You are on page 1of 20

Shoreline Master Program Update

Review of Public Comments
City of Tacoma Planning Commission July 6, 2011

Topics
► Public

Access ► Critical Areas and No Net Loss

Public Access
Comments

► Nexus

and Proportionality ► Incompatibilities ► Fee in lieu ► Bayside Trails

Incompatibilities

On-site
Waiver criteria can take into account incompatibilities with on-site uses, structures, and operations

Adjacent Uses
New access is required to accommodate existing water-dependent uses Waiver criteria can account for incompatibility with adjacent uses

Port area
Access is preferred on-site in current draft but the PAAL identifies only minor access projects in the S-10 Port property largely within the S-10, Port would need ability to provide access in this area

Planned Access

Public Access Fund
Comments

► Support

for FIL when on-site access cannot be accommodated ► Needs clarification ► Fee should be 5% of project cost ► Must demonstrate nexus and proportionality

Schuster Parkway
Public Access Alternatives

Schuster Parkway
Public Access Alternatives

Bayside Trail
Provide more natural alternative Community concerns over safety, security Some disagreement over what segments can/should be re-opened and to what standard Costs associated with slope stability and vegetation management, environmental permitting and mitigation Would provide more direct water access Limited new development that might trigger this requirement Land supply constraints Overwater structures unlikely to be permitted due to impacts, very costly

Waterfront Esplanade

Schuster Parkway Multi-Modal Trail

Flyovers/Pedestrian Connections

Would improve safety and aesthetic, make existing sidewalk more amenable to different users Would require ‘road diet’ and slope stability measures Appears to be a lot of public support for this

Public Access
Policy Questions
► ►

Should Bayside Trails remain an option for off-site access mitigation? Should the draft retain multiple options for access improvements along Schuster Parkway or prioritize one project? Should on-site access be preferred in all circumstances or should preferences align more closely with the planned projects identified in the PAAL? When should public access fund contribution be an option? Other areas of concern for the Commission?

► ►

Critical Areas Integration
Background
► Critical

areas in shoreline jurisdiction should be regulated under SMA/SMP
Retroaction

► Standard

was equivalency

How to achieve equal protection while still accommodating the priority uses under SMA
► Legislature

clarified intent was for integration to take place upon an updated master program
Standard changed from ‘equivalency’ to no net loss

Protection of Ecological Functions
WAC 173-26-201(2) (c)
Environment designations with appropriate use and development standards, and Provisions to address the impacts of specific common shoreline uses, development activities and modification actions, and Provisions for the protection of critical areas within the shoreline, and Provisions for mitigation measures and methods to address unanticipated impacts.

Accommodate Priority Uses
WAC 173-26-201(2) (d)
► ► ► ►

Reserve shoreline areas for protection and restoration of ecological functions Reserve shoreline areas for water-dependent and related uses Reserve shoreline areas for other water-related and waterenjoyment uses Limit non-water-oriented uses to locations where other uses are infeasible or when they contribute to the objectives of the SMA.

One Set of Comments:
► ► ► ►

Marine waters are not critical areas in and of themselves There are no critical areas present in ‘X’ location [Hylebos Waterway, already developed areas] Best Available Science is not the standard under SMA Standard in shorelines is no net loss, not ‘equivalency’
Critical areas standards have been wholesale cut and pasted into SMP Do not apply buffer standards to water-dependent uses

Marine Buffer Standards
Connecting the Dots
► ► ► ► ► ►

Perform an avoidance and minimization function for all use and development within the shoreline Threshold for information for critical areas submittal requirements Threshold is takes into account existing functions and critical areas as well as use pattern Protects ecosystem-wide processes and functions Meet cumulative impact requirements City-wide Reserves shoreline area frontage for priority uses
Water-dependent uses Restoration Public Access

Summary

The SMP has been revised to achieve consistency with SMA and WAC Guidelines:
Building no net loss and mitigation into the structure of the SMP Integrating critical areas standards Accommodating priority uses Reserving shoreline areas for priority uses, including restoration Reflect the existing ecological functions and development patterns

Second Set of Comments:

► ► ► ►

Administrative marine buffer reductions for non-waterdependent and public access uses are very liberal – DOE typically only allows a 25% reduction without a shoreline variance (DOE) Do not allow buffer reduction for water-enjoyment uses (Futurewise) Buffers should be intact in order to perform the avoidance and minimization functions (Futurewise) Wetland buffers should be bigger (Futurewise) West slope and Marine View Drive should have 200’ buffers, designate areas ‘Natural’ (Futurewise)

S-3 Western Slope North Urban-Conservancy
► ► ► ►

Existing and proposed 200’ buffer Steep slopes and geologically hazardous critical areas Marine riparian vegetation Active feeder bluffs

Salmon Beach ► Railroad ► Public access proposed via trail system along slopes

Habitat Sites

Recommendations
Connecting all the dots
► ► ► ►

Designate S-3 Western Slope South ‘Natural’ while providing recognition of existing uses in the District intent No buffer reduction for areas designated ‘Natural’ Utilize a maximum buffer reduction of 25% for Shoreline Residential and Urban-Conservancy areas Allow up to 50% administrative buffer reduction in High Intensity and Downtown Waterfront designations
Maintains the proposed ‘bottom line’ setback from OHWM

► ►

Additional buffer reduction requires a shoreline variance Add district policy language regarding NRDA sites and other habitat restoration sites