed by the BOC. The final number of credits will be determined by the BOC and will be based on achievement of the performance standards. Table 4-1. Credit Potential ~ \. Mitigation Treatment Acreage Ratios* Mitigation Credits** UnitA UnitS Unit C Unit D Unit E Total Wetland Re-Establishment 17.79 1:1 0.05 0.12 9.27 - 8.35 17.79 Wetland Rehabilitation 52.14 3:1 6.64 10.39 0.35 -- -- 17.38 Wetland Enhancement - Type I 4.69 4:1 -- -- 1.17 -- -- 1.17 Wetland Enhancement - Type II 2.63 5:1 -- -- -- 0.53 -- 0.53 Forested Wetland Enhancement 25.22 5:1 - - 4.65 0040 -- 5.05 Riparian Upland Enhancement 6.56 4:1 0.16 0.37 -- -- 1.11 1.64 Upland Habitat Enhancement 7.80 5:1 -- -- 1.56 -- -- 1.56 Buffer Enhancement 9.89 - -- -- -- -- -- -- Trail Zone 2.66 .. .. .. .. .. .. -- Totals 129.37 -- 6.85 10.88 17.00 0.93 9.46 45.12 !' i The ratio of acreage to credits is the number of credits established per acre of mitigation activity in first column. ** The number of mitigation credits that Springbrook Bank will generate for each mitigation treatment. Each credit can compensate for the loss of a typical acre of Category II wetland. * 4.2 APPROVING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CREDIT RELEASE Springbrook Bank is expected to generate 45.12 credits that will be eligible for release as the associated performance standards are met and approved by the BOC (Tables 3-1 through 3-4), with the exception that no credits may be released until a BOC-approved Memorandum of Agreement and Instrument are signed by the Sponsors, Ecology, and the Corps, and until a BOC-approved conservation easement is placed on the property title ~ IS Chapter 4 Bank Operation Attachment C MEMORANDUM January 24,2007 TO: Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Community Development V" FM: Carol Lumb, Senior Plann~t RE: L06-040, WSDOT l-405 Nickel Fund Proiect Special Permission, Director, Request to Fill Type 3 Wetlands; Alter a Type 2 Wetland and Approve Off-Site Mitigation The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will be constructing improvements along l-405 between l-5 and the Cedar River in Renton. The improvements include a combination of pavement widening and lane re-striping to create additional north and southbound general purpose and auxiliary lanes and construction of a stormwater drainage system. The highway widening involves cutting into banks and filling depressions within the highway prism. WSDOT has mapped wetlands along the improvement corridor, three of which will be permanently impacted by the road improvements. The wetlands to be impacted were not inventoried as part of the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance as they are located in the interstate right-of-way, however they would be rated Type 3 wetlands and thus are regulated under the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The road widening also will require the construction of a new storm water pond near the intersection ofI-5 and lA05, which will discharge to Gilliam Creek, impacting the creek and its buffers. There will also be several retaining walls constructed that fall within the buffer area of Gilliam Creek. Work in the shoreline for this proj ect has been addressed under land use file L06-037, shoreline substantial development permit. SEPA The Washington State Department of Transportation, the lead agency for environmental review, issued a Determination of Non significance on October 2, 2006. (See Exhibit A.) /~ CL Page 1 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements\L06.040 Special Permission Director.doc Attachment D L06-040, Special Permission Director 1-405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24,2007 Background The applicant has provided a Wetland Sensitive Area Study, JARP A maps identifying affected wetlands, Sensitive Areas Memo, an Updated Wetland Mitigation Memo, and Stormwater Pond Map. These are attached as Exhibits B-F. The wetlands are identified by WSDOT with a number based on its milepost location within the study area. The wetland also includes an identifier of "L" or "R"; the "L" indicates the wetland is located on the left (north) side of 1-405 while "R" indicates the wetland is located on the right or south side of 1-405. The JARP A drawings are attached which illustrate the location of each wetland. The wetlands proposed for alteration are the following: Wetland O.4L, which is 0.11 acres (4792 sq. ft.) in size, of which 0.08 acres (3485 sq. ft.) will be permanently filled. Wetland O.4L was not inventoried as part ofthe City's SAO update, however, it would be classified as a Type 3 wetland under the City's rating system and a Type IV under Ecology's rating system. See sheet 3 of the JARP A drawings. Permanent impacts to buffers equals 0.21 acres; temporary impacts to buffers equals 0.05 acres. Wetland O.5L, which is 0.05 acres (2178 sq. ft.) in size, all of which will be permanently filled. Wetland 0.5L was not inventoried as part of the City's SAO update, however, it would be classified as a Type 3 wetland under the City's rating system and a Type IV under Ecology's rating system. See sheet 3 ofthe JARPA drawings. Wetland O.6L, which is 0.17 acres (7,405 sq. ft.) in size, of which 0.01 acres (436 sq. ft.) will be permanently filled. Wetland 0.6L was not inventoried as part of the City's SAO update, however, it would be classified as a Type 3 wetland under the City's rating system and a Type IV under Ecology's rating system. See sheet 4 of the JARP A drawings. Permanent impacts to buffers equals 0.51 acres; temporary impacts to buffers equals 0.07 acres. The original proposal included alterations to Wetland O.9L, the Nelson side channel, to allow the discharge of storm water from a new storm water pond that was to be constructed adjacent to the wetland. WSDOT has since determined it does not require a storm water pond to collect storm water from this portion of the 1-405 corridor. Watercourses: Watercourses identified in the vicinity of the project are Gilliam Creek and Cottage Creek. No impacts to Cottage Creek are anticipated. There will be impacts to Gilliam Creek buffers - 10,441 sq. ft. of permanent impacts and 3,974 sq. ft. of temporary impacts. 17 CL Page 2 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements\L06-040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/14/2007 10:31 :00 A1\1 L06-040, Special Pennission Director 1-405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 Decision Criteria This Special Permission Director application is comprised of five elements: I. Request to fill or alter Type 3 wetlands including showing that the alterations are the minimum necessary for project feasibility; II. New surface water discharge to a sensitive area or its buffers from detention facilities, presettlement ponds or other surface water management structures; III. Request to permanently alter wetland buffers; IV. Request to permanently alter watercourse buffers and V. Request to locate the mitigation for permanent wetland impacts off-site at the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank in Renton. The decision criteria for each of these requested actions are discussed below. I. Request to Fill or Alter Type 3 Wetlands TMC 18.45.090 A. states that any use or development in a wetland is subject to review and approval by the Director. Isolated Type 3 wetlands may be altered or relocated only with the permission of the Director. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45. TMC 18.45.090 B. states that alterations to wetlands are discouraged and are limited to the minimum necessary for project feasibility. The Background Section identifies the wetlands that will be impacted and the amount of fill required for the road improvements. WSDOT considered using retaining walls or fill as the two options to provide additional road area for the widening. According to the Updated \Vetland Mitigation Memorandum provided by WSDOT, the impacts to the wetlands, either temporary or permanent, are unavoidable due to roadway design standards. The memo states: "(T)he roadway is on a curve through this area. Decision standards require... . additional width beyond the outside shoulder for horizontal sight distance. If a wall was used, it would.. . sit in the wetlands, impacting them as much or more than the fill slope that is proposed." Requests for alterations must meet the criteria that follow below. The criteria are in italics with the response following. a. The alteration will not adversely affect water quality,' The wetlands to be altered or filled are located along the north side of 1-405 within the right-of-way and adjacent to the roadway. Run-off from the western portion of the project closest to 1-5 will be collected in a new storm water pond before the water is discharged to Gilliam Creek. For the eastern portion of the /y CL Page 3 ofl2 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements\L06-040 Special Permission DirectoLdoc 05/1412007 10:31:00 At'\1 L06-040, Special Permission Director 1-405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24,2007 project area, WSDOT determined that a storm water pond is not warranted at this time given the small amount of new impervious surface that is being created. At both the western and eastern ends of the project area, ecology embankments will be used to capture runoff at the edge of the pavement and provide water quality treatment. Ecology embankments consist of a trench that is dug along side the highway shoulder, laid with perforated pipe and backfilled with a filtration media. Water from the road flows into the ditch, is filtered by the media and then carried off site by the pipe. At the western end of the project area near 1-5, the water will then move to the new storm water pond for detention before it is discharged to Gilliam Creek. At the eastern end of the project area, the ecology embankment will be used to treat the water, which then will filter into the ground. The WSDOT uses the Highway Runoff Manual, which has been developed for the design of stormwater management facilities. The Manual meets the level of stormwater management established by the Department of Ecology in its Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. As a result, the project is designed to meet or exceed the state water quality standards as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173 .200 and 173.201. b. The alteration will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitat; The wetlands to be altered are located in the highway right-of-way and therefore provide very little habitat. c. The alteration will not have an adverse effect on drainage and/or storm water detention capabilities; The Technical Information Report for stormwater notes that two detention ponds totaling 2.08 acres will be used for stormwater flow control measures for the 1.5 acre increase in new pavement. Since the TIR was prepared, WSDOT has determined the storm water pond adjacent to the Nelson side channel is not needed, so only one storm water pond will be constructed. d. The alteration will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create an erosion hazard or contribute to scouring actions; Temporary erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices will be used during construction to prevent erosion. A detention pond will be used to collect stormwater run-off at the western end of the project and meter out water discharge to Gilliam Creek. e. The alteration will not be materially detrimental to any other property; and The road widening construction that will impact wetlands takes place in Washington State Department of Transportation right-of-way. CL Page 4 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements\L06-040 Special Permission Director.doc 05114/2007 10:31 :00 Ai"f /9 L06-040, Special Permission Director 1-405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24,2007 f The alteration will not have adverse effects on any other sensitive areas. The wetlands that will be impacted by the road work are not associated with Gilliam Creek, the only other sensitive area that falls within the project area. Impacts to the Green River were addressed through the Shoreline Substantial Development permit, L06-037. The mitigation plan prepared by WSDOT is the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. While the City did not participate in the review and approval of this document, it has been approved by the State Department of Ecology, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal Highway Administration, the City of Renton and the Washington State Department of Transportation. II. New surface water discharl!e to a sensitive area or its buffers from detention facilities. Dresettlement ponds or other surface water manal!ement structures. TMC 18.45.070 B. permits the discharge of new surface water discharge to a sensitive area or its buffers from detention facilities, presettlement ponds or other surface water management structures ifthe discharge meets the clean water standards ofRCW 90.48 and WAC 173.200 and 173.201 as amended and does not adversely affect water level fluctuations in the watercourse flow conditions relative to the existing rate. The project proposes to construct a new stormwater pond just east of the intersection of 1-5 and 1- 405, which will discharge to Gilliam Creek, a Type 2 stream under the City's sensitive areas ordinance (SAO). The Department of Transportation uses the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual, which is similar to the King County Surface Water Design Manual, to design its stormwater facilities. This Manual has been reviewed and approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The Highway Runoff Manual meets the level of stormwater management established by the Department of Ecology in its Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. As a result, the project is designed to meet or exceed the state water quality standards as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173.200 and 173.201. III. Request to Reduce and Permanently Alter Wetland Buffers The Sensitive Areas Ordinance permits the reduction of wetland and watercourse buffers by up to 50 percent, if an enhancement plan is provided and approved by the Director. Essential streets, roads and right-of-way such as 1-405 are uses permitted by the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance subject to administrative review. For this road widening )() CL Page 5 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements\L06-040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/1412007 10:31 :00 A1\1 L06-040, Special Permission Director 1-405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24,2007 project, WSDOT is working within a limited right-of-way and therefore the options for avoiding impacts to the sensitive areas and their buffers is constrained. Since no inner median exists within the majority of the 1-405 corridor, all widening must occur to the outside of the existing roadway shoulders. As a result, some buffers will be reduced beyond the 50%. The impacts to the wetland buffers will be caused by road widening adjacent to the wetland buffers that will encroach into the buffers. Retaining walls will not be used along the wetlands due to safety concerns. In some cases, construction of a retaining wall would encroach further into the wetland than the use of fill, which is what is proposed for wetlands O.4L, 0.5L, and 0.6L. TMC 18.45.080 G.2. provides criteria for the approval of a buffer reduction: Buffer reduction with enhancement may be allowed provided: a. Additional protection to wetlands will be provided through the implementation of a buffer enhancement plan; and b. The existing condition of the buffer is degraded. The existing condition of the buffers is degraded and consists mostly of reed canarygrass, common cattail, soft rush, and Himalayan blackberry. Because the wetlands are in the shoulder right of way it is frequently mowed to preserve sight distance for vehicles traveling south on 1-405. WSDOT originally proposed transferring the mitigation for permanent impacts to wetland buffers to the Springbrook Creek Wetland Mitigation Bank. After further discussions with the City, WSDOT will provide wetland buffer enhancement for permanent impacts to wetland buffers in the area identified on Exhibit G. Permanent impacts to wetland buffers total 31,363 sq. ft.; given the limited amount of area available for enhancement adjacent to the wetland, enhancement will occur at a 1: 1 ratio. The wetland buffer will be planted with native wetland species, such as Pacific ninebark, Nootka rose, Snowberry, Redtwig Dogwood, Red-flowering currant, Scouler's willow and Cascara. Native wetland buffer plant species will be planted in areas of sparse vegetation or limited ground cover. The placement and spacing ofthe plants will vary to minimize mortality through competition with existing native species. Native plants will be planted on 4- to 6-foot centers where possible. WSDOT's stated goal is to supplement existing native vegetation and increase diversity of species. As this is a design-build project, a planting plan will be prepared by the contractor selected through the competitive bid process at a later date and submitted to the City for review. J/ CL Page 6 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements\L06.040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/14/2007 10:31 :00 A1\1 L06-040, Special Permission Director 1-405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 IV. ReQuest to Reduce and Permanently Alter "Vatercourse Buffers As noted above, the SAO provides a mechanism for reducing watercourse buffers. The impacts to the watercourse buffers will be caused by several retaining walls to be constructed within the buffers for Gilliam Creek, starting at the 1-405 entrance from Tukwila Parkway and proceeding eastward along the south side of the freeway. TMC 18.45.100 F provides that the Director may approve buffer reduction ifit does not result in direct, indirect or long-term adverse impacts to the watercourse and that an enhancement plan is provided to improve the buffer function and value. The 1-405 project will permanently impact 10,441 square feet of buffer for Gilliam Creek through the construction of the retaining walls but will not impact the stream itself. The SAO does not establish a mitigation ratio for impacts to watercourse buffers. The project will provide a total of 10,441 square feet of under-story stream buffer enhancement, as identified on Exhibit G and will be planted with native conifers such as Sitka spruce, hemlock or cedar trees. This is a mitigation ratio of 1: 1. A total of approximately 27 trees will be planted at approximately 20 feet on center. Since this is a design/build project, a planting plan will be prepared by the contractor selected through the competitive bid process and submitted for review to the City at a later date. V. ReQuest for Off-Site lVIiti2ation WSDOT has received approval from the Washington State Department of Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to provide compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources caused by WSDOT highway construction projects within this service area at a wetland mitigation bank located to the east of Tukwila in the City of Renton. The objectives of the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank are to re-establish 17.79 acres of wetland, rehabilitate 52.47 acres ofwetland, enhance 33.40 acres of wetland, and enhance 7.80 acres of upland and 6.56 acres of riparian upland adjacent to Springbrook Creek for a total of 118.02 acres. Approval of off site mitigation is subject to the following criteria from TMC 18.45.090 E. The criteria are identified in italics below, with a response following. 1. On-site mitigation shall be provided, except where the applicant can demonstrate that: (a) On-site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves or other factors; or (b) Mitigation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding land uses; or J} CL Page 7 of 12 Q:\i'lickel Fund Improvements\L06-040 Special Pennission DirectoLdoc 05/14/200710:31:00 Mvl L06-040, Special Permission Director 1-405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 (c) Existing functional values created at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost wetlandfunctional values; or (d) That established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site. Response: On-site wetland mitigation is not practical for the project as the wetlands are located in 1-405 right-of-way. The limited amount of area remaining in the right-of-way limits the ability to create, restore or enhance remaining wetland area. As noted in III. Above, WSDOT will provide buffer enhancement for the remaining impacted wetland buffers. 2. Off-site mitigation shall occur within the same watershed where the wetland loss occurred. Response: the mitigation is proposed to take place in the GreenlDuwamish River watershed, which is the same watershed in which the impacts are occurnng. 3. i\1itigation sites located within the Tukwila city limits are preferred However, the Director may approve mitigation sites outside the city upon finding that: (a) Adequate measures have been taken to ensure the non-development and long-term viability of the mitigation site; and (b) Adequate coordination with the other affected local jurisdiction has occurred Response: As noted above, WSDOT has received approval from the Department of Ecology and the COE to provide compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources caused by WSDOT highway construction projects within the service area at a wetland mitigation bank located in the City of Renton. The objectives of the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank are to re-establish 17.79 acres of wetland, rehabilitate 52.47 acres of wetland, enhance 33.40 acres of wetland, and enhance 7.80 acres of upland and 6.56 acres of riparian upland adjacent to Springbrook Creek for a total of 118.02 acres. Wetland rehabilitation is a type of wetland restoration, and is defined by the CaE and Ecology. Wetland rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. 4. In selecting mitigation sites, applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of preference: (a) Upland sites that were formerly wetlands; CL Page 8 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements\L06-040 Special Permission DirectoLdoc 05/14/2007 10:31:00 AiV1 )3 L06-040, Special Permission Director 1-405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 (b) Idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds or emergent vegetation; (c) Other disturbed upland; (d) Existing degraded wetland. Response: The Springbrook Mitigation Bank as a total project will reconnect floodplain wetlands with Springbrook Creek, re-establish historical wetlands, and improve water quality, hydrology, floodplain, habitat and riparian functions in a highly urbanized area. As such, it is a mix of upland that was formerly wetland, idled upland, disturbed upland and existing degraded wetland. The Wetland Sensitive Area Study notes that by consolidating the mitigation into one large site, the larger site will contribute aquatic ecosystem functions that are lacking in the local watershed while providing safe, high-quality wildlife habitat away from the dangers of a roadside location. One issue with the use of the Mitigation Bank is that the Bank credits are based on net ecological benefit. The value of one credit was developed to be equal in value to one acre of Category II wetland (as classified by the Department of Ecology's Wetland Classification System). The credits compensate at a 1:1 ratio for adverse impacts to a Category II wetland (a Type 1 wetland under Tukwila's rating system). For example, three acres of impacted Category II wetlands would require 3 credits would be deducted from the Bank. For Category IV wetlands (Type 3 wetlands in Tukwila) 0.70 credit is required per impact acre. While the mitigation credits under the Springbrook Mitigation Bank instrument vary based on the category of wetland affected by construction, the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) applies the same mitigation ratio, regardless of wetland type: Compensation of 1.5: 1 is required for wetland creation or restoration and 3: 1 compensation is required for wetland enhancement. Initially, WSDOT proposed to compensate for wetland impacts at less than the mitigation ratios required by the City's SAO for wetland creation or restoration. After discussions with the City, WSDOT will provide 1.5: 1 mitigation for the Type 3 wetlands permanently impacted by the road construction. The Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank will be debited 0.148 credits to mitigate for the wetland impacts in Tukwila. The 0.148 11 CL Page 9 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements\L06-040 Special Pennission Director.doc 05/1412007 10:31:00 Ml L06-040, Special Permission Director 1-405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24,2007 credits equates to a mitigation ratio of 1.5:1 multiplied by the 0.70 credit per affected acre multiplied by the affected acreage in Tuhvila, 0.14 acres. CONCLUSIONS 1. The WSDOT is proposing improvements to 1-405 using a combination of pavement widening and lane re-striping to create additional north and southbound general purpose and auxiliary lanes. 2. WSDOT, acting as the lead agency, issued a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance on October 2,2006. 3. WSDOT is requesting Special Permission to fill or alter Type 3 wetlands; construct a new surface water discharge to a sensitive area (Gilliam Creek); reduce and alter both wetland and watercourse buffers and locate the majority of the mitigation for wetland impacts outside the City of Tukwila. 4. Essential streets, roads and rights-of-way such as Interstate 405 are a permitted use subject to administrative review under TMC 18.45.070 B.7. 5. The wetland alterations will not adversely affect water quality; \VSDOT uses the Highway Runoff Manual for stormwater management design which meets the Ecology standards established for stormwater. The alteration will not adversely affect fish, wildlife or their habitat - ecology embankments will be used to filter the water before it reaches the stormwater pond that will discharge to Gilliam Creek, improving the water quality and quantity that reaches the stream. Currently there is no treatment of highway runoff in this area. 6. Due to the limited right-of-way available for the road widening, in some areas the wetland buffer will be less than 50% of the depth required. The reduced buffer area will be planted with native species and invasive species will be removed. 7. The project will permanently impact 10,441 sq. ft. of watercourse buffer. WSDOT will provide 10,441 sq. ft. of watercourse buffer enhancement with under-story plantings in the creek corridor between S. 61 st Street and the entrance to northbound 1-405 on Tukwila Parkway. New ecology embankments will be constructed to filter stormwater and one new stormwater pond will be constructed to hold stormwater before discharging to Gilliam Creek, which will improve water quality. Best Management Practices will be used during construction to control erosion and sedimentation. 8. TMC 18.45.040 B.3. permits the discharge of new surface water to a sensitive area or its buffers from detention facilities if the discharge meets the clean water standards of RCW 90.48 and WAC 173.200 and 173.201. This project proposes to discharge storm water from the new storm water pond to Gilliam Creek, a Type 2 stream under the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. WSDOT uses the Highway Runoff Manual, which meets the level of stormwater management established by the Department of Ecology in its Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. As a result, the project will meet or exceed the state water quality standards as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173.200 and 173.201. CL Page 10 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements\L06-040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/14/2007 10:31:00 AL"I J5 L06-040, Special Permission Director 1-405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 9. The area for on-site wetland mitigation for permanent wetland impacts is limited due to the limited amount of area that will remain in the right-of-way once the road improvements are constructed. 10. Mitigation for permanent wetland impacts will be located at the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. WSDOT has received approval from the Department of Ecology and the COE to provide compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources caused by \VSDOT highway construction projects within the service area at a wetland mitigation bank located in the City of Renton. \VSDOT will meet the required 1.5: 1 wetland mitigation ratio required by Tukwila's SAO by deducting 0.148 credits from the Mitigation Bank. 11. The Bank, due to its larger size, will contribute aquatic ecosystem functions that are lacking in the local watershed while providing safe, high-quality wildlife habitat away from the dangers of a roadside location. The off-site mitigation is located in the same basin as the wetlands, the Green River. 12. The Springbrook Mitigation Bank as a total project will reconnect floodplain wetlands with Springbrook Creek, re-establish historical wetlands, and improve water quality, hydrology, floodplain, habitat and riparian functions in a highly urbanized area. As such, it is a mix of upland that was formerly wetland, idled upland, disturbed upland and existing degraded wetland. 13. The project will provide 31,363 sq. ft. of wetland buffer enhancement on the north side ofI-405 along the impacted wetland buffers. The buffers will be planted with native species to supplement existing native vegetation and increase diversity of species. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Special Permission permit with the following conditions: 1. Provide the name of the Environmental Compliance Manager and a copy of the Environmental Compliance Plan prior to the start of construction. 2. Provide a copy of the Temporary Erosion Control Plan and the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures prior to the start of construction. 3. Provide a copy of the landscaping plan for the proposed under-story plantings along Gilliam Creek and the wetland buffer plantings prior to the start of construction. 4. Provide a copy of the Best Management Practices required of the contractor prior to start of construction. ;Jl CL Page 11 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements\L06-040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/14/2007 10:31 :00 Aiv! L06-040, Special Permission Director I-405 Nickel Fund Improvement Project January 24, 2007 Attachments: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: SEP A Determination of Non signficance .Wetland Sensitive Area Study JARP A Drawings Updated Wetland Mitigation Memorandum Sensitive Area Memorandum Stormwater Pond Drawing January 18, 2007 WSDOT Response to City Comments CL Page 12 of 12 Q:\Nickel Fund Improvements\L06-040 Special Permission Director.doc 05/1412007 10:31 :00 A1vl JJ Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2007 Page 3 of 4 4. Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010. Ms. Gierloff indicated this was a house keeping item. If the Administrative Variance for lot size is approved it should be added to this table. The Planning Commission deliberated. COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO FORWARD THE FOUR ZONING CODE RECOMMENDATIONS ON CASE NUMBER L07-024 AS MODIFIED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER EKBERG SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: L07 -024 City of Tukwila Hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council about an amendment to the Sensitive Area Ordinance allowing the DCD Director to establish the number of wetland mitigation bank credits needed for specific off-site mitigation proposals. City wide LOCATION: Nora Gierloffprovided background on sensitive areas. She gave an explanation on the purchase of mitigation bank credits, stating the mitigation process is outlined in the attached Code. Credits in a mitigation bank are based on net ecological benefit provided and are determined on the basis of Department of Ecology mitigation ratios, the kinds of mitigation carried out at the bank and the total acreage for each type of mitigation. The missing piece is wetland credits versus the amount of ecological function that is impacted by filling the wetland. Staff proposes creating a process after the Director has approved the filling of the wetland and approved off-site mitigation to allow him to set the number of credits that are required for the impact at that particular bank. The proposed language is listed in attachment C in the Proposed Amendment to Sensitive Area Ordinance in the May 24, 2007 Staff Report. This would give the Director some criteria to use when making his determination. Ms. Gierloff listed the criteria. There was extensive questions and discussion on this item. Some of the key issues that were raised: 1) Is there a formula used to determined what is worth X number of credits? 2) If there is an appeal process where does it go (type 2 decisions go to the hearing examiner)? 3) Is WSDOT the ones who are monitoring the amount of credits that go into the bank (WSDOT is a purchaser; they are a developer who wants to buy credits from this bank)? Staff explained that we have one method of mitigation and WSDOT has the credits. 4) Staff would like to have a more formal process for selecting the number of credits. 5) This process has already been built and approved, meets the Department of Ecology, as well as, other agency requirements. 6) The City does not have a bank of it's own because staffhas not been able to identify spaces that are big enough to be viable. Commissioner Parrish indicated he has no problem with Staffs proposal. He suggested that there are paper records, which would make the Director's position defendable in the event of a challenge. ;) 5 The Planning Commission deliberated. Attachment E Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2007 Page 4 of 4 COMMISSIONER EKBERG MADE A MOTION TO FORWARD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AS PROPOSED ON CASE NUMBER L07-024 ON THE SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER BRATCHER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: L07 -024 City of Tukwila Hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council about the proposed amendments to the SEP A Code. City wide LOCATION: Nora GierIoffprovided background on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). She stated that SEP A is intended to be a double check to catch things that would otherwise fall through the cracks. Currently there are two areas where we are below the threshold: 1) Residential construction, 2) Commercial and Industrial construction. Staff is proposing to raise the flexible thresholds for these two areas. There is also an optional process that would allow us to streamline notice periods. The Planning Commission were all in consensus of Staffs recommendation on the SEPA amendments on case number L07-024. This item will be forwarded to the City Council. COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO FORWARD THE THREE CODE AMENDMENTS ON CASE NUMBER L07-024 TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER BRATCHER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. DIRECTOR REPORT: . There will be a worksession with dinner provided either in June or July to discuss Urban Design issues. Meeting adjourned at 8:33 PM Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens Secretary de; INFORMATION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Mullet Community Affairs and Parks Jack Pace, Acting DCD Director June 15,2007 Code Amendment - SEP A ittee FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND The State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) requires that a standard checklist be filled out by a project proponent to identify the environmental impacts of certain actions. Actions include grading, dredging, paving, construction or demolition of buildings, and adoption or revision of most plans, policies or regulations by a government agency. The intent is to identify environmental impacts that would otherwise "fall through the cracks" and provide a mechanism for public review and mitigation. Jurisdictions have flexibility in setting the thresholds that trigger SEP A review up to the maximum level allowed by the State. If a project is exempt in one category but triggers SEP A in another then SEP A is required. For example a three lot short plat on a hillside would be exempt from SEP A review unless the cut and fill required exceeded 500 cubic yards. Type of Action TukwiIa's Maximum PC Proposed Threshold Threshold Thresholds Residential 4 dwelling units 20 dwelling units 9 dwelling units Construction CommerciallIndustrial 4,000 sf and 20 12,000 sf and 40 12,000 sf and 40 Construction parking spaces parking spaces parking spaces Parking Lots 40 parking spaces 40 parking spaces No Change Landfills or 500 cubic yards 500 cubic yards No Change Excavations Jurisdictions can also take advantage of an optional SEP A process that allows them to identify projects where significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely and combine the comment period on that determination with the notice of application comment period for the underlying permit, see Attachment A. NO Q:\CODEAMND\SEPAChanges\6-26CAP _ SEP ADOC Page 1 06/19/20079:43:00 AM 3/ The CAP reviewed this proposal on April 1 0, 2007 and recommended approval of all changes except there was no consensus on raising the threshold for single family construction. At the COW meeting on May 14 the Council opted to send the proposal to the Planning Commission and ask for their input on the single family threshold. The PC held a hearing on May 24th and supported raising the threshold to 9 dwelling units for single family construction as well as the changes to the commercial threshold and the optional DNS process. fu'lAL YSIS Tukwila and other agencies with permitting authority have a comprehensive set of regulations to control negative impacts in the following areas that are subject to SEP A reVIew: 1. Grading, filling, unstable soil and erosion (Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance, International Building Code, PW Standards) 2. Air emissions (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency) 3. Surface water (wetlands and watercourses), groundwater, and storm water (Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance, King County Surface Water Design Manual) 4. Vegetation and landscaping (Landscape Chapter of the Zoning Code, Tree Ordinance) 5. Animals, endangered species, wildlife habitat (ESA, Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance) 6. Energy and natural resources (Building and Mechanical Codes) 7. Environmental health, hazardous waste and noise (Tukwila Noise Ordinance, Hazardous Waste Regulations, Department of Ecology) 8. Land and shoreline use (Zoning Code, Shoreline Master Program) 9. Housing (IBC, Zoning Code, Design Review) 10. Aesthetics, design review (Design Review) 11. Light and glare (IMC, Zoning Code, Design Review) 12. Recreation (parks Department, Zoning Code recreation space requirements) 13. Historic and cultural preservation (No listed structures in Tukwila, Archaeological and Paleontological preservation requirements) 14. Transportation, traffic and parking (Level of Service Standards, PW Concurrency Requirements, Transportation Impact Fees, Capital Improvement Program, Zoning Code Parking requirements) 15. Public services (Concurrency Requirements) 16. Utilities, sewer and water concurrency (Concurrency Requirements) ,3J NG Q:\CODEAMND\SEP AChanges\6-26CAP _ SEP A.DOC Page 2 06/19/20079:43:00 AM Because these codes and standards are already in place we do not often have to rely on SEP A to impose mitigation conditions. Raising the threshold for number of new dwelling units to 9 would match the threshold for subdivision review. Raising the threshold for new buildings in commercial/industrial zones to 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces would streamline review of smaller projects. As an example the Claim Jumper restaurant is approximately 12,000 sf. Because SEP A triggers notice requirements some smaller projects that do not require other approvals such as design review would no longer require public notice if the threshold were changed. Short plats for 5 or more lots are required to provide public notice and raising the SEP A threshold would not change that. 18.104.090 Notice of Application - Procedure Notice of Application shall be provided as follows: 1. For all Type 2, 3, 4 and 5 decisions, and Type 1 decisions which require SEP A review, the Notice of Application shall be mailed by first class mail to the applicant and to departments and agencies with jurisdiction, except that a Notice of Application is not required in the case of a Code Interpretation pursuant to TMC 18.96.010 or a Sign Permit Denial pursuant to TMC Chapter 19.12. 2. For Type 1 decisions and Type 2 decisions which require SEP A review, the Notice of Application shall be provided by posting pursuant to TMC 18.104.110, provided that the Notice of Application for a Type 1 decision involving a single-family residence need not be posted but shall be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 3. For short plats of 5 through 9 lots and Type 3, 4 and 5 applications, the Notice of Application shall be posted pursuant to TMC 18.104.110 and mailed pursuant to TMC 18.104.120. Notice requirements for secure community transition facilities shall be in accordance with RCW 71.09.315 as amended. Very few development proposals require a full environmental impact statement (ElS) to analyze impacts and develop mitigation measures. For the vast majority of development in Tukwila the City issues either a determination of non-significance (DNS) or a mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) after review of the SEP A checklist. The City is authorized under WAC 197-11-355 to make this determination early in the review process and combine the SEP A comment period with that of the underlying permit, saving about two weeks of processing time. PROPOSAL Raise the flexible thresholds for commercial and industrial new construction and possibly for residential, as shown on the table above. Take advantage of the optional DNS process that allows for concurrent SEP A and project comment periods, see Attachment A. 21.04.110 Categorical exemptions- Flexible thresholds A. The City establishes the following exempt levels for minor new construction based on local conditions: 1. For residential dwelling units in WAC 197-11-800 (l)(b)(i) up to four dwelling units. NG Q:\CODEAt\1ND\SEP AChanges\6-26CAP _ SEP A.DOC Page 3 06/19/20079:43:00 AM 33 2. For agricultural structures in WAC 197-11-800 (1) (b)(ii) up to 10,000 square feet. 3. For office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings in WAC 197-11- 800(1) (b )(iii), up to 4 12,000 square feet, and up to ;6 1.0 parking spaces. 4. For parking lots in WAC 197-11- 800(1)(b)(iv), up to 40 parking spaces. 5. For landfills and excavations in WAC 197- 11-800 (1)(b)(v), up to 500 cubic yards. B. The responsible official shall send copies of all adopted flexible thresholds to the Department of Ecology, headquarters office, Olympia, Washington. 21.04.080 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations - Adoption by reference The City adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197-11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference as supplemented in this chapter: 197-11-300 Purpose of this part 197-11-305 Categorical exemptions 197-11-310 Threshold determination required 197-11- 315 Environmental checklist 197-11-330 Threshold determination process 197-11-335 Additional information 197-11-340 Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) 197-11-350 Mitigated DNS 197-11-355 Optional DNS process 197-11-360 Determination of Significance (DS)/initiation of scoping 197-11-390 Effect of threshold determination REQUESTED ACTION Send the PC recommended changes to the City Council for discussion, a final hearing and adoption of an ordinance. Attachment A - WAC 197-11-355 Optional DNS Process Attachment B - PC 5/24/07 Minutes 31 NG Q:\CODEAMND\SEP AChanges\6-26CAP _ SEP A.DOC Page 4 06/19120079:43:00 AM WAC 197 -11 -355: Optional DNS process. Page 1 of 1 197 -11 -350 197 -11 -355» 197 -11 -360 WAC 197 -11 -355 Optional DNS process. (1) If a GMA county /city with an integrated project review process (RCW 36.70B.060) is lead agency for a proposal and has a reasonable basis for determining significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely, it may use a single integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and the likely threshold determination for the proposal. if this process is used, a second comment period will typically not be required when the DNS is issued (refer to subsection (4) of this section). (2) If the lead agency uses the optional process specified in subsection (1) of this section, the lead agency shall: (a) State on the first page of the notice of application that it expects to issue a DNS for the proposal, and that: (i) The optional DNS process is being used; (ii) This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal; (iii) The proposal may include mitigation measures under applicable codes, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether an EIS is prepared; and (iv) A copy of the subsequent threshold determination for the specific proposal may be obtained upon request (in addition, the lead agency may choose to maintain a general mailing list for threshold determination distribution). (b) List in the notice of application the conditions being considered to mitigate environmental impacts, if a mitigated DNS is expected; (c) Comply with the requirements for a notice of application and public notice in RCW 36.70B.110; and (d) Send the notice of application and environmental checklist to: (i) Agencies with jurisdiction, the department of ecology, affected tribes, and each local agency or political subdivision whose public services would be changed as a result of implementation of the proposal; and (ii) Anyone requesting a copy of the environmental checklist for the specific proposal (in addition, the lead agency may choose to maintain a general mailing list for checklist distribution). (3) If the lead agency indicates on the notice of application that a DNS is likely, an agency with jurisdiction may assume lead agency status during the comment period on the notice of application (WAC 197 -11 -948). (4) The responsible official shall consider timely comments on the notice of application and either: (a) Issue a DNS or mitigated DNS with no comment period using the procedures in subsection (5) of this section; (b) Issue a DNS or mitigated DNS with a comment period using the procedures in subsection (5) of this section, if the lead agency determines a comment period is necessary; (c) Issue a DS; or (d) Require additional information or studies prior to making a threshold determination. (5) If a DNS or mitigated DNS is issued under subsection (4)(a) of this section, the lead agency shall send a copy of the DNS or mitigated DNS to the department of ecology, agencies with jurisdiction, those who commented, and anyone requesting a copy. A copy of the environmental checklist need not be recirculated. [Statutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESHB 1724) and RCW 43.21C.110. 97 -21 -030 (Order 95 -16), 197 -11 -355, filed 10/10/97, effective 11/10/97.] http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=197-11-355 33 Attachment A Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2007 Page 4 of 4 COMMISSIONER EKBERG MADE A MOTION TO FORWARD STAFF'S RECOMl\tIENDATIONS AS PROPOSED ON CASE NUMBER L07-024 ON THE SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER BRATCHER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL \VERE IN FAVOR. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: L07-024 City of Tukwila Hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council about the proposed amendments to the SEP A Code. City wide LOCATION: Nora Gierloffprovided background on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). She stated that SEP A is intended to be a double check to catch things that would otherwise fall through the cracks. Currently there are two areas where we are below the threshold: 1) Residential construction, 2) Commercial and Industrial construction. Staff is proposing to raise the flexible thresholds for these two areas. There is also an optional process that would allow us to streamline notice periods. The Planning Commission were all in consensus of Staffs recommendation on the SEPA amendments on case number L07-024. This item will be forwarded to the City Council. COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO FORWARD THE THREE CODE AMENDMENTS ON CASE NUMBER L07-024 TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER BRATCHER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. DIRECTOR REPORT: . There will be a worksession with dinner provided either in June or July to discuss Urban Design issues. Meeting adjourned at 8:33 PM Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens Secretary 310 Attachment B INFORMATION M EM 0 RAN DUM TO: Mayor Mullet Community Affairs and Parks C)~ittee FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Director ~ t DATE: June 15,2007 SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendments BACKGROUND Staff has grouped four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together for consideration: 1) Limitation on single family expansions within non-conforming setbacks; 2) Retaining wall setback changes; 3) Administrative variance for single family lot size; and 4) Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010. Staff presented these issues with various options to the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP) Committee on April 10, 2007. They were then discussed at the CO\V meeting on May 14th. The Committee discussed each item and chose to forward them to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation. The PC made only minor changes and their recommendations are reflected in the strikeout/underline language listed below. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS A. Limitation on Additions to Homes that Do Not meet Setbacks TMC 18.70.050 (6) states "single family structures in single or multiple family zone districts, which have legally non-conforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand along the existing building line(s) if the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the property line is not reduced." This provision has been used in ways that significantly increase the area of non-conformity and impact upon the neighboring property. Staffs proposal is as follows: 18.70.050 Nonconforming Structures Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption of this title that could not be built under the terms of this title by reason of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height, yards or other characteristics of the structure, it may be continued so long as the structure remains otherwise lawful subject to the following provisions: Q:\CODEAMND\2007 Amend6-26CAP.DOC Page 1 37 6. Single-family structures in single- or multiple-family residential zone districts, which have legally nonconforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand the ground floor only along the existing building line(s) so long as ffthe existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the property line is not reduced and the square footalle of new intrusion into the setback does not exceed 50% orthe square footage or the current intrusion. B. Retaining Wall Setbacks There are several different standards for whether retaining walls can be located in required setbacks which leads to confusion and in some cases unusable yards. The Zoning Code defines yard and structure as: 18.06.945 Yard "Yard" means a required open space unoccupied and unobstructed by any structure or portion of a structure from 30 inches above the general ground level of the graded lot upward. 18.06.800 Structure "Structure" means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, but excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized. Not included are residential fences, retaining walls less than three feet in height, rockeries and similar improvements of minor character. The building code allows most rockeries and retaining walls up to four feet high without a permit, which many people assume is the trigger for meeting setbacks. Rockeries are rareiy allowed to retain more than four feet of earth. While the intent may have been to prevent a neighbor from having to look at a tall retaining wall on the property line it sometimes has the effect of creating a yard that is unmaintained and unusable to the property owner because of the grade separation. These rules do not provide for the situations where a retaining wall is perpendicular to a property line across two or more lots or alongside a dtiveway when the garage is built into the basement of a house on a hillside. Staff suggests that retaining walls and rockeries with up to 4 feet of exposed face be allowed in yards to match building code requirements. This could be increased in special circumstances if the property in question is on the lower side of the retaining wall, if the wall benefits the lots on both sides of the property line or if the wall is needed due to R-O-W improvements. 18.06.800 Structure "Structure" means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, but excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized. Not included are residential fences up to six feet in height, retaining walls less than three feet in height, Q!...rockeries with up to four feet of exposed face and similar improvements of minor character. TMC XX Retaining. Wall Setback Waiver Retaining walls with an exposed height greater than four feet may be allowed in required front. side or rear yard setbacks under the following circumstances: 3g Q:\CODEAMND\2007 Amend6-26CAP.DOC Page 2 1. When the applicant's propeltv is on the lower side of the retaining wall and it is not visible from adiacent propelties or is screened bv landscaping. or 2. ,,,lien a wall built on a propeliy line or perpendicular to it benefits the lots on both sides and the owners of both properties agree to iointly maintain the wall. or 3. When a wall in a front vard is required due to roadway expansion or improvements. or 4. Wl1en a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road that meets Fire Department slope requirements and the exposed face either has a decorative/textured treatment or is screened with landscaping. C. Administrative Variance for Lot Size The minimum lot size in Low Density Residential, Tukwila's single family zone, is 6,500 sf. There are areas of the City that were platted prior to current zoning regulations with different lot patterns such as 3,000 sflots. These substandard lots are no longer considered individual building sites since the passage of Ordinance 2097. This means that a property owner might have to aggregate five or more lots totaling 15,000 sf in order to create two building sites as opposed to the 13,000 sfrequired by code. Staff proposes to create an administrative variance to the DCD Director for reductions in lot size of up to 500sf per lot for up to two lots to streamline the process for lots that are just under the threshold for subdivision or where there is an existing house that prevents the lots from being divided equally. Requests for greater reductions through a variance would still require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Proposed criteria for this new type of variance include: TMC 18.50.140 Administrative Lot Area Variance in LDR A property owner in the LDR zone may apply for a reduction in lot size of up to 500 square feet per lot for up to two lots. This shall be processed as a Type 2 decision concurrent with the short plat or boundary line adjustment application and approved only if all of the following criteria would be met. 1) The current or past property owner has not reduced the area of the lot in question by BLA, short plat or sale of adjacent lots under common ownership after the effective date of Ord. 2097 (August 6, 2005). 2) The new lots would be able to meet all other development standards including setbacks, lot width, maximum building footprint and parking. 3) Lots that have received a reduction in size through the PRD process are not eligible for further reductions through this variance process. 4) The variance is compatible with and meets the spirit of the comprehensive plan and will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and the rights of the neighboring property owners. 5) The lot must not contain a multi-family structure or an accessory dwelling unit. 6) The variance permitted is the minimum variance necessary to relieve a material hardship which cannot be relieved by any other means. 7) The granting of the variance will not cause a substantial detrimental effect to the public interest. 30 I / Q:\CODEAMND\2007 Amend6-26CAP.DOC Page 3 D. Permit Processing Housekeeping There are a few decisions called out in the body of the Zoning Code that are not listed in the table at TMC 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications. In addition the proposed changes above, if adopted, would add a new decision to the code. For clarity all of the types of decisions should be listed along with the decision maker and appeal body. Add to the Type 2 Decisions section: TYPE OF PER1\1IT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY (open record appeal) 18.52.020 Special Permission Community Development Board of Architectural Review landscape approvals Director 18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080 Community Development Board of Architectural Review Waiver of certain setback and Director landscape standards in the Commercial Redevelopment Area 18.50.130 Structures over public Community Development Hearing R-O- W Director Examiner 18.56.140 Variance from Parking Community Development Hearing Standards less than 10% Director Examiner 18.50.140 Administrative Lot Community Development Hearing Area Variance in LDR Director Examiner Add to the Type 4 Decisions section: TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY (closed record appeal) 18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080 Board of Architectural Review Hearing Waiver of certain setback and Examiner landscape standards in the Commercial Redevelopment Area REQUESTED ACTION Send the PC recommended changes to the full Council for discussion, a final hearing and adoption of the ordinance amending the Zoning Code. Attachment A - PC Minutes from 5/24/07 Hearing !I0 Q:\CODEA..\1ND\2007 Amend6-26CAP .DOC Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES MAY 24, 2007 /)~A . . "tf:r The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Malina at 7:00 PM Present: Chair George Malina, Vice Chair Chuck Parrish, Commissioners, Allan Ekberg, Margaret Bratcher, Bill Arthur and Lynn Peterson Absent: Henry Marvin Representing City Staff: Nora Gierloff, Jack Pace and Wynetta Bivens COMMISSIONER PARRISH MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FROM APRIL 26, 2007. COMMISSIONER BRATCHER SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNAl'\1JMOUSL Y APPROVED. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LO? -024 City of Tukwila Hold a Public Hearing and make recommendations to the City Council about four proposed amendments to the Zoning Code concerning: 1. Limitation on single family expansions within non-conforming setbacks; 2. Retaining wall setback changes; 3. Administrative variance for single family lot size; and 4. Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010. City wide LOCATION: Nora Gierloff gave the presentation for staff on each of the four requests: 1. Limitation on single family expansions within non-conforming setbacks The current Zoning Code has an exception, which states - if you have a single family house in a residential zone that was built in a setback, you can expand a house along the existing wall. There have been some cases where people have taken this to the extreme and had a much greater impact on their neighbors. Staff is proposing: . You can expand only on the ground floor and that you can't have a second floor that is also in that non-conforming set-back area. . The area of the new expansion should not be more than 50% of the intrusion. Ms. Gierloff addressed several questions. The Planning Commission recommended: . Change the word 'area' to 'square footage' under letter A, number 6 of the Staff Report. 'I; Attachment A Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2007 Page 2 of 4 2. Retaining wall setback changes Definition of a yard - You are not allowed to have a structure more than 30 inches high in a required front yard or side yard. Definition of a structure - Retaining walls less than three feet in height and rockeries are not considered structures. A lot of people assume since you don't need a building permit until you hit four feet that it's not a structure that requires a setback. Staff is Proposing: . Change the definition of structure to - 'Retaining walls or rockeries up to four feet high would not be considered structures and would be allowed to be in front and side yards.' . Residential fences up to six feet in height do not require a building permit. . Allow exceptions for retaining walls in a setback for structures greater than four feet and provide outline of justified cases. . Wall needed to create vehicular access road for Fire Department requirements should either have a decorative treatment or are screened with landscaping. Ms. Gierloff addressed several questions. Commissioners Malina and Arthur were opposed to Staff s proposal for the wall decorative treatment requirement or screeningwith landscaping. Planning Commission Recommendation: . Under TMC?? Retaining Wall Setback Waiver - 'Retaining walls with an exposed height greater than four feet may be allowed in required front, side or rear yards under the following circumstances' change, insert the word 'setbacks' after yards, letter B, paragraph under TMC?? of the staffreport. . Change - 'decorative treatment' to 'decorative/textured treatment' or screen with landscaping, letter B, number 4 under TMC?? in the Staff Report. 3. Administrative variance for single family lot size In the Single Family zone the minimum lot size is 6, 500 sq. ft.. In order to create two lots you need a minimum of 13,000 sq. ft. For various reasons people do not meet the criteria to short plat or create two equal size lots. Staff is Proposing: . Allow up to a 500 sq. ft. reduction in lot size, for up to two lots ifrequired criteria are met. Chair Malina swore in a citizen who wished to give public testimony. Jonathan Brown, a citizen, spoke in support of the Administrative Variance. He shared his personal experience with his house and lot size, calling the reduction a handsome decision, which would fit a lot of peoples circumstances. Commissioner Ekberg requested a definition of material hardship, letter C, number 7, for future reference. Commissioner Arthur wanted to add that the Administrative Variance still allows the City to compile with the Comprehensive Plan when it comes to describing what is desired in a residential structure.s 1:J Planning Commission recommendation: . No change Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2007 Page 3 of 4 4. Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010. Ms. Gierloff indicated this was a house keeping item. If the Administrative Variance for lot size is approved it should be added to this table. The Planning Commission deliberated. COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO FORWARD THE FOUR ZONING CODE RECOMMENDATIONS ON CASE NUMBER L07-024 AS MODIFIED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER EKBERG SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: L07 -024 City of Tukwila Hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council about an amendment to the Sensitive Area Ordinance allowing the DCD Director to establish the number of wetland mitigation bank credits needed for specific off-site mitigation proposals. City wide LOCATION: Nora Gierloffprovided background on sensitive areas. She gave an explanation on the purchase of mitigation bank credits, stating the mitigation process is outlined in the attached Code. Credits in a mitigation bank: are based on net ecological benefit provided and are determined on the basis of Department of Ecology mitigation ratios, the kinds of mitigation carried out at the bank and the total acreage for each type of mitigation. The missing piece is wetland credits versus the amount of ecological function that is impacted by filling the wetland. Staff proposes creating a process after the Director has approved the filling of the wetland and approved off-site mitigation to allow him to set the number of credits that are required for the impact at that particular bank. The proposed language is listed in attachment C in the Proposed Amendment to Sensitive Area Ordinance in the May 24, 2007 Staff Report. This would give the Director some criteria to use when making his determination. Ms. Gierloff listed the criteria. There was extensive questions and discussion on this item. Some of the key issues that were raised: l) Is there a formula used to determined what is worth X number of credits? 2) If there is an appeal process where does it go (type 2 decisions go to the hearing examiner)? 3) Is WSDOT the ones who are monitoring the amount of credits that go into the bank (WSDOT is a purchaser; they are a developer who wants to buy credits from this bank)? Staff explained that we have one method of mitigation and WSDOT has the credits. 4) Staff would like to have a more formal process for selecting the number of credits. 5) This process has already been built and approved, meets the Department of Ecology, as well as, other agency requirements. 6) The City does not have a bank of it's own because staffhas not been able to identify spaces that are big enough to be viable. Commissioner Parrish indicated he has no problem with Staffs proposal. He suggested that there are paper records, which would make the Director's position defendable in the event of a challenge. The Planning Commission deliberated. (13