SMP Revision

Why is the current language ( "protect residential areas") being removed? What is the new language trying to accomplish?

There is no major change intended with the new language. The word "protect residential areas" does not seem appropriate; uses are governed by the shoreline environment designation and the underlying zone and there are no current or anticipated threats undermining single family residential uses in SFR zones.  "Provide" seems to be more appropriate.

Is "without over-water coverage" intended to affect floating homes in some way?

This addition does not change the intent. It is meant to clarify that there should be enough land for a structure to be developed with out any portion of the building extending over the water such as would occur with a cantilevered structure.

Regarding your question about floating homes: The locational criteria are used when determining the appropriate shoreline environmental designation and is sometime based on the underlying zone. The locational criteria do not affect development standards or uses allowed in a particular shoreline environment. However I propose that an additional location criterion be added as follows:
(4) Areas with existing floating home moorage," or something to that effect.

What is the new language trying to accomplish?

There are three parts that will help explain the proposed change:
1.    Most of the uses that exist in the Conservancy Management areas are relatively high-intensity uses. Examples of this are the Ballard Locks and the West Point Sewage Treatment plant and some recreational marinas.
2.    Also, there are some parks located in the current CM environment. Some of these parks have less intense uses than the locks or the sewage treatment plant and some park uses are comparable in the intensity of the uses. Therefore we have proposed to re-designate the parks that are less intensely used (as listed on the map of proposed environmental designation changes) from CM to Conservancy Recreation.
3.    When rewriting the purpose of this shoreline environment the original language does not seem possible to achieve, given the existing uses in these areas; therefore, we proposed the more achievable language. However, we do not see this as softening the environmental protection. The section of the purpose statement that states "The types of development allowed in the CM environment can be managed to preserve ecological functions and typically provide public access": This The sentence is to provide guidance on what are the appropriate types of uses that should be allowed in the area and the word "can" means the types of uses that are allowed have the ability to be managed to preserve ecological functions, it is not meant to be an optional term. Overall the purpose of this shoreline environment is meant to convey that these sites may be highly altered and therefore, a more engineered management of the site is required to preserve and protect the aquatic environment in these areas.

To be more clear I suggest that we change the sentence that reads "The types of development allowed in the CM environment can be managed to preserve ecological functions and typically provide public access." To "The types of development allowed in the CM environment are such that they are able to be managed to preserve ecological functions and provide public access

Why was reference to "sensitive areas" removed from the wording?

Regarding the existing language all of our shorelines can be considered sensitive areas but there are varying  degrees of sensitivity. For example eel grass would be considered a more sensitive area than areas where eel grass does not occur. The existing code language calling out sensitive areas as appropriate for a higher intensive use does not make sense and we do not believe that that was the intent. We also do not want to continue with this somewhat confusing language that gives a false impression that we should be concentrating heavy infrastructure in particularly sensitive areas of the shoreline.
Therefore we removed the term "sensitive areas" because we do not want to locate a more intense use such as the locks or a sewage treatment plant in sensitive areas such as near eel grass beds. These more intense uses should be located in areas that are more altered or disturbed.   

Why was the specific environmental language deleted and the requirement for active management of the specified waterfront lots softened?  

The existing language referencing natural resources was deleted because all of our shorelines serve as migration corridors and feeding areas for fish, therefore this locational criterion does not serve a purpose. Regarding including "active management" to the criterion, as explained in my response above, the CM areas are more intensely used and the environmental conditions in this shoreline environment are more altered; therefore,  a more active management of these areas to protect and preserve the ecological function of these sites is needed.

Could the current language constitute a (4) in order to preserve its implicit ecological directive?

As explained above, we feel that the overarching environmental directive of the Shoreline Master Program is achieved with the current proposed language. It is only clarified to convey the higher intensity of uses in the Conservancy Management areas as compared to other Conservancy designated shoreline environments.

10/3/08 

Hi Maggie,
 
I have a few questions and comments on proposed Subchapter IV Shoreline Environments, C. # 4 & # 6. I will comment on # 6 first since it pertains to floating homes.
 
6. Urban Residential (UR) Environment.
 
a. Purpose. The purpose of the UR environment is to  provide for single family residential development and accessory  structures.

The current language reads: The purpose of the UR environment is to protect residential areas.

Why is the current language ( "protect residential areas") being removed? What is the new language trying to accomplish?

b. Locational Criteria.

(1) Areas where the underlying zoning is Single-family or Multifamily residential.

(2) Areas where steep slopes, shallow water, poor wave protection, limited vehicular or water access make water-dependent uses impractical.

(3) Areas with sufficient dry land lot area to allow for residential development entirely on dry land without over-water coverage.

The current language reads: Areas with sufficient dry land lot area to allow for residential development totally on dry land.

Why was "without over-water coverage" added?

What is that new wording trying to accomplish?

Is "without over-water coverage" intended to affect floating homes in some way?

4. Conservancy Management (CM) Environment.
 
a. Purpose.

Proposed language: The purpose of the CM shoreline environment is to provide for water dependent infrastructure such as navigational locks that provide a substantial public benefit and recreational facilities, such as marinas and parks.  The types of development allowed in the CM environment can be managed to preserve ecological functions and typically provide public access.

The current language reads: The purpose of the CM shoreline environment is to conserve and manage areas for public purposes, recreational activities and fish migration routes. While the natural environment need not be maintained in a pure state, developments shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts to natural beaches, migratory fish routes, and the surrounding community.

Why has the current language, which is specifically related to conservation and management of shoreline areas and prescriptive with regard to environmental protection, been replaced and softened?

What is the new language trying to accomplish?

b. Locational Criteria.

(1) Proposed language: Dry or submerged land that are generally owned by a public agency and developed with a major infrastructure or recreational facility, including navigation locks and marinas.

The current language reads: Dry or submerged land in sensitive areas as generally owned by a public agency and developed with a major public facility, including navigation locks, sewage treatment plants, ferry terminals.

Why was reference to "sensitive areas" removed from the wording?

(2) Proposed language: Public and private parks containing active recreation areas.
(3) Proposed language: Areas of medium to high intensitydevelopment that are surrounded by areas of less intense development such that they may require active management to protect ecological functions.

The current language reads: Waterfront lots containing natural beaches or a natural resource such as fish migration routes or fish feeding areas which require management but which are compatible with recreational development.   

Why was the specific environmental language deleted and the requirement for active management of the specified waterfront lots softened? 

Could the current language constitute a (4) in order to preserve its implicit ecological directive?

I would appreciate a written response to my questions. Thanks

Bob

Attached is the new shoreline environment purpose and locational criteria document that has the proposed changes "tracked" so that you can see the existing code language and the proposed code language.

Shore Env Purpose Location

Originally we included the required management policies for each environment. However, after consideration, we decided to put all shoreline management policies in the City's Comprehensive Plan. We are working on updating the shoreline policies in the Comprehensive Plan based on the new WAC guidelines and we will send the updated shoreline policies to you when we are finished. We expect to be finished in approximately 2 weeks.

In order to use your time in the most efficient manner and to meet your request that we focus the Committee's meetings on reviewing and providing recommendations on specific proposed changes to the SMP, our Shoreline Master Program Update Team is recommending that we skip our July meeting and instead add a meeting to the end of our schedule, in February or March 2009.

The reason for this proposed schedule change is to accommodate a delay in the completion of our Shoreline Characterization work, which needs to be in place before other elements of the SMP update can be developed. As mentioned at our first Committee meeting, King County developed a characterization model that they used to analyze the current ecological conditions of their shorelines. King County worked closely with the Department of Ecology in developing this model. DPD, at the recommendation of the Department of Ecology, contracted with King County to use the same model to determine the ecological conditions of Seattle's shorelines. We determined that this would be the most efficient method of getting the needed information.

Unfortunately this process has taken several months longer than planned due to changes in the model that were needed to accommodate data availability and to accommodate the different conditions found in Seattle compared to King County. We have been making steady progress and we are confident that we will have the characterization work completed within the next month. We are also confident that the results of the model will be accurate and will provide us with the shoreline baseline conditions needed for us to move forward with our work. The results from this characterization work are the essential building blocks for developing the regulations for Seattle's shoreline and for meeting the other requirements of Ecology's guidelines including the restoration plan.