final composite written comments tsmp

8/6/2019 Final Composite Written Comments TSMP

1/33

June 10, 2011

Planning Commission

Community and Economic Development DepartmentLong-Range Planning Division

747 Market Street, Room 1036Tacoma, WA 98402-3793

Via email: [email protected]

RE: 2011 Shoreline Master Program Update

Dear Chair Doty and Planning Commissioners,

Please accept these comments on the Shoreline Master Program Proposed Update for

2011. These comments are not meant to be duplicative of the Chambers comments andinformation packet submitted at the Planning Commissions Public Hearing on June 1,

2011.

The Chamber is not again submitting proposed language changes. For a set of documentswell over 600 pages, that task would be daunting in the resources required, the challenges

in following any one change through the iterations and unproductive because of thehistory such an endeavor has evidenced. Instead, these comments should be considered as

complementary and supplementary to those earlier comments and its information packet.

The Chamber has spent many years and uncounted staff hours involved in this issue, allthe way back to 2006 when your project lead planner was Molly Harris. Ms. Harris, a

Reservist, has been activated much over this time and we thank her for her service.

In the intervening years, it has been our pleasure to work with Stephen Atkinson whoassumed this task. His work has always been professional and courteous and we thank

him for that.

*RED PAGES #1, #96:

In RCW 90.58.020, in the use preference statement, (t)he legislature declares that theinterest of all the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of statewidesignificance. ..(L)ocal governments shall give preference to uses in the following order

of preference which:(1)Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest

The proposed boundary changes for S-10 (industrial) to S-8 (mixed development) and S-

7 (industrial, terminal use) to S-6 (pedestrian oriented and recreational use) are counter to


2/33

this legislatively declared intent for the SMA. Both properties affected are tied to ahigher state interest with DNR leases providing revenues funding the states paramount

duty - education. As these proposed actions jeopardize the ongoing industrial uses ofthese properties, it thereby jeopardizes the DNR leases and the revenue stream to state

government.

RED PAGES #15, #28:High-intensity. WAC 173-26-211(5)(d), states Priority given first to water-dependent

uses, then to water-related and water-enjoyment uses.

The purpose of a high intensity environment is for water-oriented commercial,transportation and industrial purposes. Indeed, the first priority is given to water-

dependent uses. The proposed action to move the Sperry Ocean property from S-7(industrial and terminal use) to S-6 (pedestrian oriented and recreational use) is counter to

this purpose.

RED PAGE #16:The Chamber requests the reference name for it be Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber.

RED PAGES #17, #88:

Vision 2040. MPP-Ec-19: Maximize the use of existing designated manufacturing andindustrial centers by focusing appropriate types and amounts of employment growth in

these areas and by protecting them from incompatible adjacent uses.

This goal of the regional Vision 2040 addresses the proposed changes as mentionedbefore. The proposed changes do not conform to the regional growth management plan

for 2040 in this instance.

RED PAGE #25:SMP Update: For proposed amendments to land use intensity or zoning classification,

substantial similarities of conditions and characteristics can be demonstrated on abuttingproperties that warrant a change in land use intensity or zoning classification.

Environment designations and shoreline district boundaries have been re-evaluated and

are proposed for reclassification consistent with the WAC designation process andcriteria in WAC 173-26-211(5) and are generally consistent with the Comprehensive

Plan.

There are no substantial similarities of conditions and characteristics for the proposedboundary changes of abutting properties that warrant a change in land use intensity or

zoning classification to support the proposed changes to include the Sperry Oceanproperty from S-7 to S-6 or of the NuStar Terminal from S-8 to S-10. Especially in the

situation of the NuStar Terminal, this criterion is a well met standard for changing theeast side of the Foss Waterway north of E. 11

thStreet to all S-10.

RED PAGE 149:


3/33

Exhibit A, #3. a. and b. are consistent with law and case law as evidenced by informationthe Chamber and others, including contracted legal counsel of the City of Tacoma, have

provided. Exhibit A., #3. c., d. and e. are not.

Pages 41-42. Shoreline Public Access Plan Revised Draft:

In determining whether the proposed use or development meets one or more of thecriteria in 6.5.2(A)(7) above, the City will require substantial, credible evidence furnishedby the applicant demonstrating how the proposal meets the criteria.

This reference does not exist, perhaps because of a change in the consultants report not

carried through, before acceptance. A reference is on RED PAGE 208 of the DraftShoreline Master Program document, page 95.The language appears to require publicaccess be provided offsite either through a monetary payment or paying for a project, ifon-site access isnt feasible under the criteria. The nexus requirement, discussed in our

Public Comments of June 1, 2011 and multiple times throughout this process by us andothers, determines if any public access is required.

Thank you for your consideration. The Chamber looks forward to our continuing

involvement in the development and adoption of the Tacoma Shoreline Master ProgramUpdate.

Sincerely,

Gary D. Brackett, CCRManager, Business and Trade Development

*RED PAGES refers to the numbering system contained in the online edition at the Cityof Tacoma website ( www.cityoftacoma.org/shorelineupdate )of the Shoreline MasterProgram public comments documents.

950 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300, PO BOX 1933, TACOMA WA 98401-1933

PHONE: 253-627-2175, FAX: 253-597-7305, www.tacomachamber.org


4/33


5/33


6/33

June 10, 2011

City of Tacoma Planning CommissionCity of Tacoma Community and Economic DevelopmentLong-Range Planning Division747 Market StreetTacoma, WA 98402RE: Tacoma Shoreline Master Program UpdateDear Members of the Planning Commission:On behalf of the Port of Tacoma, we would first like to thank the Planning Commission and theCity of Tacoma staff working on this important code update. We are pleased that the PlanningCommission and City have been open to a productive dialog and that many of our previoussuggestions from the first review were partially or fully incorporated into the May 2011 draft.While there are still issues that need to be resolved, we are thankful for the opportunity toprovide additional comments regarding the draft update to the City of Tacomas ShorelineMaster Program (TSMP), and we look forward to our continued collaboration.The Ports mission is to create sound economic growth in Pierce County and Washingtonstate. As such, the Port firmly believes that the updated TSMP can and should providemaximum flexibility fo r water-dependent, water-related industrial uses in order to ensure andattract a diverse and sustained employment base, while at the same time protect the naturalenvironment and provide public access where safe, feasible and reasonable. It is essentialduring this challenging economic climate to consider the value of a sound and sustainableindustrial economic base when drafting these regulations.Working with our Executive Management and Commission we have developed a set of guidingprinciples that provide Port staff with policy direction when commenting on this process, whichinclude:

Protect Port industrial maritime water-dependent and water-related uses Discourage incompatible uses adjacent to Port industrial uses Encourage expansion of industrial uses Seek to balance industry with the environment Support conservancy designation south of SR 509

P.O. Box 1837 Tacoma, Washington 98401-1837 Telephone: (253) 383-5841


7/33

Give prio rity to water-dependent and water-related uses and promote public access andenvironmental restoration where safe and feasible

Do business in a way that protects the environment; and, Create an efficien t, predictable and balaliced regulatory process

Afte r careful review of the draft TSMP, the Port offers the following comments:CHAPTER 2 ADMIN IST RAT IONThe Port encourages the City to look for ways to streamline the permit process, particularly forroutine maintenance and repair type work. An efficient and predictable process will ensure theCity and Port can attract and maintain world class customers now and into the future.2.3.3 Include the removal of noxious weeds, maintenance dredging, utilities and demolition ofexisting structures.2.3.3 15.a. Clar ify Washington Department of Fish and Wild life2.3.4 4. Consider revising to make it clear as it is currently not understood.2.3.4 7. The Port requests some form of internal review process for applicants who receive adenial of shoreline exemption. Consider allowing requests for reconsideration and options forappeals to either the Citys Hearing Examiner or judicial appeal as determined by the Land UseAdministrator.2.4 .1 To avoid redundant submittal requirements, request only information not alreadysubmitted with the JARPA form. Also , allow for the Land Use Administrator to waive submittalrequirements if found unnecessary.2.4.2 B.1.c. i. A non-surveyed site plan is more than adequate to meet the goals and objectivesof the TSMP. The Port requests that submittal requirements for cri tical area reviews beconsistent with the submittal requirements per WAC 173-27-180 (survey not required). Portsuggests requiring a survey only if the Land Use Administrator finds it necessary to making apermit decision.2.4.2 B.1 .c.iv. Rather than requiring two-foot contours, revise for consistency with section 2.4.19.c..2.4.4 Define Moorage Facilities separately from Terminal Facilities. Exclude TerminalFacilities from this section.CHAPTER 3 GOALS AN D OBJECTIVES3.8.2 1. Edit; shorelines to the maximum extent feasible practicable3.8.2. 2. Edit; . . . develop a continuous system of vistas, view areas, view corridors, scenicdrives...3.8.2 3. Add; . . . starting with high-density intensive-use urban activity on the east side of TheaFoss Waterway, south of 15h Street,


8/33

June 10, 2011Tacoma Shoreline Master Program UpdatePage 3

CHAPTER 5 SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNAT IONS5.5.6 A.1. It is the Ports understanding that the continuous walkway requirement ends on theeast side at E. 15 th Street and does not encircle the entire Thea Foss Waterway.5.5.6 D.2.d. Because the area on the east side of the Foss Waterway, north of 15 th is primarilyindustrial in nature it should be exempt from any required design standards. Instead, the Portsupports encouraging design standards using development incentives.CHAPTER 6 GENERAL POLIC IES AND REGULATIONSThe Port understands and prefers that E. Street is the boundary by which the continuouswalkway and other regulations diff er on the east side of the Thea Foss Waterway. There issufficient confusion amongst other industrial property owners and inconsistencies within theTSMP on east side boundary references that the Port feels warrant a written clarification by theCity.6.3.2 B.1. For consistency with section 2.4.6: ...or request for a statement of exemption...6.3.2 B.2 . It is not necessary for the Citys Administra tor to conduct a site investigation inaddition to the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Histor ic Preservation and thePuyallup Tribe of Indians when they are already required. Instead, provide flexibility forappropriate interagency coordination.6.3.2 B.4 . It is not necessary for the Citys Adm ini str ator to invoke the cultural resourcemanagement plan. Instead, provide flexibility for interagency coordination and leave thisrequirement to the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and/or the Washington State Department ofArchaeology and Histor ic Preservation.6.4.2 B.1 .a. State that buffers can be reduced to 0 feet for water-dependent uses whenoperationally necessary.6.4.2 B.3. and 6.4.3 C. The Port likes and appreciates the amendments to this section.6.4.5 H.2.b. Add: . . . or as otherwise amended to the end of the sentence.Table 6-4 Typo: under Re-establishment or Creation, next to All Category IV (1:5:1).6.5 .1 2. Add an exception for water-dependent and water-related uses.6.5.2 A.2 . Consistent with other sections, clarify that where water-dependent use and visualaccess conflict , the water-dependent use prevails.6.5.2 A.3.e. Exempt water-dependent uses related to terminal development on Port-ownedproperty.6.5.2 A.16. The Port appreciates the work staff did in PAAL section 7.1.3.32. allowing for interlocal agreement consistent with RCW 39.34. The Port prefers the ILA process and would reallylike this TSMP section to be consistent with PAAL. Typo: WAC 1 73-26-221.


9/33


10/33


11/33


intensity water dependent use, with the modification to extend the S-6 down to include theChinese Reconciliation Park and Hyde Park. This is based on the City staffs September 2010draft TSMP.9.9 B. The S-8 district should not include the NuStar property as it is more appropriately suitedfor S-b district.9.11 B. Typo: end of the last sentence should read waterward rather than landward.9.13 Add provisions allowing fo r public access, to ensure the Port can fulfill its plans to provideaccess in this district.9.13 B. In the description, add landward after SR 509.GENERAL SHORELINE USE, MODIFICATION & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLEThe Port appreciates the fact that the City accommodated many of the changes requested bythe Port in earlier drafts. Here are additional change requests:S-il Residential Development all categories: add a footnote referencing 7.7.2 D.1.S-i 1 Port, Terminal and Industrial Development Log Rafting and Storage: add a footnoteallowing fo r log storage at parcel 8950200404 consistent with comment under section 7.5.3 B.1.DEFINITIONS174. A dd to the list of examples: accessory buildingsssbciated with terminal operations.PUBLIC ACCESS ALTERNATIVES PLAN (PAAL)The Port appreciates the changes and clarifications to the PAAL regarding when public accesswill be required and thanks the City fo r their hard work in this area. The Port offers thesecomments to some remaining issues and concerns:4.1.1.1 2. Consistent with comments provided under TSMP 6.5.2 A.2., clarify that where water-dependent use and visual access conflict, the water-dependent use prevails when the use!development is allowed.4.2 Consider including the to-be-adopted Port Element.Map 1. Near the mouth of the Hylebos along Marine View Drive next to the identified privatemarina (Chinook Landing) is a public marina (Ole & Charlies), which needs to be identified.Table 1. Add 1 under Public Marina/Si 1-Marine View Drive (Ole & Charlies).Map 2. The street end shown at E. F Street does not get within 200 feet of the water. It ends atparcel # 6375000011 owned by the Foss Maritime Company. The street end shown at LincolnAvenue on the Blair Waterway is part of the Washington United Terminal, inaccessible to thepublic. The street end shown at E. 11h Street on the west side of the Blair Waterway is theentrance to the Husky Terminal, inaccessible to the public. The street end shown at E. 11h


12/33


Street onthe east side of the Blair Waterway is part of the TOTE Terminal, inaccessible to thepublic.Table 2. Based on comments above, change the number of public street ends to 1 in the SlODistrict.5.2.2.4 Potential Projects on the Thea Foss Waterway: Since all 22 listed projects arepotential, remove the word potential from number 11, 12 and 22 for consistency.5.2.2.5 Consistent with comments under Map 2 and Table 2, remove the four street ends in the5-10 District.Map 3. Is this map only meant to show linear feet of public shoreline access? If not, there areexisting public access points that are missing in the S-b District (tower, Rhone Poulenc).7.1.2 Typo in the last paragraph TSMP 6.5.2 (A)(7) above.7.1.3.3 2. The Port remains committed to drafting and adopting its own public access plan andthis ILA process is the preferred process fo r adoption.On behalf of the Port of Tacoma, thank you again for accepting our comments. We look forwardto getting your response, as well as continuing to work with you through the adoption of the newTSMP. Please feel free to contact either Kell or Jason should you have any comments or follow-up questions.Sincerely,

Jason ordanDirector, Environmental Programs

c: Port of Tacoma CommissionersEvette Mason, External Affairs ManagerJay Stewart, Manager, Real Estate

Kell McAboySenior Planner


13/33


14/33


15/33

June 1, 2011

The Honorable Jeremy C. Doty, Chairand Planning CommissionersTacoma Planning CommissionTacoma Municipal Building747 Market Street, Rm. 1036Tacoma, WA 98402

Re: City of Tacoma Draft Shoreline Master Program Update

Dear Chair Doty and Planning Commission Members:

Attached for your review and consideration are comments from Citizens for a Healthy Bay(CHB) to the Citys April 2011 draft of the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP). CHB is committed toworking with the City of Tacoma and all stakeholders to achieve a final SMP that balances theneeds of Tacomas urban population with those of Port/Industry and the Environment.

CHB members and volunteers congratulate Commission members and City of Tacoma stafffor crafting a draft SMP that:

Is carefully integrated with Tacomas Critical Areas Ordinances, Open Space, UrbanForestry, etc. so that the public access and enjoyment of our Citys shoreline resourcesare maximized to the greatest possible extent.

Extends the most stringent limitations to all of the Citys remaining undeveloped naturalshorelines and shoreline features. Maintains the integrity of the Sept. 2010 draft SMP, considered as one of the best

proposed SMP updates in Puget Sound. The Sept. 2010 draft SMP was a balanced andthoughtful approach to the future use and development of Tacomas shorelines asimportant areas for people to work, play and live. In general, the revised draft SMPcontinues to emphasize the importance of balancing shoreline usages for the aquaticenvironment, development, commerce, industry, residential and recreationalstakeholders. As a result, Tacomas SMP is still among the best in Puget Sound!

Preserves shoreline critical areas and fish and wildlife habitat migration corridors.Tacomas shorelines are not only important to the human community but to the biologicaland ecosystem communities as well. The draft SMP recognizes the value in protecting itsshoreline critical areas and fish and wildlife corridors and the importance of theseresources to the citizens of Tacoma.

Possesses long-term viability. The SMP update and planning process is a along and veryresource intensive one. A strong, solid shoreline plan that is integrated into other Cityplanning documents is an investment that provides a vision for the future and reduces thetime and costs needed for future updates.

535DockStreet

Suite213

Tacoma,WA 98402

Phone(253)3832429

Fax(253)3832446

[email protected]

www.healthybay.org

ExecutiveDirectorBillAnderson

BoardofDirectorsCherylGreengrove

BruceKilen

BillPugh

LeeRoussel

DylanStanley

RobertStivers

AngieThomson

SheriTonn

ArteeYoung

AllenZulauf

Ataxexempt

501(c)(3)Washington

nonprofitcorporation


16/33

June 1, 2011The Honorable Jeremy C. Doty, Chairand Members of the City of Tacoma Planning CommissionerPage Two

CHBs comments and recommendations urge the Planning Commission to improve the draft SMP bystrengthening provisions that will:

Realistically reflect Tacomas unique shoreline environments and associated land use. Tacoma led theway toward a vision that a vibrant urban community, successful Port/Industrial climate and a diverse andhealthy aquatic environment are not mutually exclusive and can exist side-by-side-by-side. Ask thePlanning Commission to insure that Tacomas SMP continues this legacy and seeks to preserve our publicaccess and urban corridors equally with the needs of the environment as well as business and industry.By working together, Tacoma really can have it all.

Enhance shoreline public access opportunities through the use of off-site mitigation away from theindustrial shorelines. On-site public access within the Port/Industrial shoreline is not necessarily desirableor in the best interests of Tacomans in general. Public access projects should be focused outside thePort/Industrial corridors and enhance peoples opportunities to view, touch and enjoy Tacomas shorelineenvironments. Ask the Planning Commission to develop a plan with focus on public access in theNarrows, Wapato Lake, Puyallup River as well as the Point Defiance, Point Ruston, and Thea FossWaterway. Urge the Planning Commission to develop strategies to improve the pedestrian sidewalk and

Bayside Trail along Schuster Parkway. Prohibit construction of non-water dependent overwater structures including but not limited to residential,office and commercial buildings, restaurants, and hotels. Ask the Planning Commission to expand theprohibition of new overwater residences and ban any new non-water dependent commercial buildings,restaurants, office buildings and hotels to be built over the water.

Emphasizes beach restoration and reduction/elimination of rip rap shorelines so people can actuallytouch the shoreline and incorporates by reference the existing landscape scale, science-basedrestoration plan that is based for restoration and mitigation projects completed to date in Commencement.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments to the draft SMP and for the PlanningCommissions consideration of our remarks.

Sincerely:

Leslie Ann RoseSenior Policy AnalystCitizens for a Healthy Bay

cc: Mr. Stephen Atkinson, City of Tacoma


17/33

CITY OF TACOMA DRAFT SHORELINE MASTER PLAN,APRIL 2011 1|P A G E COMMENTS BY CITIZENS FOR A HEALTHY BAYJUNE 1,2011

Chapter 1 IntroductionNo comments or recommendations.

Chapter 2 Administration

2.7 Appeals CHB agrees that appeals of any final shoreline permit issued by the City of Tacomashould be made directly to the Shorelines Hearings Board.

Chapter 3 Goals and Objectives

3.1 Overarching Shoreline Goal of the City of Tacoma Develop the full potential of Tacomasshoreline in accord with the unusual opportunities presented by its relation to the City and surroundingarea, its natural resource values, and its unique aesthetic qualities offered by water, topography, viewsand maritime character; and to develop a physical environment which is both ordered and diversified andwhich integrates water, shipping activities, and other shoreline uses with the structure of the Citywhileachieving a net gain of ecological function. (Emphasis added).

The above statement emphasizes Tacomas long commitment to restoring critical shoreline habitats andshoreline functions and values. Since 1989 and in cooperation with other stakeholders and partners,more than 300 acres of critical estuarine habitat has been restored to Commencement Bay; an

accomplishment that highlights Tacomas leadership in achieving a net gain of ecological functions andvalues.

3.8.2 Public Access Public Access Objectives The public access objectives stated in the draftSMP are limited in focus to a single proposed system and excludes other important public access needsand opportunities.

The Citys objective to establish a linear system of public access along the Tacoma shoreline startingfrom the head of Thea Foss Waterway to Point Defiance through pedestrian trails, view areas, viewcorridors, scenic drives, trails and bike paths is excellent. Enhancements to this existing system willimprove the public access experience.

However, it appears as if the City intends to exclude other potential shoreline public access opportunities

in the S-1, S-2, S-9, S-11, S-12 and S-14 shoreline districts. Public access opportunities should includeboth fresh and salt water shorelines equitably distributed across Tacoma that allow for the greatestdiversity of experiences and access possible to a broader segment of Tacomas population. Greaterconsideration should be given to wildlife viewing areas, launch areas for small non-motorized watercraft,pedestrian trails and bike paths where none currently exist.

Recommend that the section be amended to require the City to take full advantage of public accessopportunities that become available for shoreline districts S-1, S-2, S-9, S-11, S-12 and S-14 equal inemphasis to the Foss Waterway to Point Defiance public access proposal.

Chapter 4 Shorelines of the StateNo comments or recommendations.

Chapter 5 Shoreline Environment Designations

5.5.1 Shoreline Environmental Designations Natural Environment Shoreline Districts S-4 PointDefiance Natural and District S-12 Hylebos Creek as designated are consistent with the purpose,designation criteria and management policies of the Natural Environment shoreline environmentaldesignation. No changes are recommended.

5.5.2 Shoreline Environmental Designations Aquatic Environment Shoreline District S-13Waters of the State as designated is consistent with the purpose, designation criteria and management


18/33


policies of the Natural Environment shoreline environmental designation. CHB notes that new overwaterresidential uses are strictly prohibited but that other non-water dependent uses such as hotels, officebuildings, and restaurants are not specifically called out as prohibited. Recommend that Sections5.5.2.D.2.b and 5.5.2.D.2.c be combined and amended as follows: New overwater structuresincluding residential, restaurants, hotels and office buildings that are not explicitly waterdependent are strictly prohibited.

5.5.2.D.5.b Shoreline Environmental Designations Aquatic Environment EnvironmentalProtection This section requires that abandoned over-water structures to be removedbut does not address the acres of creosote-treated pilings that litter Tacomas marineshorelines. Recommend that this section be expanded to require removal of all suchpilings left in place where no over-water structure remains.

5.5.3 Shoreline Environmental Designations Shoreline Residential - District S-1B Western SlopeSouth as designated is consistent with the purpose, designation criteria and management policiesof the Natural Environment shoreline environmental designation. No changes are recommended.

The City intends to divide the S-1 Shoreline District into two distinct areas, for the purposes ofclarity it is recommended that the proposed S-1a district is renamed as the S-16 Western SlopeSouth High-Intensity district while the Shoreline Residential environment is renamed S-1 Western

Slope Shoreline Residential.

5.5.4 Shoreline Environmental Designations Urban Conservancy Environment1

CHB findsthat the proposal to expand the southeastern most boundary of the S-6 Ruston Way shorelinedistrict to incorporate the Sperry Ocean Dock site is inconsistent with the purpose, criteria andmanagement of an urban conservancy environment. CHB will address this issue as part of ourcomments submitted in response to Section 9.7 S-6 Ruston Way (UC).

Shoreline Districts S-2 Western Slope Central, S-3 Western Slope North, S-5 Point Defiance, S-9Puyallup River, S-11 Marine View Drive and S-14 Wapato Lake as designated are consistent withthe purpose, designation criteria and management policies of the Urban Conservancy shorelineenvironmental designation. No changes are recommended. Shoreline District S-6 Ruston Wayextending from North 49

thStreet to the southeastern boundary of the property known as the

Chinese Reconciliation Park is consistent with the purpose, designation criteria and managementpolicies of the Urban Conservancy shoreline environmental designation.

5.5.5 Shoreline Environmental Designations High-Intensity Environment2

- Recommend that5.5.5.A Purpose is amended as follows: is to provide for high-intensitywater-dependentandwater-orientedmixed-use, commercial, transportation and industrial useswhich isconsistent with the Port Management Area in S-10 as well as developments planned for the S-15and S-1a shoreline districts.

1is intended to protect and restore the public benefits and ecological functions of open space, natural

areas and other sensitive lands where they exist within the City, while allowing a variety of compatible

uses. It is the most suitable designation for shoreline areas that possess a specific resource or value thatcan be protected without excluding or severely restricting all other uses. It should be applied to thoseareas that would most benefit the public if their existing character is maintained, but which are also ableto tolerate limited or carefully planned development or resource use. Permitted uses may includerecreational, cultural and historic uses provided these activities are in keeping with the goals of protectionand restoration as stated.

2is to provide for high-intensity water-oriented commercial, transportation and industrial uses while

protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have beenpreviously degraded.


19/33


CHB finds that the proposal to expand the southeastern most boundary of the S-6 Ruston Wayshoreline district in order to incorporate the Sperry Ocean Dock site is inconsistent with thepurpose, criteria and management of an urban conservancy environment. CHB will address thisissue as part of our comments submitted in response to Section 9.7 S-6 Ruston Way (UC) andSection 9.8 S-7 Schuster Parkway (HI).

The Citys proposal to divide the former Shoreline District S-1 Western Slope South into ShorelineDistricts 1a and 1b appears to be made in support of allowing high-intensity development in themarina area similar to developments in the Thea Foss and Point Ruston sites. Planneddevelopment of the marina area is consistent with the High-Intensity Environment designationand would make the marina site inconsistent with the Shoreline Residential environmentproposed for S-1b Shoreline District. As the City intends to divide the S-1 Shoreline District into 2distinct areas, for the purposes of clarity it is recommended that the proposed S-1a district isrenamed as the S-16 Western Slope South High-Intensity district.

5.5.5.D.4 Shoreline Environmental Designations High-Intensity Environment Management Policies Where feasible, visual and physical public access should berequired Depending on the location, physical access within portions of the S-10shoreline district may not be appropriate or benefit to the public. Public access within thePort/Industrial area may present health and safety issues or is under-utilized as access in

much of the S-10 shoreline district is not a priority to the general public. Recommendthat this statement is modified to emphasize that off-site public access mitigationconsistent with the City of Tacomas Public Access Alternatives Plan (PAAP) is thepreferred approach to public access within the S-10 shoreline district.

5.5.5.D.5 Shoreline Environmental Designations High-Intensity Environment Management Policies Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such assign control regulations, appropriate development siting, screening and architecturalstandards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. Use of vegetative bufferswithin the S-15 shoreline district is severely restricted because of the site-wideimpermeable cap as part of the site remedial action under Superfund. In the S-7shoreline district there is little-to-no uplands along the shoreline edge to supportvegetative buffers. Terminal or other operations in the S-10 shoreline district may

prohibit vegetative buffers in some locations.

5.5.6 Shoreline Environmental Designations Downtown Waterfront - It is noted that existingindustries are not mentioned in the purpose, criteria or management policies for the S-8Downtown Waterfront shoreline district except in item 5.5.6.D.2.c: Encourage existing industrialand commercial uses to improve the aesthetics of the Waterway These industries are water-dependent or water-related, provide family-wage jobs, have been a part of Tacoma for a longtime. As such, these facilities have a rightful expectation that the SMP acknowledges theiroperations and will not impede future growth and success.

Chapter 6 General Policies and Regulations

6.1.1.6 General Policies and Regulations Shoreline Use Policies Mixed-use projects orfacilities that results in significant public benefit are encouraged in shoreline locations designatedHigh Intensity and Downtown Waterfront. Mixed-use projects or facilities as defined by Chapter10 items 89

3and 90

4are appropriate in the S-1a, S-8 and S-15 shoreline districts but not in the S-

7 and S-10 shoreline districts. Recommend that the statement be modified accordingly.

3Mixed-use projects are developments that combine water-dependent/ water-related uses with water enjoyment

uses and/or non-water-oriented uses4

A mixed use facility is a structure or development that combines non-water-oriented uses such as transientaccommodations, residential units, or retail with one or more water-oriented uses in a manner that takes advantage of


20/33


6.1.2.1 Regulations Restoration of ecological functions and processes shall be permitted on allshorelines The statement should be modified to clarify that a habitat restoration project constructedwithin the shoreline jurisdiction will not prejudice the sites shoreline district environmental designation.Most of Tacomas most successful shoreline habitat restoration projects are located within the S-10shoreline district consistent with the Natural Resource Damage Assessment trustees (NRDA)Commencement Bay landscape scale restoration vision

5and the Commencement Bay Ecosystem

Assessment6. The sites were deliberately located to help replace high-priority brackish marsh habitathistorically lost within the Puyallup River estuary. Industrial and Port stakeholders/landowners, especiallythose located in the S-7, S-8, S-9 and S-10 shoreline districts need certainty that their cooperative effortsto help restore critical shoreline functions and values within these shoreline districts will not result inshorelines within those districts to be designated in the future as Urban Conservancy.

As part of the current SMP update, a proposal to change the environmental designation for a portion ofthe S-7 shoreline district from High-Intensity to Urban Conservancy was made because of the TahomaSalt Marsh NRDA restoration site. As a result, in the future a number of shoreline stakeholders within theS-7, S-8, S-9 and S-10 shoreline districts may be reluctant to allow habitat restoration projects to beconstructed within these shoreline districts.

6.4.1.1 Marine Shoreline and Critical Areas Protection - Policies - Maintain healthy, functioning

ecosystems through the protection of ground and surface waters, marine shorelines, wetlands and fishand wildlife and their habitatsRecommend that the statement be expanded by adding the phraseequal to or greater than provided for under the City of Tacomas Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), TMC13.11 The recommended modified statement articulates the Citys commitment to insure that theshoreline environment is equally protected under the SMP as it is in the CAO.

6.4.2 Marine Shoreline and Critical Areas Protection Except as specifically noted below, CHBurges the Planning Commission to adopt this section as drafted in order to secure a strong andmeaningful shoreline and critical areas program under the SMP. CHB reminds the Commission that mostof the historical shoreline and critical areas functions and values have been lost as a result ofdevelopment, urbanization and pollution. Tacomas program must protect the little that remains.

6.4.2.B.3 Marine Shoreline and Critical Areas Protection General Regulations7- CHB agrees

with this provision. This consideration will reduce the likelihood that an adjacent property owner willoppose a proposed habitat restoration project on the basis that the project may impede future expansionor update of their operations.

6.4.2.C.4 Marine Shoreline and Critical Areas Protection General Mitigation Requirements Fee-in-Lieu - CHB urges the Planning Commission to amend the current draft language to allow for afee-in-lieu mitigation approach to shoreline habitat restoration but prohibits implementation of such anapproach until a formal fee-in-lieu program has been drafted, reviewed and adopted.

a shoreline location and which, as a general characteristic of the use, provides shoreline recreational and aestheticenjoyment for a substantial number of people. In order to meet the definition of a mixed use facility, the facility must

be designed to protect views to the shoreline, must be open to the general public and must be devoted to the specificaspects of the use that foster shoreline enjoyment.5Commencement Bay Natural Resource Restoration Plan, 1997

6C.A. Simenstad, May 2000

7To avoid penalizing property owners or development proponents wishing to voluntarily restore shoreline conditions

by removing riprap, bulkheads, or other shoreline modifications, and promoting development of natural vegetation, orwhere adjacent property owners may be harmed by mitigation actions that modify or relocate the OHWM, therebyexpanding the critical area or marine shoreline buffer onto adjacent properties, the Land Use Administrator mayapprove a site-specific alternative to the standard buffer on restored shorelines. The buffer alternative shall not createencumbrances on adjoining properties


21/33


The City of Tacoma has not developed the program instrument, established a review team or assigned ageographic services area for the proposed fee-in-lieu program

8. Until these tasks are accomplished and

approved, there is no fee-in-lieu program alternative.

At this time, CHB is reluctant to support a fee-in-lieu or mitigation banking approach to marine shorelineand critical areas protection by the City of Tacoma. A similar fee-in-lieu program for wetland critical areasformerly operated by the City of Tacoma was a dismal failure. Fees collected toward wetland restorationwere insufficient to construct and maintain a wetland project. Fees collected were not tracked and theCity was not able to determine into which account the fees were placed or the total of funds collected. Asa result, Tacoma realized a significant net loss of wetland critical areas over the time the fee-in-lieuprogram was operated.

CHB will re-evaluate its position after reviewing the draft final fee-in-lieu program instrument and willsubmit comments as appropriate.

6.4.2.E. Marine Shoreline and Critical Areas Protection General Mitigation Requirements Sureties - CHB agrees with the section as written and urges the Planning Commission to adopt thissection as written.

6.4.3.B.2 Marine Shoreline and Critical Areas Protection Marine Shorelines Marine

Shoreline Buffers Buffers shall consist of an undisturbed area of native vegetation or areas identifiedfor restoration established to protect the integrity, functions and processes of the shoreline. EPA haspreviously indicated that vegetation in the S-15 Point Ruston shoreline district will not be allowed so asto protect the integrity of the site-wide impermeable cap placed as part of the Superfund remedy.Recommend that this section is edited to exclude the shoreline native vegetation requirement in the S-15shoreline district. Additionally, the same exclusion should be added to Section 9.16 S-15 PointRuston/Slag Peninsula (HI).

Chapter 7 General Use Policies and Regulations

7.4.2.C.1 and 7.4.2.C.2 Commercial Use Regulations 1. Artisan/craftsperson uses must demonstrate that the use is compatible with surrounding uses andprotection of public safety

2. Uses may be permitted to occur outdoors; provided that shoreline permits involving outdoor activitiesmay be reviewed on a five- year basis for ongoing compatibility. Permitted outdoor uses include: usesassociated with permitted indoor use, mobile vendors, and permanent outdoor structures

CHB strongly urges that the Planning Commission reviews the intent and scope of the above items andrecommends amendments to clarify who and when a shoreline permit is required. For example, would avendor with a hot dog cart be required to seek a shoreline permit to do business in the S-8 shorelinedistrict? CHB assumes that the answer to the question would be no, but the statements as written areambiguous enough to allow for uncertainties and inconsistencies.

7.5.3.B.1 Port, Terminal and Industrial Use Regulations Log Rafting and Storage LogRafting and storage shall only be allowed in the S-10 Port Industrial Shoreline District and in thecorresponding portions of the S-13 Waters of the State Shoreline District.

Recommend that this item be amended to allow limited log storage to continue within a small existing logstorage site within the S-11 Marine View Drive Shoreline District and that an addition regulation is addedrequiring that log storage facilities are consistently maintained and repaired to prevent log escapementfrom the storage site.

84.0 Program Concepts, City of Tacoma Shoreline Habitat Fee-in-Lieu Mitigation Plan, ESA Adolfson, Sept. 2010.


22/33


Amending the item would allow limited short-term log storage at the site of an existing long-time lografting and storage area. Although the Port of Tacoma has acquired the site for future habitat mitigationand restoration, the habitat construction timeline has not been established. Until habitat constructionbegins, continued use of the log storage area is an appropriate use and one strongly supported byMarine View Drive residents as the logs help to prevent erosion of the shoreline from strong winterstorms.

Escaped logs can damage shoreline environments and pose potential hazards to property andrecreational boaters.

7.5.3.C.2 Port, Terminal and Industrial Use Regulations S-8 Thea Foss WaterwayShoreline District Existing industrial uses may expand, adapt, repair, replace, or otherwise modify,including changes necessitated by the technological advancements; provided, however, that the usesmay not be expanded beyond the property boundaries currently owned, leased, or operated by theindustrial user at the time of adoption of this Master Plan.Recommend that the item be amended to exclude water-dependent industries located within the S-8shoreline district. The rights of water-dependent industrial operations are protected under the statesSMA. From an environmental perspective CHB notes that the Foss Waterway north of the MurrayMorgan Bridge was far less contaminated that the waterway south of the bridge, indicating that water-dependent heavy industry can operate without polluting the waterway and sediments.

7.6.1.A.10 Recreational Development Policies General Policies Public recreation activitiessuch as fishing, clam digging, swimming, boating, wading

Tacomas goal of fishable, swimmable waters has not been achieved. As a result of wastewater andstormwater discharges, contaminated groundwater, bacteria, sediment contamination and other sourcesof pollution most of Tacomas shoreline reaches are closed to shellfish and crab harvest and consumingbottom fish caught in areas of Commencement Bay is not recommended. Swimming and wading is notadvisable in some shoreline areas, for example along Ruston Way near the point of discharge for theNorth End Wastewater Treatment facility.

Recommend that the City of Tacoma post adequate signage to help educate shoreline users about thelimitations and possibilities for shoreline recreational activities.

Chapter 8 Shoreline Modification Policies and Regulations

8.3.2.B Shoreline Modification Fill and Excavation, Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal Policies - Under the remedial actions for units of the Commencement Bay Superfund problem area,some contaminated sediments were left in place to recover through natural processes or capped withclean material to sequester contaminated sediments from biological receptors. Contaminated soils andgroundwater are located in within the S-10 and S-12 shoreline districts as well as parts of the S-6 andS11 shoreline districts.

To protect the shoreline and aquatic environments from potential recontamination from an accidentalrelease of contaminated materials intentionally left in place as part of the regulatory remedial process,CHB recommends that this section be expanded to require an investigation to determine if contaminated

material were left or capped in place.

8.5.1.1 Ecological Restoration and Enhancement Policies Ecological restoration andenhancement actions are encouraged in all shoreline districts, and are considered to be consistent withall kinds of uses

Most of the habitat restoration work implemented to date is consistent with the landscape scale visionestablished by the Commencement Bay Natural Resource Restoration Plan which emphasized the criticalneed to restore brackish marsh estuarine habitat in the Commencement Bay/Puyallup River Estuary. As


23/33


a result habitat restoration has been focused in the S-7 and S-10 shoreline districts along with siteslocated in the S-8, S-9, S-11 and S-12 shoreline districts. Many of the sites abut heavy industrial or highintensity land uses while combining to afford meaningful continuous reaches of nearshore habitat.Although important to restoring the functions and values of the Commencement Bay/Puyallup RiverEstuary future efforts to restoring habitat consistent with the Commencement Bay Natural ResourceRestoration Plan could be hampered by concerns that the presence of a successful habitat restorationsite would result in down-grading parts of an industrial or high intensity shoreline district to a lessintensive use.

Recommend that the Policy statement be expanded to state that High intensity and industrial shorelinedistricts will not be downgraded to a less intensive use as the result of implementing anecologicalrestoration and enhancement project.

8.5.1.3 Ecological Restoration and Enhancement Policies Ecological restoration andenhancement actions should be focused on sites with low possibilities of contamination.

The above policy as stated is inconsistent with the history of development and use in much of Tacomasshoreline environment where many upland and nearshore areas have been contaminated although not allcontamination has been documented to date. If implemented, this policy could exclude habitat restorationand enhancement projects in the S-1, S-5, S-6, S-7, S-8, S-9, S-10, S-11, S-12, S-14 and S-15 shoreline

districts as the risk of contamination does exist.

Recommend that the policy statement be appropriately edited or removed.

8.5.2.1 Ecological Restoration and Enhancement Regulations Ecological restoration andenhancement shall be approached on a watershed basis and shall seek to promote and ecosystem orlandscape approach

Recommend that the above regulation be expanded to require the project proponent to adequatelydemonstrate that a proposed restoration or enhancement project is scientifically sound.

Recommend that the regulation be further expanded to require that the design, functions and processesof a new project will be consistent with the design, functions and processes of existing habitat sites

adjacent to or reasonably near the proposed site.

Chapter 9 District-Specific Regulations

9.1 District-specific regulations S-1A Western Slope South (HI) The City intends to divide theS-1 Shoreline District into two distinct areas: S-1A high intensity and S-1B shoreline residential. Dividingthe S-1 shoreline district is consistent with the purpose

9, designation criteria

10and rationale

11used by the

9The purpose of the "high-intensity" environment is to provide for high-intensity water-oriented commercial,transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions inareas that have been previously degraded.10The High Intensity shoreline area is applied to shoreline areas zoned for commercial, industrial and urban density

residential, if they: Are currently characterized by high intensity development and/or uses; are designated by the Comprehensive

Plan for high intensity uses or intensive uses related to commerce, transportation or navigation; or are suitableand planned for high intensity mixed-use; and

Do not contain limitations to urban use such as geologic hazards, and have adequate utilities and access; and

Do not provide important ecological functions that would be significantly compromised by high intensityresidential, commercial, or industrial use.

11These areas are characterized by high intensity land uses, including water-dependent commercial and/or Port

facilities and mixed-use development; a lack of existing vegetation and intact critical areas; as well as highly modifiedand armored shorelines. The High Intensity designation applies where there would not be a conflict with adjacent land


24/33


City evaluate the shoreline environmental designation for the proposed S-1A Western Slope South (HI)shoreline district.

Similarly, the City used the same purpose, designation criteria and rationale and has proposed that theslag peninsula and site of the former Asarco Smelter be designated as the S-15 Point Ruston (HI)shoreline district. Currently these areas are respectively located in S-5 and S-6 shoreline districts. In thecase of Point Ruston, this shoreline district was assigned a new number; it was not named the S5A or S-6A shoreline district.For the purposes of consistency, it is recommended that the proposed S-1a district is renamed as the S-16 Western Slope South High-Intensity district and the Shoreline Residential environment is designatedas S-1 Western Slope (SR).

9.2 S-1B Western Slope South (SR) As discussed above, it is recommended is designated as S-1Western Slope (SR).

9.3 S-2 Western Slope Central (UC) The designation is consistent with the purpose, designationcriteria and rational used by the City to evaluate the shoreline environmental designation.

9.4 S-3 Western Slope Central (UC) The designation is consistent with the purpose, designationcriteria and rational used by the City to evaluate the shoreline environmental designation.

9.5 S-4 Point Defiance Natural (N) The designation is consistent with the purpose, designationcriteria and rational used by the City to evaluate the shoreline environmental designation.

9.6 S-5 Point Defiance Conservancy (UC) The designation is consistent with the purpose,designation criteria and rational used by the City to evaluate the shoreline environmental designation.

9.7 S-6 Ruston Way (UC) Extending the S-6 boundary line to the southeastern most boundary of theSperry Ocean Dock property is inconsistent with the purpose

12, designation criteria

13and rational

14used by

the City to evaluate the Urban Conservancy shoreline environmental designation. Extending the UrbanConservancy designation as proposed conflicts with another core value of the SMA to protect the rights ofnavigation space necessary for port operations and other water-dependent business and industry as theeconomic benefit derived from these are also of public benefit and need to be preserved.

uses, where utilities and infrastructure are sufficient to support the high intensity land uses, and/or whereredevelopment activities are planned or occurring.12

The urban conservancy environment is intended to protect and restore the public benefits and ecologicalfunctions of open space, natural areas and other sensitive lands where they exist within the CityIt is the mostsuitable designation for shoreline areas that possess a specific resource or value that can be protected withoutexcluding or severely restricting all other uses13

The Urban Conservancy environment is applied to shoreline areas where any of the following characteristics apply:

They are suitable for water-related or water-enjoyment uses;

They are open space, flood plain or other critical area that should not be more intensively developed;

They have potential for ecological restoration and opportunities for restoration should be pursued, prioritizingthose areas with the greatest potential for restoration of ecological functions;

They support or retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed; or

They have the potential for development at an intensity and character that is compatible with preserving andrestoring ecological functions. They are generally not designated for high intensity residential use, commercialuse, or industrial use in the Comprehensive Plan.

They include outstanding recreational or scenic values that should be protected from incompatible development.14

These areas are characterized by some or all of the following: preserved areas of open space that support publicaccess and recreation, water-related uses and water-enjoyment uses; a land use pattern that affords the opportunityfor ecological restoration; contain or are located in areas with substantial, intact critical areas; and/or include culturaland historic resources that should be preserved for continued public access.


25/33


By its decision to site the Tahoma Salt Marsh and Chinese Reconciliation Park within the S-7 SchusterParkway high intensity shoreline, the City of Tacoma tacitly acknowledged that the habitat restoration siteand public park were not in conflict with the existing land use and operations of the BNSF rail line andSperry Ocean Dock. In fact, it would have been entirely appropriate for both property owners to appealthe Citys proposed projects as unsuitable for the existing shoreline environmental designation at the timethe projects were permitted.

Placing the Tahoma Salt Marsh within the S-7 high intensity shoreline district is appropriate andconsistent with the policies and regulations of the draft SMP as stated in Section 8.5.1.1

15. As CHB

notes in its comments to that section most successful restoration projects undertaken in CommencementBay have been sited within the S-8, S-9 and S-10 shoreline districts.

Shorelines south of the Tahoma Salt marsh are characterized by steep, rip rapped banks and little to novegetation. The BNSF and associated right of way hugs the shoreline edge. Figures 1, 2 and 3 attachedillustrate current shoreline conditions along the reach that extends from Tahoma Salt Marsh to the mouthof Thea Foss Waterway.

A further analysis of this shoreline segment is presented as part of the situation analysis16

is attached forfurther review and consideration.

9.8 S-7 Schuster Parkway (HI) Except as discussed in Section 9.7 above, the designation isconsistent with the purpose, designation criteria and rational used by the City to evaluate the shorelineenvironmental designation. The S-7 Schuster Parkway (HI) shoreline environment is dominated by theBNSF rail line and Schuster Parkway. Public access within this shoreline district is limited to the sidewalkalong Schuster Parkway and the former Bayside Trail. No opportunities for shoreline edge public accessexist.

9.9 S-8 Thea Foss Waterway (DW) In general, the designation is consistent with the purpose,designation criteria and rational used by the City to evaluate the shoreline environmental designation withthe exception of the Nu Star facil ity located at the mouth of the waterway. The area of the operationcurrently located in the S-10 shoreline district has been moved to the S-8 shoreline district. Thisboundary change is inconsistent with the purpose, designation criteria and rational used by the City.

9.10 S-9 Puyallup River (UC) The designation is consistent with the purpose, designation criteria andrational used by the City to evaluate the shoreline environmental designation.

9.11 S-10 Port Industrial Area (HI) The designation is consistent with the purpose, designationcriteria and rational used by the City to evaluate the shoreline environmental designation.

9.12 S-11 Marine View Drive (UC) The designation is consistent with the purpose, designation criteriaand rational used by the City to evaluate the shoreline environmental designation.

9.13 S-12 Hylebos Creek (N) The designation is consistent with the purpose, designation criteria andrational used by the City to evaluate the shoreline environmental designation.

9.14 S-13 Waters of the State (A) The designation is consistent with the purpose, designation criteria

and rational used by the City to evaluate the shoreline environmental designation.

9.15 S-14 Wapato Lake (UC) The designation is consistent with the purpose, designation criteria andrational used by the City to evaluate the shoreline environmental designation.

15Ecological restoration and enhancement actions are encouraged in all shoreline districts, and are considered to be

consistent with all kinds of uses16

Situation Analysis Commencement Bay, Citizens for a Healthy Bay, April 2011


26/33


9.16 S-15 Point Ruston / Slag Peninsula (HI) The designation is consistent with the purpose,designation criteria and rational used by the City to evaluate the shoreline environmental designation. TheS-15 shoreline district is part of the Asarco Smelter Superfund problem site and is under the oversight ofthe US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Development in the S-15 shoreline district must beconsistent with the site wide 10

-7impermeable cap Superfund remedy. Site operations and maintenance

must protect the site remedy and remains under EPA oversight in perpetuity. The purpose of the S-15shoreline district must be expanded to include protect the integrity of the site wide cap Superfundremedy and consistent with EPA directives.

Chapter 10 DefinitionsNo comments or recommendations.


27/33

BNSF tracks and right-of-way alongSchuster Parkway precludeshoreline public access. Uplandslandward of OHWM insufficient tosupport public access facilities.Public access limited to oppositeside of Schuster Parkwa .

Figure 1


28/33

Preferred southern-most boundar for S-6

Existing access to Chinese Reconciliation Parkunder Schuster Parkwa

The Tahoma Salt marsh is a naturalresources habitat restoration site. It isnot intended as a park or recreationaluse. Public access is not a priority use.

Figure 2


29/33

Figure 3

The location of the Tahoma Saltmarsh natural resources habitatrestoration site does not automaticallydictate designation as UrbanConservancy. Most of

Commencement Bays habitatrestoration sites are sited in highintensity shoreline environmentaldesignation areas.

5.5.4.A Purpose: The urbanconservancy environment is intendedto protect and restore the publicbenefits and ecological functions ofopen space, natural areas andother sensitive lands where theyexist within the City It should beapplied to those areas that would

most benefit the public if their existingcharacter is maintained

This site, proposed for designation as S-6 UrbanConservancy, is clearly outside the statedpurpose and designation criteria as defined in

section 5.5.4 of the draft SMP. As part of ashoreline permit for which the owner has alreadyapplied, the owner proposes to voluntarily restorehabitat on the shoreline as part of this project.


30/33

Situation Analysis Commencement BayCitizens for a Healthy Bay

This paper discusses the issues and actions taken by Citizens for a Healthy Bay (CHB) in answerto community concerns regarding the Sperry Ocean Dock.

The Sperry Ocean Dock is located along Schuster Parkway on the southern shore of CommencementBay and has been used for water-dependent purposes since 1890. Since 1986, two MARAD ReadyReserve vessels have been berthed at the dock. The ships are used for on-board military trainingexercises, but infrequently leave the berthing dock. Since 2007, Sperry Ocean Dock and the ReadyReserve vessels have become subject to increased scrutiny by neighborhood members whose homesoverlook the site.

Community concerns about the dock and its operations are best characterized as:

The potential for adverse impacts to the environment due to dock operations and the 2 MARAD shipsanchored at the dock.

Light and noise impacts, as well as loss of aesthetic values created by the presence of the shipsanchored at the dock.

Loss of public access opportunities created by the continued operation of the dock facility. Permitting for dock replacement.

The proposed designation and future operations on the Sperry Dock property under Tacomas currentShoreline Master Plan (SMP) update.

POTENTIAL FOR ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTCalls into CHBs Pollution Hotline have been received from local community members reporting suspectedpollution to Commencement Bay and the area surrounding Sperry Ocean Dock through dock operations andvessel maintenance.

CHBs Pollution Hotline was activated in 2000 in cooperation with the City of Tacoma. Concerned citizens whoobserve activities or conditions that are likely to pollute surface waters can report the problem to CHB staff withthe assurance that the appropriate resources will be called upon to resolve the issue. CHB staff and volunteers

recognize that the eyes of concerned citizens are the most important weapon against illegal pollution and that itsPollution Hotline is an important resource to the Bay Patrol.

The Schuster Parkway/Ruston Way shoreline has been a part of CHBs on the water patrol since 2000. A reviewof patrol records show that CHBs Bay Patrol did not directly observe instances of possible environmentalinfractions due to dock operations.

The CHB office was contacted by a member of the Stadium Way neighborhood in late 2007 who was concernedby soot from diesel emissions that he reported had originated from one of the ships. CHB staff examined thephotos supplied by community members and discussed the problem at length with the reporting individual. CHBstaff supplied the reporting individual with contact points and described how to properly document subsequentevents for agencies. CHB staff notified environmental staff at the City of Tacoma as well as the Dept. of Ecologyand Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. Staff invited the reporting individual to share CHBs contact information withhis neighbors and other concerned parties and to report suspected pollution to CHB with a promise that staff

would assist as possible for a positive resolution to the problem.

Since the time of the initial contact, CHB has received several reports of suspected air and/or water pollutionoriginating from the ships. For each report, CHBs Bay Patrol responded immediately to view the site from thewater and to document any observed problems. The Bay Patrol Director then contacted the reporting individualwith the results of his investigation and described what further response actions CHB staff would take. The BayPatrol Director followed up with the City of Tacoma and Dept. of Ecology for further investigation. At that time,Ecology notified CHB that, as the ships were federal, EPA had to take the lead for investigating environmentalproblems emanating from the ships. CHBs Bay Patrol Director helped to coordinate the responding agencies


31/33

Page 2SITUATION ANALYSISCOMMENCEMENT BAYCITIZENS FOR A HEALTHY BAYAPRIL 2011

and kept the reporting individual informed. Investigations conducted by the Agencies in response to thesepollution reports could not substantiate the reported violations; nonetheless the Sperry Ocean Dock facility andthe Ready Reserve ships were reminded that they were required to comply with all environmental regulationsand best management practices.

CHB continues to closely monitor ship and dock operations for evidence of suspected pollution. We deeplyappreciate the communitys commitment to protect our air, water and land from the harmful effects of pollutionand will continue to work with them in this regard.

LIGHT AND NOISE IMPACTS, AS WELL AS LOSS OF AESTHETIC VALUES CREATED BY THE PRESENCE OF THE SHIPSANCHORED AT THE DOCK.CHB staff appreciates the neighborhoods complaints regarding light and noise pollution created by the ships.CHB has responded to similar complaints received from members of the Northeast Tacoma community who liveuphill from industrial operations along the Hylebos Waterway. During the Superfund action to removecontaminated sediments from the Hylebos waterway, CHB responded to an especially high number of complaintsreceived because of the night-time dredging operation. CHB worked collaboratively with the project managersand community to produce an action plan that would minimize light and noise impacts to the neighborhood above.

Representatives from the Stadium Way neighborhood first communicated ship light and noise impacts to CHB inearly 2008. A large part of the problem was the fact that although the City of Tacoma had ordinances on the

books that regulated these issues, the City did not enforce the ordinances. Neighborhood representatives hadfiled complaints to the City without apparent results. CHB staff made inquiries to City staff contacts andcouncilmembers seeking advice and direction as to how the light and noise problems could be resolved. The Cityfollowed up with neighborhood members, the ships and Sperry Ocean Dock and the issue was resolved in favorof the neighborhood.

The CHB office has not received any further complaints about light and noise problems from the dock operationand assumes that the dock and ships are complying with appropriate City ordinances.

CHB agrees that the views from Tacomas Commencement Bay shoreline are some of the best in Puget Sound.CHB acknowledges concerns expressed by some members of the Stadium Way neighborhood that the ships ruinthe view from their homes. The challenge is the fact that there is no objective evaluation metric as aesthetics areperceptual. As such, there is no single standard by which CHB can evaluate the aesthetics of the dock operation

and the ships anchored there. What neighborhood members perceive as unsightly is viewed by others to bewelcome evidence of economic stability and jobs both of which are equally weighted under the ShorelineManagement Act (SMA).

DOCK OPERATIONS ELIMINATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESSThe right of the general public to reach, touch and enjoy the waters edge, to travel on the waters of the state, andto view the water and shoreline from adjacent locations is one of the core values stated in the states SMA. CHBpolicies and actions strongly support the right of public access to shorelines of the state to the fullest extentpracticable and have perpetually supplied comments to the City of Tacoma in support of shoreline public access.

Another core value of the SMA is to protect the rights of navigation space necessary for port operations and otherwater-dependent business and industry as the economic benefit derived from these are also of public benefit andneed to be preserved.

Both core values are equally weighted and one value does not necessarily trump the other. The SMA requiresthe City of Tacoma to adopt a shoreline plan that balances these core values as well as protecting ecologicalfunctions and values.

Physical public access to the shoreline adjacent to Schuster Parkway, including the Sperry Ocean Dock isrestricted because of the BNSF Railroad right of way that borders the shoreline from downtown Tacoma to theRuston Way/North 30

thStreet overpass. If the Sperry Dock were to shut down site operations, public access to


32/33

Page 3SITUATION ANALYSISCOMMENCEMENT BAYCITIZENS FOR A HEALTHY BAYAPRIL 2011

the property would still be denied as it is unlikely that BNSF would approve any type of public access trail orfacility within this section of its right of way due to safety and security issues.

PERMITTING FOR DOCK REPLACEMENTCHB staff and members of the volunteer Policy/Technical Committee carefully reviewed and analyzed theoriginal permit application submitted by Sperry Ocean Dock in 2007 and evaluated the possible adverseenvironmental impacts of the proposed project. Given the dilapidated condition of the existing dock, therewas no question that the structure needed to be replaced.

CHBs analysis of the original permit application and proposed demolition and construction plansindicated that, as proposed, the project would result in a positive net benefit to the shoreline and intertidalareas by:

Removing approximately 1,700 creosote treated wood pilings to be replaced by approximately 200cement-filled steel pilings.

Replacing the existing treated-wood structure with a concrete structure that would reduce thelikelihood of wood debris and other materials to pollute the water and sediments below the dock.

Reducing the over-water footprint of the structure by 22,364 ft2 thereby substantially reducing theimpervious surface of the original structure.

Incorporating a grated catwalk into the structure to further reduce over-water shading impacts of the

new structure. Removing accumulated debris under and around the existing structure. Additionally, although not mandated, the property owner intended to restore the shoreline area to a

more natural condition to compliment the adjacent Tahoma Salt Marsh NRDA Restoration site.

In response to the Citys public notice, CHB provided written comments to the project permit applicationsSHR2007-40000098728 and SEP40000098727 in November 2007. Citing the reasons described above,CHB did not oppose the proposed project. CHBs comments to the City specifically noted that manymembers of the nearby Stadium Way neighborhood had previously expressed a number of concernsabout noise, diesel emissions and light from the vessels anchored at the dock. CHB staff and volunteersrecognized that, as a result of the neighborhoods experiences they were understandably concerned atthe prospect that the rebuilt dock would accommodate berthing for 2 additional ships. Furthermore, westated that CHB does not take these concerns lightly and strongly urged the City and Mr. Coy to work

with the neighborhood to reduce the impact of the ships activities to the surrounding neighborhood.

Subsequent to a series of appeals, discussions and negotiations, Sperry Ocean Dock submitted anamended permit application to the City in 2009. Although the proposed amended project would improvethe condition of the existing dock and its impact on the nearshore environment, the greater netenvironmental gains and performance of the project that was initially proposed were lost.

The Sperry Ocean Docks operations and facility predates all plans and visions developed by the City of Tacomafor that reach of Tacomas shoreline and are thereby grandfathered as an existing use. For this reason, CHB hasnot contested whether or not the dock is a suitable land use for that particular shoreline reach.

CHB staff continues to monitor the permit process and respond appropriately.

THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION AND FUTURE OPERATIONS ON THE SPERRY DOCK PROPERTY UNDER TACOMAS CURRENTSHORELINE MASTER PLAN (SMP) UPDATE.CHB has generally supported the Citys original determination to include the Sperry Ocean Dock property withinthe S-7 shoreline designation permitting industrial operations as an allowed use of the shoreline. CHBs positionwas founded on the following factors:

The Sperry Ocean Dock and TEMPCO facilities are water-dependent industrial operations. As withother water dependent businesses and industries, the rights of these operations to continue isprotected under the states SMA.


33/33

The BNSF right of way and heavy rail traffic precludes any public access opportunities to theshoreline from downtown Tacoma to the Ruston Way/North 30

thStreet overpass.

The deep water directly away from the shoreline between Sperry Dock and Tempco providesnavigational accessibility for maritime operations. The SMA prioritizes harbor areas and other areasthat have reasonable commercial navigational accessibility. Additional priority under SMA is given tosupport facilities, such as transportation and utilities are important components of Port and harbor

areas that should be reserved for water-dependent and water-related uses associated withcommercial navigation

Property ownership and/or existing land use does not automatically convey the appropriate shorelineenvironmental designation. Under the SMA, the Citys SMP must contain a system to classifyshoreline areas into specific environmental designations based on the existing use pattern, thebiological and physical character of the shoreline, and the goals and aspirations of the community.After evaluating all the factors, CHB determined that it was appropriate that the City include theSperry Dock property into the S-7 shoreline designation because of the water-dependent nature ofthe operation and the physical character of the shoreline.

final composite written comments tsmp

Documents