Stephen Atkinson City of Tacoma Community and Economic Development 747 Market Street 10th fl Tacoma, WA 98402
Dear Mr. Atkinson: I am writing regarding the SMP update draft as a citizen and a neighbor who is impacted by shoreline uses. I appreciate the work the City has done in trying to draw out input and feedback to the SMP update. As I read through the SMP draft, I found numerous troubling concerns that involved negative impacts to adjacent uses and public access. These are impacts that will negative impact Tacoma generations for years to come with regard to livability and economically viability. Please find comments and formal request for changes to the SMP draft in order to bring the SMP update more in line with the goals and aspirations of Tacoma citizens. If you have questions regarding some of my comments and suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Rick Rose [email protected] 253-227-9307 mobile
Bring my 2007 S-7 amendment application into the SMP update analysis:
I had submitted an amendment application to City Code that requested a change to the S-7 shoreline district on 12/31/07 and it can be found on the City‟s website, however, there was neither mention of this amendment application within the SMP draft nor a mention of the concepts within the amendment application. This was an amendment application that went before the Planning Commission and who commented on its salient points and the need for the application to be addressed immediately. The Planning Division pushed back that they needed to do the SMP update first. Why were this amendment application and its desire to address the festering issues within the S-7 not even addressed? This amendment application spelled out the on-going issues with the negative impact and non-conformance of industrial uses with the adjacent residential neighborhood and it contained the goals and aspirations of Tacoma‟s desire for greater public access to the shoreline. I am requesting this amendment application be brought back into the forefront, addressed as part of the SMP update, and not shelved into some back room. At the time application, the organization Walk the Waterfront had collected greater than 400 petitions in favor of a walkable waterfront free of polluting industrial users. With close to a thousand signatures, it reflects the Tacoma‟s population desiring a change within the S-7 – remove industrial designation and greater public access. If you are unable to find this amendment application, please find it attached to this email – „Description of the proposed shoreline amendment.doc‟.
Include all citizens’ comments and news articles:
It is widely known within the City and among its citizens, there have been an ongoing and growing list of issues dealing with direct industrial impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood. These issues fall into pollution categories of air, water, noise, light, and bulk. The adjacent neighborhood has continually put up with affronts from industrial users over the years and is fed up – no angry as hell. Where is the City in protecting the residents, students and park users as required by City Code? Top at the list of issues is the lack of jurisdiction the City and State of Washington has over vessels or other floating structures not physically attached to an S-7 site coupled with a property owner who continually says he cannot control his tenant who is polluting. Bottom-line, the property owner and their tenant are not absorbing the pollution costs, but it is the adjacent historical neighborhood, schools, parks, and Commencement Bay who absorbing these costs shed from the industrial zone. I am formally requesting the City of Tacoma add into the Shoreline Master Program Update the hundreds of written
and verbal public comments and newspaper articles concerning industrial impact on the residential neighborhood,
schools, and parks from the 1988 Sperry Ocean Dock permit application, the 2007 Sperry permit application, the
2008 code violation, the 2008 Sperry modified permit application, and the 2010 appeal hearing regarding the Sperry
permit. I, also, want the City of Tacoma’s position on the industrial impact and the need for public access from the
1988 permit added into the SMP update. These numerous public comments are a critical exhibit to show to the
Planning Division, the Planning Commission, the Tacoma City Council, and the Washington State Department of
Ecology the disturbing and nagging issues and environmental abuses caused by the S-7 being zoned light industrial
and a water terminal and their negative impact with the lack of jurisdiction to enforce City and State
regulations. These comments in opposition to the expansion to add new mooring dolphins and 18,400 square feet of
overwater parking lot without a current environmental impact study at Sperry Ocean Dock are in the City of
Tacoma’s possession within the Building and Land Use Department.
It is no longer appropriate to zone the area between the McCarver/Ruston Way intersection and Thea's Park as light
industrial. It is an outrage to reclassify it as High Intensity as the SMP draft has printed. This shoreline area below
Stadium High School and Garfield Gulch should be given the protections of Ruston Way Urban Conservancy S-6. It
is time to stop the abuses to our environment, families, school children, pets, gardens and parks.The "light industry"
at Sperry Ocean Dock has polluted the 100 year old Stadium-Seminary historic neighborhood, Old Town
neighborhood, schools, and parks with acid rain for the past 20 years. The SMP should protect Tacoma citizens, the
shoreline and the nearshore aquatic life. No more moorage of marine vessels of any kind should be allowed within
2,000 feet of homes or parks. Read the two file boxes of letters, articles, phone messages and emails from the
citizens of Tacoma!!!
Additions/Deletions/Changes requested to the SMP:
(Delete) 6.1.1.3. “Adequate space should be reserved on shorelines to meet the current and projected demand for water-dependent uses.” (Change to:) 6.1.1.3 “Adequate space should be reserved on shorelines to meet the current and projected business and populations demand for water-dependent and water-enjoyment uses.”
In light of the language in the proposed SMP Shoreline Use Policy 6.1.1.3 (Adequate space should be reserved on shorelines to meet the current and projected demand for water-dependent uses.) coupled with the facts of 1) the current Port of Tacoma shipping volume is down year over year, 2) they have lost business to Seattle, 3) the Port in Prince Rupert, BC is coming on line to compete with Puget Sound shipping business, and 4) the probable negative shipping impact on west coast ports as the result of the Panama Canal widening and upgrade project, there is no logical projected demand for water-dependent use in Tacoma and no logical explanation for the S-7 to be locked down into a designation “High Intensity - Deep water moorage and industrial”. In a 2005 “Puget Sound Shoreline Strategy” study conducted by Trust for Public Land concluded:
The population of 6 of the 12 counties in the Puget Sound region is forecasted to at least double over the next 20 years. Such population projections will have profound impacts on the intensity and distribution of development and the overall livability and quality of life of communities throughout the region.
The waters and shorelines of Puget Sound have an enormous economic impact throughout the region and state. The sound supports some of the state‟s largest industries including commerce and trade; tourism; and subsistence, recreational, and commercial fisheries. Public access to shorelines and waterways is a critical component of the economic success of these industries. Case in point: 80 percent of the state‟s tourism revenues are from the Puget Sound region; this figure has doubled over the last 20 years, coupled by a 50 percent increase in touristdependent jobs.
It is evident that a change in the shoreline designation from S-7 to S-6 in the Schuster corridor will have a profound positive financial impact on the City of Tacoma and the Puget Sound region.
(Delete) 6.2 Site Planning All references to “shoreline uses and developments”.
(Change to) 6.2 Site Planning “All shoreline uses, developments, and attached in-water structures”.
(Add definition) Attached in-water structures can be defined as piers, docks, and vessels permanently fixed to shore or temporarily attached via lines, cables, power lines, sewer lines, chains, etc for a period greater than 30 days.
From all the public comments found in the Sperry Ocean Dock permit application files, it is evident the City of Tacoma does not have any jurisdiction over in-water structures and facilities. The above language will give the City of Tacoma teeth for regulating long term in-water structures with regard to height, setbacks, view corridors, light emissions, noise, critical areas impact etc. To date, the Building and Land Use Department has shown it examines only the fixed structure to be developed and not the impact of the long term intended use with regard to height, setbacks, etc of a structure floated to the site and “attached”. If this change cannot be added, then the intended use of the S-7 should not be Industrial so as to reduce the incompatible impact to the adjacent residential land use.
(Delete) 7.5.2.B. 1 “Water-dependent port, terminal, and industrial uses shall have shoreline location priority over all other uses in the S-7 and S-10 Shoreline Districts.”
(Change to) 7.5.2.B. 1 “Water-dependent port, terminal, and industrial uses shall have shoreline location priority over all other uses in the S-10 Shoreline Districts.”
Water-dependent port, terminal, and industrial uses need to be limited to the S-10 district (Port of Tacoma) so as to minimize the negative impact from water-dependent port, terminal, and industrial uses in the S-7 on immediately adjacent R-2 with no adequate buffer for air, light, and noise pollution. It is an outrage to reclassify it as High Intensity as the SMP draft has printed. This
shoreline area below Stadium High School and Garfield Gulch should be given the protections of Ruston
Way Urban Conservancy S-6 with water-related uses. (Delete) 9.7 B (S-6 Ruston Way) District Boundary Description. The S-6 Shoreline District boundary extends from the centerline of N 49th Street to the boundary between the Chinese Reconciliation Park and Tahoma Salt Marsh, including only those areas upland to the westernmost extent of the Ruston Way right of way or upland within 200‟ of the OWHM, and excluding the Sperry Ocean Dock access road. (Change to) 9.7 B (S-6 Ruston Way/Schuster) District Boundary Description. “The S-6 Shoreline District boundary extends from the centerline of N 49th Street to the northernmost extent of Thea‟s Park, including those areas upland within 200‟ of the OHWM and the entirety of the Sperry Ocean Dock access road.
It is clearly evident from the redistricting of the S-6 shoreline district to include the Chinese Reconciliation Park, but not to include the Tahoma Salt Marsh that the City realizes the negative industrial impact of the Sperry industrial site through designating the Tahoma Salt Marsh a buffer to the S-6 district. However, the City does not give the neighborhood, schools, and parks, in the adjacent residential R-2 district a buffer to mitigate the pollution from the S-7 industrial activities. The nut of the matter is that the industrial uses within the S-7 are nonconforming to adjacent lands – the R2 residential neighborhood with schools and parks. A recent affront to the neighborhood made the front page of the September 18, 2010 issue of “The News Tribune”, which described the acid rain and particulate matter coating homes and vehicles. (http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/09/18/1346249/mystery-debris-flusters-stadium.html#disqus_thread) I personally had debris on my vehicle, home, and vegetables. There were no apologies from the dock owner or MARAD. No assistance with clean up. The toxic fallout went into the City‟s storm sewer system and then on into Commencement Bay. This is a clear example of the incompatible and prohibited land uses. On September 21
st, Tacoma City Manager sent a letter (attached) to the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources requesting DNR not renew the aquatics lease with Sperry Ocean Dock. Anderson cited recent and historical air pollution and noise violation impacts on the
adjacent neighborhood. Again, this is more evidence of incompatible uses in the S-7 with the adjacent historical neighborhood. If the City of Tacoma does not have direct jurisdiction over industrial activities within the S-7, then the designation of High Intensity and to allow development of deep water terminal and light industrial facilities is incorrect and needs to be changed to one compatible to the adjacent land uses Due to the physical nature of the Schuster corridor with the R-2 situated above the S-7, a few hundred yard buffer is inadequate to mitigate the pollution damage cast on the R-2. A change of the S-6 district to include the S-7 district and to encompass the rules and regulations of the S-6 will provide the mitigated relief for the adjacent R-2 district. A review of the topology of the S-7 district indicates there is little or no space to have an industrial/shipping facility and its ingress and egress of vehicles into an active shipping facility. The labeling an area as industrial because it contains deep water makes no logical sense. If one were to use the same logic, the whole Commencement Bay shoreline from the Thea Foss Waterway to and including Point Defiance should be designated as deep water moorage and industrial. If you look at the fact the former Asarco site contains more upland space for an industrial site, why not re-claim the Asarco site as deep-water moorage and industrial like it formerly was. Coupled with the incompatible uses with adjacent lands, the goals and aspirations of Tacoma citizens for over 50 years have been for a walkway along our Tacoma‟s waterfront to Point Defiance. In 1988, the City Club of Tacoma displayed the goals and aspirations of Tacoman‟s again for having a waterfront walkway from the Tacoma Dome to Point Defiance. In 2008, a grassroots organization called Walk the Waterfront became the keepers of the flame for Tacoma‟s goals and aspirations for a walkway from the Tacoma Dome to Point Defiance. A shoreline district that is more accepting of a waterfront walkway rather than one receiving industrial exclusions to public access is in the best interest of Tacoma. The reason Point Ruston was changed from Industrial (Asarco) to High Intensity – Urban Conservancy was the vision for creating public access and mixed use so as to minimize impacts to adjacent neighborhoods. It supported the goals and aspirations of a growing population within the Puget Sound basin for greater public access via a waterfront walkway. Below are several examples from the Tacoma Comprehensive Plan, which lays out why the current and draft version of the S-7 shoreline district are incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan and the adjacent uses in the R-2 historical neighborhood containing schools and parks. 1. Policy NE-6.2 View Corridor Protection
a. This regulation states “protect mountain and water views within residential areas from blockage by unattractive utility lines, bell towers and other man-made impediments (e.g. Sperry Ocean Dock).” Sperry Ocean Dock is specifically listed as an example of an unattractive man-made impediment. The current S-7 district‟s view corridor is not being protected from landward structures as well as vessels permanently fixed landward and is negatively impacting neighborhoods and parks (e.g. Chinese Reconciliation Park, Tahoma Salt Marsh).
b. Man-made impediments need to be added to the definitions and described as vessels, floating dry docks, etc that exceed the height limit within a shoreline district.
2. Comprehensive Plan goal number 7 – “Offer a pleasing, esthetic and healthful
environment in which to live, work, and play and possesses an image, which instills a sense of community pride in its citizens‟”.
a. The current deep water berthing in the S-7 and the light industrial activities associated with ships berthed there directly adversely impact the adjoining
neighborhoods, parks, and schools through pollution in the form of noise, air, and light.
b. The current 650 feet of gray steel ships permanently parked along Schuster Parkway does not offer pleasing and esthetic environment that will instill a sense of pride in its citizens.
3. E-AQ-1 Air Pollution
a. The current use of the S-7 with permanently berthed ships has allowed for voluminous emissions of spent IFO 180 fuel during boiler testing that blankets adjacent neighborhoods, schools, and parks with high sulfur content soot.
4. ROS-AC-16 Acquire Shoreline Properties
a. The S-7 Shoreline District proposed to be amended is in perfect alignment with seeking public acquisition of shoreline property and with the vision set forth in the 1988 “Dome to Defiance: Urban waterfront study” by the City Club of Tacoma.
5. ROS-AC-18 Natural, Scenic and Historic Features
a. The proposed amendment wants to support developing and preserving natural, scenic and historic areas and resources as scenic and historic routes or sites.
6. LU-RDG-1 Protect Established Residential Areas
a. Protect, preserve and maintain established residential neighborhood areas where a definite density, housing type and character prevail; nuisances and incompatible land uses should not be allowed to penetrate these areas.
b. The allowance for light industrial and marine use in the S-7 is not compatible with the adjacent historic neighborhood and parks. It does not protect, preserve or maintain established residential historic neighborhood.
7. LU-RDG-2 Prohibit Incompatible Land Uses
a. Prohibit incompatible land uses from situating within or adjacent to existing or future residential developments and gradually eliminate existing incompatible uses from existing residential areas.
b. The allowance for light industrial and marine use in the S-7 is not compatible with the adjacent historic neighborhood and parks because of noise, light, and air pollution from the wharf and vessels.
8. Section V Industrial Development – High Intensity Intent
a. “High intensity industrial development provides goods for local, regional, national and international markets. Industries in high intensity areas are engaged in such activities as heavy manufacturing, processing, refining, shipping operations, general warehousing and rail distribution yards.”
b. This defines the „deep water terminal‟ marine definition in the “S-7” zoning. c. “The principal high intensity industrial areas in Tacoma are the Port Industrial area
and the South Tacoma Industrial area. The Port Industrial area is designated as a regional Manufacturing/Industrial Center, while the South Tacoma Industrial area is designated as a local manufacturing/industrial center and as a candidate for regional designation.”
d. The Comprehensive Plan intent is to minimize the impact of Industrial Development on adjacent properties by consolidating them to the Port and South Tacoma. The S-7 with its industrial designation and the lack of buffer – light industrial, commercial, or natural – is in clear incompatibility with Tacoma‟s Comprehensive Plan.
9. LU-IDHI-4 Buffering Heavy Industrial Uses
a. Separate heavy industrial uses from incompatible adjoining uses with a buffer of less intensive uses such as light industry or commercial development, open space or sharp topographical changes.
b. The open space of less than 300‟ does not provide a sufficient buffer from air, noise, and light pollution that are produce from the maintenance operations at the ship berthing site in the S-7 zone. The bluff overlooking amplifies the non-conforming and incompatible adjoining uses, which necessitates a greater buffer or a change in adjoining activities.
10. LU-IDHI-6 Industrial Land Preservation
a. “Preserve and encourage the aggregation of land into large parcels for development and expansion of manufacturing and industrial activity within designated manufacturing/industrial centers.”
b. The S-7 zone is a relatively small site whose activities can be accomplished in an area of aggregated industrial activities, i.e. the Port of Tacoma, Port of Olympia, and Port of Seattle, so as to minimize the impact of non-conforming activities to better situated industrial and commercial zones.
11. Comprehensive Plan Goal Number 8 and 9 - Ensure conservation, protection,
enhancement, and proper management of natural resources and shoreline, while providing for a balanced pattern of development and the needs of its citizens.” “Acquire, develop, and improve the optimum variety and number of recreation and open space facilities consistent with the changing needs of the community.”
a. Tacoma has been changing over the last 20 years – what was appropriate for the waterfront 20 years ago is not consistent with the recreation and open spaces required to meet the changing needs of the community. For more than 50 years Tacomans have desired a walkway along its waterfront. In 1988, the Dome to Defiance study echoed this desire. The desire for a waterfront walkway is in its goals and aspirations as a community.
(Delete) 9.8 B (S-7 Schuster Parkway (HI)) District Boundary Description. District Boundary Description. The S-7 Shoreline District extends from the boundary line between the Chinese Reconciliation Park and Tahoma Salt Marsh to the northernmost extent of Thea‟s Park, including those areas upland within 200‟ of the OHWM and the entirety of the Sperry Ocean Dock access road.
Please see the write up above in the change for 9.7.B.
(Delete) Table 9-2 (S-7 Schuster). “Commercial Development – water dependent: permitted”. (Change to) Table 9-2 (S-6 Ruston Way/Schuster). “Commercial Development – water dependent: the physical scope of existing use permitted, expansion of water dependent uses will be capped.”
Earlier descriptions of the negative impact from industrial uses on the adjacent R-2, would be heightened if there were additional long term berthing of vessels, garbage barges, off-shore drilling rigs, etc. As I have said previously, the topology has limited ingress and egress for vehicles, which limits a sites ability to conduct true commerce activities (loading and unloading of ships). Therefore, its only deep water use is the long term parking of vessels, etc. There are rumors the Port of Tacoma would like to use these sites for such a purpose of parking vessels. Is this what Tacoma wants? Is this Tacoma‟s goals and aspirations for the use of this area? An expansion of the industrial footprint in the Schuster corridor will also directly impact the adjacent S-13 (Statewide waters) district. If industrial deep water terminals were allowed, it would be unsafe for boaters in this area due to reflection of waves from parked vessels coupled with the fact it would be difficult for boaters to access the shoreline in an emergency. Kayakers, canoeists, and dragon boat users would be most at risk, which is ironic considering the City has plans for a human powered water craft area on the Foss Waterway.
A 700 foot long ship is one thing, but 1.2 miles of blockage to the water or the land is quite another.
(Delete) Chapter 10 Definitions 154. Structure" means a permanent or temporary edifice or building, or any piece of work artificially built or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, whether installed on, above, or below the surface of the ground or water, except for vessels. (Change to) Chapter 10 Definitions 154. Structure" means a permanent or temporary edifice or building, or any piece of work artificially built or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, whether installed on, above, or below the surface of the ground or water, including vessels berthed for a term greater than 30 days.
The City is willing to claim “any piece of work artificially built or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, whether installed on, above, or below the surface of the ground or water”, i.e. docks, piers, as structures, which are attached physically to land. Long term vessel berthing consists of lines, cables, power cables, and waste lines, which falls directly in alignment with structure.
Many of the public comments made during the 2007 and 2008 Sperry permit applications has to do with the lack of jurisdiction over the long term berthing of vessels at the Sperry Ocean site. The City needs to claim jurisdiction over long term berthing vessels as “structures” in order to minimize the negative impact of berthing operations on adjacent properties. If the City fails to claim jurisdiction of long term berthing, the City will become a bone yard of old polluting vessels.
