Thea Foss Waterway S-8 Shoreline District

Transcription

Thea Foss Waterway
S-8 Shoreline District Regulations
Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment to the Master Program for Shoreline Development is
developed in compliance with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act
and Growth Management Act
Planning Commission Recommendation
October 3, 2007
Community and Economic Development Department
747 Market Street, Room 1036
Tacoma, WA 98402-3793
253/591-5365
Equal Employment Opportunity/Americans with Disabilities Act
Accommodations provided upon request
Call 253/591-5365 (voice) or 253/591-5153 (TTY)
City Council
Bill Baarsma, Mayor
Rick Talbert, Deputy Mayor
Julie Anderson
Bill Evans
Jake Fey
Connie Ladenburg
Mike Lonergan
Spiro Manthou
Thomas Stenger
Eric Anderson, City Manager
Tacoma Planning Commission
Thomas M. Smith, Chair
David A. Boe, Vice Chair
Kevin Briske
Mel Curtiss
Carolyn L. Davidson
Robert T. de Grouchy, III
Thomas W. Donovan
Jeremy Doty
Scott Morris
Ryan Petty, Director
Planning Division
Peter Huffman, Manager
Project Staff
Donna Stenger, Project Lead
Bart Alford
Stephen Atkinson
Brian Boudet
Molly Harris
Lihuang Wung
Clara Cheeves, intern
Public Works Department
Bill Pugh, Director/Assistant City Manager
Building and Land Use Services Division
Charlie Solverson, Manager
Project Staff
Peter Katich, Land Use Administrator
Caroline Haynes-Castro
Shanta Frantz
Lisa Spadoni
Shirley Schultz
GIS Analysis
Michael Stoddard
Donna Wendt
Bob Wendt
THEA FOSS WATERWAY
S-8 SHORELINE DISTRICT REGULATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
October 3, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Planning Commission Recommendation Letter
Page 1
II.
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations
Page 3
Attachment A:
Proposed Land Use Regulatory Code Amendments
Page 23
Attachment B:
Viewshed Analysis for the Thea Foss Waterway
(Zone 1 South)
Page 33
Attachment C:
Shoreline Study Area Viewsheds
Page 45
Attachment D:
Comparison of Alternative Height Options for
Zone 1 South
Page 51
III.
Issues and Staff Observations Report
Page 53
IV.
Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing
Page 79
V.
Written Public Testimony
Page 95
VI.
Additional Correspondence
A.
Foss Waterway Development Authority (May 22, 2007)
Page 193
B.
Department of Ecology (June 11, 2007)
Page 195
C.
Foss Waterway Development Authority (June 21, 2007)
Page 201
VII. City Legal Memorandums
A.
Shoreline Management Act – Public Access/Residential View
Provisions (January 27, 2006)
Page 203
Thea Foss Waterway Height Regulations/Design Review InterRelationships (July 14, 2006)
Page 209
Legal Issues Associated with View Protection in Washington
(February 6, 2007)
Page 215
D.
Overriding Public Interest Test in RCW 90.58.320 (August 30, 2007)
Page 219
E.
Spot Zoning in Washington Law (August 30, 2007)
Page 223
B.
C.
Page 1
Page 2
City of Tacoma
Thea Foss Waterway S‐8 Shoreline District Regulations FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TACOMA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2007 A. SUBJECT
Amendment of the City’s shoreline regulations, (Tacoma Municipal Code, Chapter 13.10, a part of the
Master Program for Shoreline Development), for the S-8 Thea Foss Waterway shoreline district to allow
an increase in the maximum height for two development sites, reduce the height for the Municipal Dock
site, modify the building envelope and other standards and reorganize various code sections.
B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The proposed code amendment provides for an alternative development option (tower and podium
building form) that would allow buildings with a maximum height of 180 feet on two development
sites (Sites 10 and 11) located in the southern portion of Zone 1 on the west side of the Thea Foss
Waterway. The maximum height of 180 feet can only be achieved if certain specific conditions are
met. These include providing enlarged view/access corridors, maintaining an average distance of 100
feet between the tower portions of the development, and developing 50% of the podium roof as usable
recreational space, of which 30% shall be landscaped. The proposed amendment also reduces the
maximum height from 100 feet to 90 feet on the Municipal Dock site.
In addition to the height and building form changes, the proposed amendment modifies the regulations
to clarify the responsibilities of Thea Foss Waterway Development Authority (FWDA) for conducting
design review on all public properties on the west side using the criteria and guidelines in the Thea
Foss Waterway Design and Development Plan (Foss Plan), adds a new requirement to protect the view
of Mt. Rainier from the southeast corner of Fireman’s Park, and includes changes that reorganize
various sections of the S-8 Thea Foss Shoreline District regulations for clarity and ease of use.
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In 2004, Foss Harbor LLC submitted an application to the Tacoma Planning Commission requesting a
change in the S-8 Thea Foss Waterway Shoreline District regulations for the west side of Thea Foss
Waterway for the area north of the Murray Morgan Bridge (Zone 1) to increase the maximum building
height from the current 100 feet maximum height to 180 feet.
2. Chapter 13.02 of the Tacoma Municipal Code sets forth a process for private parties and others to
apply for amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan or development regulations. The application
was accepted by the Planning Commission consistent with the Municipal Code’s process and included
for review with other proposed amendments as a part of the annual amendment review package for
2004. (Application #2004-04)
Page 3
3. Zone 1 extends from the north end of the Waterway at the South 4th Street Bridge south to the 11th
Street right-of-way (this area is also referred to as the “Historic Warehouse District”). There are two
remaining warehouses in the area: the Dock Building and the Puget Sound Freight Building. The
primary public spaces are Thea’s Park, which is located at the far north end of the Zone, the planned
esplanade and the designated view/access corridors.
4. Zone 1 also includes the Foss Waterway Marina which is the largest marina on the waterway and this
water-dependent use will influence the future design and economic viability of development projects
located on the adjacent uplands.
5. Zone 1 is a relatively isolated area with poor connectivity, both visual and physical, to the downtown
area. Relative to the other zones on the Thea Foss, Zone 1 is adjacent to the widest section of land used
by the railroad, creating a greater separation of the waterfront from the downtown area. The steep
bluffs and the ramps of I-705, which block the views of downtown from the waterway sites, further
separate the area.
6. Zone 1 sites are narrower (generally 120 ft) than those found on the rest of the west side of the
Waterway. On the Dock Street side of the development sites, the right-of-way is narrower, placing the
train tracks closer to the roadway, pedestrians and the redevelopment sites. The narrow right-of-way
also eliminates any on-street parking opportunity such as that found further south on the Waterway.
7. The surrounding development in Zone 1 is a mix of uses and building styles ranging from rather modest,
one and two-story structures to the two older, large warehouse structures. To the north of Zone 1 are the
TEMCO grain terminals which extend to a height of approximately 245 feet. To the south is the Murray
Morgan Bridge which has a height of approximately 230 feet and the Zone 2 development sites, which
have a maximum height limit of 130 ft but do not currently have structures of that height. On the eastern
shore are a hodgepodge of older industrial buildings and uses. To the west is the railroad mainline and
switching yard, which is zoned M-2 Heavy Industrial and DCC Downtown Commercial Core, and a
hillside bluff which rises approximately 96 feet. At the top of the bluff is the central portion of Tacoma’s
downtown, which has a variety of buildings and uses and has a maximum height limit of 400 ft. The
planned development pattern in the Comprehensive Plan calls for infill buildings of greater heights and
intensity both on the waterfront and in the adjacent downtown.
8. The existing regulations for Zone 1 require a minimum height of 50 feet and have a maximum height
of 100 feet and require building modulations from the edge of the view/access corridors and the
esplanade at certain height intervals. The existing regulations also require reductions in site coverage
for upper floors. The result is a building form that resembles a wedding cake with upper floors
progressively smaller than the lower floors.
9. The application submitted in 2004 requested changes to allow increased height and a different building
form that consists of slender building(s) atop a lower base that provide more light, air and space to the
esplanade and view/access corridors. This building style is referred to as the tower and podium
building form.
10. In 2004, the Planning Commission conducted a review of the application as part of the City’s Annual
Amendment process. A draft amendment to the S-8 shoreline regulations was developed based upon
the application and disseminated for public review and comment along with the other proposed annual
amendments and the Commission held a public hearing on September 15, 2004.
11. The 2004 draft code changes allowed an increase in height to 180 feet if the tower and podium
building form was utilized, certain conditions were met in the design of the building and additional
public access was provided.
October 3, 2007
Page 2 of 20
Page 4
12. After conducting a public hearing and reviewing testimony, the Commission modified the draft
proposal and recommended to the City Council an amendment to the S-8 regulations which provided
an option to increase the height to 180 feet, subject to meeting certain requirements, and only for the
southern portion of Zone 1, an area located between the view corridor south of the Puget Sound
Freight Building and the Murray Morgan Bridge (Zone 1 South – comprised of Sites 10 and 11 and the
Municipal Dock site). Under those proposed regulations, future development within the affected area
could either develop utilizing the new option (the “tower and podium form” with a 180-foot height
limit) or in the alternative, choose to develop using the existing regulations, which have a maximum
height of 100 feet and require building modulations at certain intervals (the “wedding cake form”). The
maximum height of 180 feet could only be achieved if the view/access corridors were increased by
25%, usable recreational space was provided on the rooftop of the podium structure and if the portions
of the proposed building over 50 feet in height were restricted in width and spaced apart to minimize
view impacts.
13. Subsequently, the City Council held a public hearing on all of the Comprehensive Plan and Regulatory
Code amendments recommended by the Planning Commission for 2004 on October 26, 2004. After
considering the public testimony, the City Council concurred with the Commission’s recommendation
and adopted the proposed S-8 code changes by Substitute Ordinance No. 27296 on November 16,
2004.
14. After Council approval, the proposed S-8 code amendment was submitted to the Department of
Ecology (DOE) for review and approval. DOE conducted a review and solicited public comments.
After reviewing the comments and the City’s record, DOE suggested that additional analysis of the
proposed amendment was warranted to address view impacts, particularly of nearby residences, and
that additional opportunity for public discussion of the new view analysis be provided.
15. In November 2005, the City withdrew the proposed amendment from further review by DOE in order
to conduct a new view analysis and to reevaluate the approved 2004 amendment based upon the new
view analysis. This process commenced in December 2005.
16. Development of properties on the Thea Foss Waterway is guided by the Comprehensive Plan, including
the Master Program for Shoreline Development; the goals and policies of which are part of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Master Program also includes shoreline regulations for the City’s fourteen
shoreline districts which are codified as part of the Land Use Regulatory Code, Chapter 13.10 of the
Tacoma Municipal Code. In addition, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, the Thea Foss Waterway
Design and Development Plan (originally adopted in 1995) was developed to provide specific policy
guidance for the Thea Foss Waterway.
17. In 1996, the City established the Foss Waterway Development Authority (FWDA) to oversee marketing
and development of twelve waterfront sites located on the west side of the Waterway. The FWDA is to sell
or lease the properties for redevelopment that is consistent with the Foss Plan and meets certain evaluation
criteria, including minimum development thresholds, provision of public benefits, economic viability of
the proposed redevelopment, financial return to the FWDA and/or the City from the redevelopment, longtem economic impacts to the Waterway and the City, and compatibility of the redevelopment with adjacent
developments.
18. One of the primary reasons for re-evaluating the 2004 proposed amendment is the presence of residences
whose view of the shoreline may be impacted by an increase in the maximum allowable height. The
Shoreline Management Act (SMA) states that “no permit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter for any
new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on
shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining
such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding
October 3, 2007
Page 3 of 20
Page 5
considerations of the public interest will be served.” (RCW 90.58.320) When the Foss Plan was
substantially revised based upon the programmatic EIS in 1995, adjoining residences were limited.
Although the proposed code amendment is not a “permit” for a new building, future development
applications for a permit will be based upon the revised regulations, if approved. Potential view
obstruction of the adjoining residences also will need to be evaluated when a building development is
proposed before a permit is granted per the above section of the SMA.
19. Tacoma's Master Program regulations permit buildings over 35 feet in height all along the Thea Foss
Waterway. Tacoma's Master Program not only allows taller buildings, it requires that new buildings on the
west side of the Foss Waterway have a minimum height of either 40 or 50 feet. At present, the tallest
height allowed on the Foss is 130 feet in Zone 2, which is immediately south of the area affected by the
proposed amendment.
20. A new viewshed analysis of the southern portion of Zone 1 of the Thea Foss Waterway was conducted
by staff from the City of Tacoma’s Community and Economic Development Department using
computer modeling programs which allowed interactive 3D views from any property within 4,000 feet
of the affected shoreline area.
21. The viewshed analysis evaluated several building configurations with different heights and dimensions
as seen from three selected observation points. The three observation points were: (1) the Perkins
Building, located at 1101 A Street, a seven story building with a rooftop deck shared by all 33
condominium owners as a common open space (the rooftop deck was used as on observation point for
this analysis at the request of the building residents); (2) the Fireman’s Park overlook directly east of
the Totem Pole, which is located in the southeast corner of the Park; and (3) the overlook area at the
northern part of Fireman’s Park. The Perkins Building observation point is representative of views
from existing adjacent residences, including those from the adjacent Cliff Street Lofts.
22. For the 3D model, the proposed zoning envelopes were graphically depicted as white-sided structures
with a skin using 10-foot blocks. These structures illustrated a configuration of the maximum zoning
envelope for the purpose of conducting the viewshed analysis.
23. Several maximum zoning building envelope options were reviewed as a part of the viewshed analysis.
Two of the options depicted zoning envelopes based on the existing regulations (“wedding cake”
building form) showing buildings at 50 ft tall (the required minimum height) and at 100 ft tall (the
maximum allowed height), with building modulations at certain intervals as required by the existing
regulations. An additional 25 ft tall element is depicted in the computer model to represent an
architectural feature or structural element, which is allowed in the existing code. In the model this
additional element has been located near the center of the building, but in reality could be located
anywhere on the building, which would affect the view impacts.
24. For the alternative development option (“tower and podium” building form), the model depicted five
different options: (1) a maximum height of 140 feet, (2) a maximum height of 160 feet, (3) a maximum
height of 180 feet, (4) a maximum height of 180 feet with a maximum tower floorplate of 12,000 sq.
ft.; and (5) a maximum height of 180 feet which successively stepped down the height of the three
towers on Site 11 by 20 feet. For all options the model depicted one tower on the Municipal Dock site,
one tower on Site 10, and three towers on Site 11. The towers on site 10 and the Municipal Dock site
were depicted at the maximum width of 125 feet and maximum floorplate of 15,000 sq ft (except for
the 12,000 sq ft option). The towers depicted on Site 11 were not shown at the maximum width of 125
feet because Site 11 cannot accommodate three full-width towers and meet the spacing requirements
between towers required by the proposed code. In each of the scenarios, two of the towers are 107 ft
wide and one is 108 ft wide, with the exception of the 12,000 sq ft floorplate option where all of the
October 3, 2007
Page 4 of 20
Page 6
towers are at 100 ft wide. Other tower configurations are possible using the alternative development
option and these other options could have different view impacts associated with them.
25. The 3D computer model was viewed by the Planning Commission at numerous public meetings and
presented at community meetings held on February 15, 2006 and on April 11, 2007. The model also
was shown at a joint meeting of the Executive Board of the FWDA and the Urban Design Review
Committee held on March 28, 2007. The FWDA Urban Design Review Committee requested a second
opportunity to review the model on April 19, 2007. At this meeting they asked for the development of
a new 3D model that would depict a potential feasible development project consistent with the
maximum zoning envelopes that were used in the computer modeling program.
26. While viewing the 3D computer model, staff could be directed to go to any building or site in any
direction surrounding Zone 1 within 4,000 feet and look at any of the height options to assess the
potential view impacts. The computer model allowed the Commission to “walk”, “drive”, “fly” and to
be “inside” any building to see the existing shoreline (the “before” view) and the shoreline with the
various building form and height options (the “after” views). Unfortunately, the 3D programs used by
the City are not capable of interactive access by the public from the internet. To address this shortfall,
the City selected “screenprints” from the program and made them available for public review on its
website and produced them for distribution to the public.
27. In addition to the 3D modeling, City staff used the Spatial Analyst extension of ArcGIS which is used
extensively for viewshed analysis, cell tower location studies, and many other surface GIS
applications. The Spatial Analyst computer program uses a terrain model of the shape of the surface
being studied and an output viewshed is created showing areas of the surface that are visible from one
or more vantage points. The study area for the 2D viewshed analysis includes the Thea Foss Waterway
(near-shore), Commencement Bay and the port industrial waterways (mid-shore), and the shoreline
area abutting Northeast Tacoma and Browns Point (far-shore).
28. A series of twenty-three 2D viewshed maps were developed showing the viewable areas in “blue” and
non-viewable areas in “red” from the three observation points for each of the building form and height
options described above (“blue/red maps”).
29. Two of these viewshed maps show the non-viewable (red) areas for the current zoning option and for
the proposed 180-foot step-down proposal by simultaneously considering the five overlook areas
located in Fireman’s Park. The purpose for using all five overlook areas simultaneously was to
illustrate that much of the Thea Foss Waterway, Commencement Bay, the Port of Tacoma, and the
shoreline portion of NE Tacoma could be seen by shifting between the overlooks on the eastern edge
of Fireman’s Park.
30. Extensive view measurements were taken from the three observation points. Angles of existing view
were measured from each of the three observation points described above and for each of the height
and building form alternatives. The criteria used to determine whether a view was present was whether
50% or more of the area in the respective near-shore, mid-shore, or far-shore category was
unobstructed. Views outside of the shoreline areas were not included in the measurements.
31. The results of this analysis found that from the Perkins Building rooftop vantage point, the alternative
development option at all three heights creates greater view obstruction of mid-shore views than the
existing development regulations, but impacts to near-shore views are reduced. Far-shore views from
the Perkins rooftop were the most impacted by the alternative development option. Under the existing
regulations, mid-shore and far-shore views are not impacted but near-shore views of the Foss
Waterway are significantly impacted. The option that includes a stepping down of height of the
multiple towers on Site 11 revealed a reduction in view impacts to mid-shore and far-shore-views
compared to the view impacts of 180 ft tall towers with no reduction in height.
October 3, 2007
Page 5 of 20
Page 7
32. At the south Fireman’s Park vantage point, the greatest impact to near-shore views occurs with the
existing regulations, as compared to any of the other alternatives, although all alternatives impacted the
near-shore views at this location. As is the case for the Perkins Building rooftop view point, far-shore
views were most impacted through the use of the alternative development option at any height. Midshore views were impacted similarly by both the use of the “wedding cake” and “tower and podium”
building forms.
33. The viewshed analysis also revealed that from the viewpoint located at the north end of Fireman’s
Park, the tower and podium option slightly reduced the impacts of near-shore views as compared to the
impacts from the wedding cake building form, but increased the impacts for both mid-and far-shore
views.
34. The new viewshed analysis built upon the viewshed analysis conducted in 1995. As in 1995, the analysis
affirms that protecting all views from all possible vantage points is not possible and would severely limit
the desired renewal and redevelopment of the Foss Waterway into a high intensity urban environment. To
address the public’s interest in access to the water, including viewing the water, the Foss Plan and
regulations require the set aside of property where this access can occur, which is the public esplanade,
public parks and the view/access corridors. The proposed amendment enhances these requirements by
creating additional opportunities through widening the view/access corridors and allowing new viewing
opportunities above the podium, which are limited under the wedding cake building form.
35. The new viewshed analysis is intended to indicate the possible view impacts from one possible
development scenario using the building envelopes permitted through the existing regulations and by
different building envelope options. Other development scenarios are possible and the results of the
view impact analysis would change. For example, the development scenarios assumed three relatively
equal towers on Site 11; however, two maximum width towers could be built instead or one wide
tower and two smaller towers. The viewshed analysis at the policy level is not a substitute for the view
analysis that will need to occur when an actual development proposal is considered.
36. The Commission, after reviewing all public testimony, including correspondence from the FWDA and
DOE, and viewing the 3D model depicting a potential feasible development project, directed staff to
modify the draft proposal that was previously distributed for public review and comment (the 180-foot
step-down option) to minimize view impacts and improve public access. The revised proposal limits
the maximum height to 90 feet on the Municipal Dock site, requires additional modulation of the
podium, requires the towers to be setback from the podium wall along the view/access corridors, and
reduces the maximum floorplate of the towers above 100 feet.
37. City staff modified the 3D model, 2D viewshed maps and view angle measurements based upon the
modifications to the proposal requested by the Commission.
38. The revised view analysis of the modified amendment (the October 2007 proposal) reveals that with
the changes the view impairment is significantly lessened from the Perkins observation point for near,
mid and far shore views. The greatest improvement is found in the far shore views which change from
a 44.6% reduction from existing views to a 19.6% reduction with the modified amendment.
39. The revised view analysis also indicates that views are improved from the Fireman’s Park observation
points when compared to the view impacts from the previous draft proposal. Of note, the view of
Mount Rainier from the south observation point is also enhanced by the reduction in maximum height
for the Municipal Dock site.
40. The modified amendment increases the viewing area at the view/access corridors at least an additional
16 feet above 50 feet due to new requirements for podium modulations and tower setbacks. These
October 3, 2007
Page 6 of 20
Page 8
requirements also help to enhance the public experience at these corridors by supporting pedestrian
scale design.
41. In addition to the 3D computer modeling conducted by staff, which looked at maximum building
envelopes, Ron Thomas, TCF Architecture was hired by the City to conduct a view analysis and
massing study. On February 15, 2006, the Planning Commission was presented with diagrams and
illustrations depicting different variations of building massing which could be possible by using the
proposed amendment to the regulations but are not specifically required by the proposed regulations.
These variations depicted narrower towers, lower podiums and reduced building envelopes at higher
elevations. The massing models more closely resembled how future buildings may appear rather than
the maximum building envelope “boxes” used in the computer model and therefore were useful in
helping to envision possible view impacts from potential development projects that may be built
consistent with the proposed zoning amendment.
42. The Planning Commission’s role is to analyze the view impacts at a code development level and not
those of a specific building that may be built. The design review process either conducted by the Urban
Design Review Committee, City staff, or both, for projects being built on the west side of the Foss
Waterway will be used to analyze view impacts of specific development proposals. Some of the
techniques shown in the view analysis and massing study conducted by TCF may be used in building
design to minimize view obstruction. Other techniques may also be employed.
43. Zone 1 has experienced relatively minor investment since the Thea Foss Plan was adopted in 1995.
The decision to modify the maximum building height of future development entails several
considerations, one of which is the financial feasibility of development. The City contracted with BST
Associates to conduct an economic assessment of a variety of building heights and building forms to
determine the likely return on investment from these development scenarios and whether the return
was sufficient to attract investment.
44. The Thea Foss Waterway Height and Economic Analysis (Final Draft Report, February 20, 2007)
assessed building heights ranging from 50 feet to 180 feet and included the “wedding cake” building
form required by the existing regulations and the “tower and podium” building form that is possible
under the proposed alternative development option. The study reviewed 50 and 100-foot tall buildings
at the maximum building envelope using the existing regulations on Development Sites 10, 11 and the
Municipal Dock site. For the tower and podium scenarios, the maximum building envelope was
considered at heights of 140, 160 and 180 feet. For the purposes of the analysis, the tower options
assumed one tower at the maximum height and maximum floorplate of 15,000 sq ft on each site except
for Site 11. On Site 11 three towers were studied at the maximum height and a reduced floorplate of
12,840 sq ft. The study also included a review of the option which stepped down the maximum height
of the three towers on Site 11 by 20 feet; i.e., one tower at 180 feet, one tower at 160 feet and one
tower at 140 feet. Finally, the study also looked a the effect of providing 150 additional stalls of
parking primarily to serve the existing marina on Site 11 which may be required if this site were to be
redeveloped. All of the development scenarios assumed a mixed-use building that is predominantly
residential and having some commercial uses and sufficient structured parking to serve these uses. The
study looked at two possible development scenarios; mid-grade construction that would be similar to
the type of development that is currently being constructed in the Tacoma market and high-grade
construction which is similar to the types of buildings that are coming into the marketplace in Seattle.
45. The economic analysis assumed that a target equity Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 20% would be
required to attract investor interest. The findings of the study concluded that 50 and 100-foot tall
buildings would not meet the economic feasibility target and that 160 and 180-foot tall buildings could
meet the target at mid-grade construction but only 180-foot tall buildings could meet the target at highgrade construction levels.
October 3, 2007
Page 7 of 20
Page 9
46. The process to re-evaluate the 2004 amendment proposal included many opportunities for public
involvement. Staff created a list of interested parties, which included property owners located on the
Foss Waterway and adjacent to the Waterway and citizens who commented on the 2004 proposal to
the Commission, City Council and/or the State DOE. The list also included members of the FWDA
Board, UDRC and staff, DOE agency staff and additional people who indicated specific interest and
requested to be included on the list. In total, the list includes more than 300 names. These citizens were
notified, via electronic mail and/or standard mail, prior to every Planning Commission meeting when
the proposed amendment to the Thea Foss regulations was an item on the agenda.
47. A community meeting was held on February 15, 2006 to explain the process to re-evaluate the 2004
proposal and to conduct additional view analysis. Staff also answered questions from the public. All
citizens who attended were added to the notification list. The initial 3D computer modeling used for
the viewshed analysis was presented at this meeting.
48. A presentation to the FWDA Board on the scope of review and schedule was made on
January 18, 2006. The FWDA Board meetings are open to the public.
49. The Planning Commission has held numerous meetings, which are open to the public, to discuss the
proposed height options, view impact analyses, economic feasibility analysis and other issues related
to the proposed code amendment. Everyone on the notification list received notice of these meetings
and many citizens attended.
50. Staff also made a presentation on May 10, 2006 and showed the 3D computer viewshed model to the
New Tacoma Neighborhood Council, the City’s official citizen advisory group for the greater
downtown area which includes the Foss Waterway. Comments from this meeting were shared with the
Planning Commission.
51. An additional discussion was held with the FWDA Board on September 13, 2006 to provide a status
report on the review of the amendment and the preliminary direction concerning design review and
view impact analysis under consideration by the Planning Commission.
52. On August 2, 2006 the Planning Commission visited Fireman’s Park to evaluate existing shoreline
views from the observation points and from other parts of the Park and to evaluate the view of Mount
Rainier from various points within the Park.
53. City staff created a special page on its planning website for the Foss Waterway Height Regulation
review. All reports, studies, maps, and other documents pertaining to the review of the proposed
amendment were posted on this website.
54. The Commission authorized distribution of the proposed code amendment to allow an alternative
development option for the tower and podium building form with a maximum height of 180 feet with a
reduction in height by 20 feet for each successive tower on sites with more than one tower (the 180 feet
step-down proposal) for public review and comment on March 21, 2007 and set the public hearing date for
April 18, 2007.
55. Pursuant to the State of Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the 1995 Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the Thea Foss Waterway Development Alternatives Plan was adopted and an
addendum to the EIS was prepared. The EIS was prepared to provide a programmatic evaluation of the
anticipated environmental impacts of several redevelopment alternatives for properties on the west side of
the Thea Foss Waterway. The EIS evaluated buildings up to 180 feet in height under the High Intensity
Alternative. The addendum provides additional environmental information that describes potential visual
impacts based on the results from an updated viewshed analysis. The addendum was issued in accordance
with WAC 197-11-625 and WAC 197-11-630 and was sent to all recipients of the previously issued Draft
and Final EIS.
October 3, 2007
Page 8 of 20
Page 10
56. Proper written notice of the public hearing was distributed between March 28-30, 2007. The notice
included general information regarding the time and place of the public hearing, a description of the
purpose of the public hearing, a summary of the proposed amendment and where additional information
could be obtained. The notice also included information pertaining to the environmental determination.
The public notice was sent to interested stakeholders, Neighborhood Council representatives, business and
community organizations, City departments, State and federal agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, other
governmental agencies, the Puyallup Tribe, large institutions, environmental organizations and others.
Notice was also mailed to taxpayers of record for properties on the Thea Foss waterway and within 400
feet of these properties and to all individuals on the notification list created for this review. In total, the
public hearing notice was sent to more than 1,600 addresses.
57. Applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulatory Code, including
the Shoreline Code which is a part of the Master Program for Shoreline Development, are subject to
review based upon the adoption and amendment procedures and the review criteria contained in
Tacoma Municipal Code (TMC) 13.02.045.G. Proposed amendments are required to meet at least one
of the eleven review criteria to be considered by the Planning Commission.
58. A public review document was developed which included a copy of the public hearing notice and a 44
page staff report. The staff report, produced by the Community and Economic Development
Department, provided an overview of the proposed amendment, description of the affected area, a
history of past planning for the Thea Foss Waterway including the Thea Foss Waterway Design and
Development Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan and Master Program for Shoreline
Development. The report also described and summarized the view shed analysis and economic
feasibility analysis and public involvement efforts conducted in the development of the proposed
amendment. The report analyzed the provisions of both the Growth Management Act and Shoreline
Management Act related to the proposed amendment as well as provisions of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. Finally, the report provided an analysis of the
amendment based upon eleven criteria as required by the TMC, Chapter 13.02.045.G.
59. The public review document also included the draft revisions to Chapter 13.10.110--S-8 Shoreline
District-Thea Foss Waterway which showed the proposed revisions to development standards, height
regulations, illustrations of the building forms, requirements for using the alternative development option
and other changes. A map of the affected sites also was included. In addition, the public review document
included a copy of the Thea Foss Waterway Height and Economic Analysis, (Final Draft Report, February
20, 2007); the Addendum and Adoption of Existing Environmental Impact Statement (SEPA File Number
SEP2007-40000092078, March 27, 2007) which included as attachments the Viewshed Analysis for the
Thea Foss Waterway showing screen prints from the 3D model and 2D maps, the view angle
measurements from the three observation points (Comparison of Alternative Height Options for Zone 1
South, revised March 2007) and maps depicting the zoning envelope dimensions for each of the
alternatives. Finally the public review document included a copy of the view and massing study prepared
by TCF Architecture and a list of all documents pertaining to the proposed amendment in 2004 which
were available for public inspection in the offices of the Community and Economic Development.
60. As required by RCW 36.70A.106 and RCW 90.58.130, the public review document was provided to the
Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Department of Ecology and other state
agencies reviewing development regulations on March 28, 2007 fulfilling the requirement of providing
notice at least 60 days prior to adoption of proposed amendments.
61. The public review document was available in the offices of the Community and Economic Development,
all branches of the Tacoma Public Library and was posted on the City’s website. The document also was
available on compact disk.
October 3, 2007
Page 9 of 20
Page 11
62. Public notice signs which described the proposed amendment and affected area and where additional
information could be obtained were posted on properties on the Thea Foss Waterway.
63. In addition, a legal notice for the public hearing and an advertisement of the public hearing was published
in The News Tribune on April 4, 2007 and a copy of the public hearing notice was posted on the City’s
website.
64. A legal notice of the adoption of the 1995 Draft and Final EIS for the Thea Foss Waterway
Development Alternatives Plan and availability of the addendum was published in the Tacoma Daily
Index on March 27, 2007.
65. An informational session was held on April 11, 2007 where staff provided a detailed explanation of the
proposed code amendments, showed the 3D model, distributed copies of the public review document and
answered questions. Notice of this community meeting was provided on the public hearing notice. A
separate notice of this meeting was provided to all recipients of the Planning Commission agenda
(approximately 350 individuals) and posted on the website.
66. The public hearing was conducted on April 18, 2007. Seventeen people testified. The public comment
period closed on April 27, 2007. In addition to the oral testimony, 35 individuals submitted written
comments or e-mails. A copy of all written testimony was provided to the Commission.
67. The FWDA requested in a letter dated May 22, 2007 that the Planning Commission provide the FWDA
Board of Directors additional time to complete their review of the proposed amendment and provide
comment. The Board needed additional time to allow the Urban Design Review Committee (URDC) an
opportunity to review a new 3D model showing a potential feasible development consistent with the
proposed amendment and to provide their recommendation to the Board.
68. The URDC reviewed on June 13, 2007 a new 3D model depicting a potential feasible development
project based upon the proposed maximum building envelope with the stepped down height, as they
had requested.
69. The Planning Commission reviewed this version of the computer model on September 5, 2007.
70. The FWDA submitted their comments and recommendations in a letter dated June 21, 2007.
71. DOE provided comments on the draft public review document in a letter dated June 11, 2007.
72. After considering all testimony and correspondence, including comments from the FWDA and DOE, the
Planning Commission directed staff to develop a revised 3D model that incorporated the recommendations
of the FWDA and to recalculate view impacts based upon the revised building envelopes. The
Commission was presented the revised viewshed analysis on September 19, 2007.
73. The proposed amendment was further modified by the Planning Commission on September 19, 2007 to
remove the requirement that a proposed project wishing to use the alternative development option have the
majority of the building in residential uses based upon comments received from DOE.
74. The modified proposed code amendment (October 2007 proposal) includes the following:
•
Allows only one building up to 180 feet on Site 10 or Site 11 with the use of an alternative
development option. No additional height is allowed for structural elements, architectural features,
etc.
•
Projects incorporating more than one tower must reduce the height of each successive tower by 20
feet.
October 3, 2007
Page 10 of 20
Page 12
•
The maximum height of the podium is 50 feet; however, an additional 10 feet is allowed for
mechanical equipment and amenities associated with the use of the podium roof for recreational
space.
•
An average spacing of at least 100 feet is required between tower portions of the building.
•
The maximum width of the towers is 125 feet. The maximum tower floorplate is 15,000 sq. ft up
to an elevation of 100 feet and thereafter is reduced to a maximum of 12,000 sq. ft.
•
The towers must be set back from the podium wall along the view/access corridors.
•
Fifty percent of the podium roof must be developed as usable recreation space, of which 30% must
be landscaped.
•
Fifty percent of the podium wall along the view/access corridors must be setback above a height of
35 feet.
•
The buildings must be setback 10 feet from the view/access corridor and the setback area shall be
developed as an extension of the view/access corridor.
•
The maximum height on the Municipal Dock site is reduced to 90 feet and an additional 10-foot
setback is required from the north view/access corridor.
75. The proposed code amendment also incorporates components related to design review that have been
adopted in the Foss Plan. The amendment affirms that design review of proposed development projects
must consider, in accordance with SMA, the shoreline view impacts to a substantial number of residences
adjacent to the shoreline. Findings of the FWDA design review are to be referenced in a shoreline permit
and given substantial weight in determining whether a proposed project is consistent with the Foss Plan
and its design requirements. The amendment also clarifies that City staff will conduct design review on
private properties, including view obstruction, as part of the review of shoreline permit applications.
Applicants on private properties can voluntarily use FWDA design review and are strongly encouraged to
do so to maintain continuity of design considerations.
76. All development on the west side of the Thea Foss is required to provide public access to the shoreline in a
variety of ways including the development of the esplanade and view/access corridors. The proposed
amendment includes specific provisions to increase public access as a requirement to utilize the alternative
development option and greater height limit. To use the alternative development option, new buildings
must be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the view/access corridor, thus increasing the
width of the corridor by 25% or from a width of 80 feet to 100 feet. The setback area must also be
developed as an extension of the view/access corridors creating a larger public space for pedestrians to
access the shoreline from Dock Street and an expanded shoreline viewing area. The tower portions of the
building are to be spaced apart an average of 100 feet, which will provide additional public access
shoreline viewing opportunities above an elevation of 50 feet.
77. Private investment is acting as a catalyst for building and maintaining permanent public improvements.
The FWDA requires upland property owners to pay an assessment for routine maintenance and security of
the public esplanade.
78. The proposed code amendment would affect only the portion of Zone 1 south of the Puget Sound
Freight Building, which includes Development Sites 10 and 11 and the site of the former Municipal
Dock Building. There is over 1,300 linear feet of affected shoreline.
79. The proposed amendment provides protection of the locally significant view of Mount Rainier, behind the
Murray Morgan Bridge, as seen from the southeast overlook in Fireman’s Park and will maintain an
unobstructed view of the mountain from this public vantage point.
October 3, 2007
Page 11 of 20
Page 13
80. The "overriding considerations of the public interest" test in RCW 90.58.320 requires a decision maker to
identify the general public interest of the community in shoreline structures over 35 feet in height under
the specific facts and circumstances of the community and property site at issue. Thereafter, the decision
maker must balance the identified public interest against the interests of any affected residents in retaining
a view of the shoreline unobstructed by structures over 35 feet in height to determine whether the general
public interest of the community overrides, by any margin, the interests of the affected residents. The
public interests that will be served by taller buildings that may impair views of residences must be
determined on a case-by-case basis, i.e., at the time of permit application. However, through adoption or
amendment of the Master Program, the City can set its own policy for development regarding views and
shorelines within the parameters of the SMA.
81. RCW 90.58.020 finds that “coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest
associated with the shorelines of the state…” Coordinated planning has been occurring on the Foss
Waterway since the early 1970’s, and this amendment is consistent with the Foss Plan, an element of the
City’s Shoreline Master Program and Comprehensive Plan. Further, RCW 90.58.020 states that “it is the
policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and
fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses….” This amendment does plan for a reasonable and
appropriate use of the shoreline, consistent with the City’s vision of a place where people live, work, and
play. Further, the 16-plus years of waterway and adjacent lands cleanup undertaken because of the City’s
leadership paved the way for protection of human health and the environment. Any development proposed
will continue to protect against “adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and
wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life” (RCW 90.58.020).
82. Having been altered many years ago through industrial use, development, and contamination, the Foss
Waterway is not a natural shoreline. RCW 90.58.020 states that, “Alterations of the natural condition of
the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single
family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not
limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the
state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use
of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial
numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state.”
83. The SMA’s general policy section, (RCW 90.58.020) provides guidance for issues of view access and
view obstruction. This section of SMA states that the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and
aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible
consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. The public’s use of the water
includes viewing the shoreline.
84. Shoreline Guidelines, specifically WAC 173-26-221(4)(d), require that the Master Program include
provisions to protect the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline
and to minimize the impacts to views from public property and from a substantial number of residences.
85. The proposed amendment therefore includes measures to minimize view obstruction based upon the
viewshed analysis and provisions to increase public access by increasing the view/access corridors by 25%
and requiring usable recreation space on the rooftop of the podium.
86. The proposed amendment would allow taller structures while providing increased public access. Taller
buildings are envisioned and contemplated by the Thea Foss Plan, which states that “. . . the intent is to
establish appropriate building heights relative to the scale of buildings in the downtown area and the
topographic break adjacent to the waterfront.” The proposed amendment could result in taller buildings
that are compatible in scale with existing buildings by requiring a maximum height of 50 ft for the podium
October 3, 2007
Page 12 of 20
Page 14
portion and are compatible with the larger scale buildings envisioned farther south on the waterfront and in
the adjacent downtown area.
87. TMC Chapter 13.10.175 requires all proposed developments on the shoreline to provide public access
consistent with RCW 90.58. Public access requirements for the S-8 Foss district are further articulated in
the code to include the continuous, unobstructed public esplanade at the water’s edge and pedestrian
linkages from the street right-of-way to the esplanade. Public access elements may include exercise and
play structures; parks or plazas; beach areas; piers, docks, wharves, floats or other water access features;
transient moorage; trails; picnic areas; viewpoints; or interpretive displays. The proposed amendment does
not alter these existing requirements but complements them by requiring additional area for public access
through the expansion of the view/access corridors.
88. The City has been planning since the early 1970’s for redevelopment of the Foss waterfront into a mixeduse area where people could live, work, and play, but no redevelopment was occurring. In 1991, to reclaim
the waterfront and realize the vision, the City of Tacoma purchased 27 acres of contaminated property on
the Foss and took the lead in cleanup of the Superfund-listed waterway that once held the dubious
distinction of being one of the nation’s most contaminated. The City began cleaning up the sites through
an environmental master plan which formed the basis of a 1994 consent decree with DOE. Under an
agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the City began a $95 million Superfund
cleanup. With this significant investment of public funds, the City’s plan was to recoup this investment
through private redevelopment of the waterway in the form of a combination of commercial uses and
public amenities.
89. The Thea Foss Plan calls for an intensely redeveloped waterfront with a mix of uses and activities and the
generous provision of public access and amenities. Redevelopment in the north end of the Waterway has
not occurred as envisioned. The redevelopment concept for Zone 1 states in part that: “Infill development
will occur between the existing warehouses. Minimum height limits for the district are established at the
same height as the warehouse buildings. Greater heights may be allowed to achieve more innovative
building profiles and greater use of open space.”
90. Downtown Tacoma, which encompasses the shoreline area affected by the proposed amendment, is
designated as one of 27 regional growth centers in Vision 2020 (the multi-county planning policies).
VISION 2020’s central goal is to foster a regional growth pattern for Pierce, King, Snohomish and Kitsap
counties that focuses development in urban growth areas, and increases the portion of regional jobs and
housing growth that occurs in regional growth centers. These regional growth centers are not intended to
capture the majority of the region’s growth, but rather to be easily accessible areas of focused growth
offering a wide variety of jobs, services, and important civic and cultural resources. The proposed
amendment is consistent with Downtown Tacoma’s regional designation.
91. The S-8 Thea Foss Waterway shoreline district is located within an area designated as “High Intensity” on
the Generalized Land Use Plan Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The Map depicts the intended future land
use pattern through the geographic designation of three levels of intensities. The Map is the official land
use map of the City as required by GMA. Areas designated as High Intensity areas have commercial and
industrial development usually of regional scale. High intensity residential development is intended to
have densities in excess of 45 units per acre with typical site development densities exceeding 80 units per
acre.
92. On the west side of the Foss Waterway, along with the view/access corridors, a continuous, unobstructed,
publicly accessible esplanade or boardwalk fronting directly on the shoreline edge is planned and is a
requirement for future development permits. The esplanade or boardwalk must be a minimum of 20 feet
wide. Site amenities, such as benches, lights, and landscaping, will be included as part of the esplanade or
boardwalk construction.
October 3, 2007
Page 13 of 20
Page 15
93. The designated view/access corridors in the southern area of Zone 1 are situated at parcel boundaries.
These are, starting from the north: south of the Puget Sound Freight Building, the alignment of South
9th Street; and north of the Municipal Dock site. All of the designated view/access corridors in Zone 1
are “secondary”, i.e., they can be moved from their designated locations to accommodate development
proposals subject to meeting certain criteria found in the shoreline regulations. (TMC 13.10.110).
94. Without viable development, these view/access corridors, together with their required public access, may
never be realized. Realizing these opportunities for public access will further the Shoreline Master
Program’s vision to establish a system of public access—the goal of which is to eventually connect
Tacoma’s public shorelines.
95. The City Attorney’s Office has advised the Commission on the four findings that are necessary to
constitute a “spot zone,” according to Washington State case law. All four must be present. They are: 1)
the zoning decision must single out an area within a larger area or district to be specially zoned for a “use
classification;” 2) the use classification at issue must be different from, and be inconsistent with, that of
surrounding properties in the larger area or district; 3) the use classification at issue must not be in general
accordance with the applicable comprehensive plan; and 4) the use classification must bear no substantial
relationship to the general welfare of the affected community.
96. Tacoma has over 42 miles of shoreline and 14 separate shoreline districts. The proposed amendments
apply to one shoreline district of approximately 4 miles and the amendments affect only a portion of this
shoreline district; the majority of the Foss shoreline district is unaffected by the amendments.
97. The Tacoma Shoreline Master Program contains development regulations for 21 separate types of uses,
and the proposed amendment does not propose changes to any use regulation. The proposed amendment
only changes the building envelope standards for a small segment of one of the 14 shoreline districts.
98. The proposed amendment does not change the allowable uses permitted by the regulations for the S-8
shoreline district. Developments are required to provide pedestrian-oriented uses and activities, which are
directly accessible from adjacent public uses. Residential uses in this portion of the S-8 shoreline district
are only permitted in upland locations or within overwater structures that existed on January 1, 1996.
99. The proposed amendment does not change the zoning (S-8) or the environment designation for the area
(urban). As stated in the Tacoma Shoreline Master Program, the objective of the urban environment is “to
ensure optimum utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by providing for intensive public use and
by managing development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of urban uses.
The urban environment is an area of high-intensity land-use including residential, commercial, and
industrial development. The environment does not necessarily include all shorelines within an
incorporated city, but is particularly suitable to those areas presently subjected to extremely intensive use
pressures, as well as areas planned to accommodate urban expansion.”
D. CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposed revisions to the Tacoma Shoreline Master Program are in the public interest. For years the
Waterway had been unused and uninviting to the public due to industrial use and contamination. The City
continues its longstanding desire for the redevelopment of the Thea Foss shoreline into a vibrant, thriving
neighborhood with a mix of uses and public amenities adjacent to a cleaner waterway. Achievement of this
desire is dependent on private investment to construct and maintain the amenities and to recoup the costs
of cleanup of past environmental contamination and ongoing costs of monitoring and further clean-up, as
warranted. City staff estimates the costs for clean-up work led by the City of Tacoma from 1994 through
2006, as well as some monitoring afterward, totals more than $90 million. The proposed amendment will
support the redevelopment of this portion of the Waterway, which has seen little new investment.
October 3, 2007
Page 14 of 20
Page 16
2. Ten years after the formation of the FWDA, the revitalization vision for the Foss Waterway is coming to
fruition, as can be evidenced by the mix of cultural, park, marina, and residential uses, combined with
special events such as the Tall Ships Festival and the annual Maritime Fest. The waterfront is becoming
the place City leaders have envisioned since the early 1970’s. In order to continue the vision for a
completely redeveloped waterfront and recoup the public investment, changes are needed to accommodate
private investment.
3. Several factors make the south end of Zone 1 appropriate for a different approach to massing, scale and
building height, including the narrow depth of the sites (120 feet, as opposed to the 200 feet and greater
depth found in areas to the south). The narrow depth of the sites affects the ability to provide open spaces
or active uses at ground level and still provide efficient parking layouts as the 120 ft. depth is the
minimum width necessary to accommodate standard double-aisle parking (two drive aisle ways with
parking on either side). The narrow depth also means that new buildings will need to be at the property
line at both the Dock Street and esplanade façades without setbacks. Due to the width of the Dock Street
right-of-way, no on-street parking can be accommodated on Dock Street, meaning that all parking must be
provided on-site. A high water table and the location of two storm drainage pipes, which are located six to
seven feet below street level, limit the depth of excavation that can occur for below-grade parking.
Because the sites in Zone 1 are actually two to three feet above the street grade, only one level of “belowgrade” parking can be built. The result is that providing adequate parking on these sites will require more
above-ground area within the buildings dedicated to parking. The grade difference between the sites and
Dock Street also affects the ingress and egress from Dock Street and the ramps needed for structured
parking. The layout of buildings will become more linear to avoid a loss of parking stalls that would be
required to accommodate ramps from Dock Street to the structured parking.
4. The growth and development as envisioned in the Thea Foss Plan and Comprehensive Plan has not
materialized in Zone 1. The lack of redevelopment can be attributed to many factors, but the many
constraints in Zone 1 inhibit development. These constraints are not insurmountable but they do affect the
feasibility of projects. The constraints include the narrowness of the sites, proximity to rail switching
activities, the lack of opportunity to develop on-street parking, and the relative isolation of the area from
other downtown activities and attractions.
5. The economic feasibility analysis conducted as a part of the review of alternative heights and building
forms bore this out and found that the financial feasibility of projects was not sufficient to attract investors
for most development scenarios. The analysis did find that increasing the height affected the financial
performance and may result in redevelopment projects that could achieve the vision of the Thea Foss Plan.
6. The proposed amendment, by allowing an alternative development option, can be considered a design
solution that attempts to balance the community goals for redevelopment of the Waterway with public use
and aesthetics. New parking on the Waterway is required to be in structures. The high water table and
sewer infrastructure limit excavation; therefore, parking will be mostly above ground. The cost of building
both underground and above-ground structured parking exceeds what can be recaptured from lease
revenue and must be recaptured in the revenue from usable floor area, which requires that there be
sufficient floor area to generate the required revenue to make a project economically feasible. The
proposed amendment, by allowing a development style with greater height, provides “sufficient intensity”
to support development that is economically feasible while the additional requirements imposed to achieve
the greater height, e.g. expanded view/access corridors, address the public use and aesthetic components.
7. The proposed amendment is consistent with the redevelopment concept for Zone 1. The amendment
imposes a maximum height of 50 feet for the podium structure consistent with approximate height of the
remaining warehouses and allows taller buildings if certain conditions are met. The economic feasibility
analysis indicated that taller buildings may be financially feasible and therefore attract interest in
October 3, 2007
Page 15 of 20
Page 17
developing the affected sites to fulfill the Foss Plan’s objective of a redeveloped and revitalized
waterfront.
8. The proposed amendment will increase the width of the view/access corridors by 25% for projects that
utilize the alternative development option, which will encourage greater use of these spaces by the public.
At least 6,000 sq ft of additional public space could be created. The amendment also provides for usable
space and landscaping on the rooftops of the podium, an amenity not required by the existing regulations.
9. The concept of a “green roof” is promoted by the proposed amendment by the requirement to provide
landscaping on the podium roof. The use of native vegetation is encouraged.
10. The policy direction in the Thea Foss Plan is that taller buildings are acceptable if the buildings get
narrower as height increases, public access is improved and the heights match the adjacent downtown
development pattern. All of the zones on the west side of the Waterway allow taller buildings to maximize
the development potential. Forty to fifty feet is set as a minimum height, depending on the zone.
11. While the proposed amendment applies only to a small area of Zone 1, the proposed height and
development standards for this area are not inconsistent with the height and development standards of
surrounding properties to the south, where a maximum height of 130 feet is allowed, or to the west, where
buildings are allowed to a maximum height of 100 or 400 feet. The proposed amendment does not
represent a significant modification to Tacoma’s shoreline management practices; rather, the amendments
are a modification to regulations that implement an already well-developed plan (the Thea Foss Plan was
originally adopted in 1992 and significantly modified in 1994, 1995 and 1998, with the idea that it would
be updated as conditions change and as development occurs). In addition, the proposed amendment does
not modify any shoreline environment designation boundary. Finally, the proposed amendment does not
significantly add, change or delete use regulations. Thus, the proposed amendment represents a limited
amendment affecting a small portion of one district of the many districts that constitute Tacoma’s
shoreline areas.
12. The revitalization of the Foss Waterway to a vibrant people place with an abundance of amenities and
public access to the shoreline is dependent on the investment of the private sector. New developments are
required, as part of their development proposals, to construct and maintain the public esplanade and onehalf of the abutting view/access corridors. Without development, these amenities would not be built and
the shoreline area will continue in its underutilized and uninviting state.
13. The proposed amendment is consistent with several elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including the
City’s overall growth strategy as expressed in its mixed-use center concept and policies. The amendment
also fulfills the land use element vision for the Downtown Mixed Use Center, the Master Program policies
and the Foss Waterway Plan vision of sufficient development intensity to encourage revitalization of this
underutilized area of the Waterway.
14. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMA goal to encourage development in urban areas to
reduce sprawl.
15. The proposed amendment is consistent with the zoning and the urban environment designation of the Thea
Foss Waterway.
16. The proposed amendment provides an economically feasible alternative that will support a unique tower
and podium development form that is not found in Tacoma presently but is found in other waterfront cities
such as Portland, OR and Vancouver, BC. The option of additional height will encourage narrow towers,
allowing for expanded view/access corridors, enhanced views of the Waterway, and a stronger visual
connection between the Waterway and Downtown. The amendment provides flexibility for development
while allowing for design alternatives to benefit public access, e.g., a plaza is possible and the exact
October 3, 2007
Page 16 of 20
Page 18
location of towers will be determined during project design review taking into consideration view impacts
to adjacent residences.
17. The proposed amendment is consistent with the vision for the Foss Waterway which calls for the
waterfront to be developed with integrated recreational, commercial, marine-industrial and residential
activities in “a wide variety of physical settings and open spaces.” The combination of site and existing
zoning constraints have adversely affected the feasibility and desirability of development sites in Zone 1
and are preventing the area from redeveloping into a viable mixed-use neighborhood as envisioned in the
Plan and as desired by the community.
18. The requirement to expand the width of the view/access corridors and the required spacing between the
tower portions of the building will increase light and air to the esplanade.
19. The required reduction in height for multiple towers on a single site will help to minimize view impacts to
a substantial number of residences. This reduction may also impact the economic feasibility of future
development projects.
20. The proposed maximum podium height of 50 feet creates an architectural reference to the existing
warehouses. Under the existing regulations buildings are required to be a minimum of 50 feet in height.
The proposed amendment does not have a minimum height requirement, which will provide the developer
design flexibility which could potentially result in a lower podium as part of a future building design.
21. The required spaces between the towers will offer new viewing opportunities of the Foss Waterway that
are not possible for buildings built using the existing regulations, which could be nine or ten stories of
continuous building with no breaks. The spacing between towers was shown, through the viewshed
analysis, to provide improved views of the Foss Waterway from Firemen’s Park, maintaining the
connection of the public park with the Waterway located below. The spacing also minimizes view impacts
of a substantial number of residences of the Foss Waterway shoreline when compared to the existing
regulations.
22. The maximum size of the floorplate of the towers is reduced above 100 feet in elevation to maintain
consistency with the Foss Plan’s guidance that as height increases, buildings become narrower. The
slender towers would be set atop a podium structure of mixed uses and parking.
23. Restricting rooftop equipment on the tower portions assures that additional view blockage is not possible
above the maximum building height. No variance can be granted for this requirement. In effect, the
habitable portion of the building is reduced by at least 10 feet to allow space for necessary building
equipment.
24. The proposed amendment promotes mixed-use development within economically viable parameters; the
maximum floorplates imposed by the proposed regulations will work for commercial/office as well as
residential uses.
25. The proposed amendment benefits views of the Waterway from the public gathering spaces of Fireman’s
Park. The reduction of the maximum allowable height on the Municipal Dock site to 90 feet, with no
allowance for appurtenances or architectural features above this limit, will enhance views of the shoreline
and Mount Rainier and keep future development of this site more consistent with the former warehouse
building that occupied the site.
26. The proposed amendment achieves better design variety overall on the waterfront. A variety of building
heights along the mile and one-half of waterfront will create a diverse appearance and is consistent with
the policy direction of the Foss Plan
October 3, 2007
Page 17 of 20
Page 19
27. A thorough and exhaustive study of zoning height alternatives was conducted. The three formats of output,
(3D views, 2D viewshed maps, and the view angle measurements), provided a comprehensive and
comparable look at view impacts of various zoning envelope proposals.
28. The public interest in shorelines of the state, as set forth in RCW 90.58.020, is being promoted or
enhanced by this proposal due to the cleanup and redevelopment of the Waterway and adjacent lands
through a combination of public and private investment. Without private investment, the City cannot
recoup the significant public investment it has made over the last 30 years through planning efforts, and
over the last 16 years in property acquisition, cleanup, legal fees, and marketing. Further, without private
investment, the City cannot realize the vision of the waterfront as a place for people to live, work, and
play.
29. The statewide interest in shoreline areas is far reaching and is being served through the redevelopment of
the Waterway and adjacent lands, and through the protection of the public’s interest by private investment
in order to recoup public expenditures. The natural character of the Foss shoreline was changed many
years ago, but insofar as is practicable is being preserved. Long-term, the proposed amendment will
benefit the public because the private investment that will occur will include redevelopment and
maintenance of the public areas and amenities. With redevelopment, the public will have increased
opportunities to enjoy the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline—though creating an inviting place to enjoy
the shoreline and through the development of widened view corridors and other public amenities.
30. The statewide interest is also served because, through strict development standards, further pollution of the
waterway will also be controlled and prevented.
31. The proposed amendment may result in impaired views of a substantial number of residences; however,
the amendment has been modified to minimize the impacts to existing views from public property and a
substantial number of residences and to preserve the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and
aesthetic qualities of the Thea Foss shoreline to the greatest extent feasible, consistent with RCW
90.58.020 and WAC 173-26-221(4)(d).
32. The proposed amendment to the Thea Foss Waterway regulations are warranted and are in the overall
interest of the public because it supports the goals of the GMA, is consistent with the requirements of the
SMA, and implements the policies in the City’s Comprehensive Plan including the Master Program for
Shoreline Development and the Thea Foss Waterway Design and Development Plan.
33. The Commission finds that although some views may be impaired, the overriding interests of the public
will be served by providing an alternative development option that:
a. provides a design solution for an area that has development constraints and is not redeveloping as
planned;
b. increases public access to the Foss shoreline;
c. improves views of the Thea Foss from Fireman’s Park;
d. protects the locally significant view of Mount Rainier from the southeast viewpoint in Fireman’s
Park;
e. supports economically-viable redevelopment;
f.
helps to ensure a financial return to the FWDA and/or the City of Tacoma;
g. is consistent with GMA goals and the City’s Comprehensive Plan growth strategy;
h. is consistent with the public policy objective to redevelop the Thea Foss waterfront with
development projects that are consistent with the policies in the Thea Foss Waterway Design and
Development Plan;
October 3, 2007
Page 18 of 20
Page 20
i.
preserves the Municipal Dock site for redevelopment consistent with its past use as a warehouse
and helps to preserve the site for potential reuse as a ferry terminal;
j.
supports the possibility of pedestrian access from the Murray Morgan Bridge to a future
redevelopment project on the Municipal Dock site, which may include a public rooftop space;
k. provides for architectural diversity; and
l.
enhances the pedestrian experience along the waterfront.
E. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the amendments to the S-8 Thea Foss
Waterway Shoreline District regulations (TMC 13.10.110), which is a part of the Master Program for
Shoreline Development, as approved by the Commission on October 3, 2007, summarized below and attached
hereto.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS
1. Allows buildings up to 180 ft. on Sites 10 and 11 under an alternative development option
(“tower/podium” building form) if:
a. For projects incorporating multiple towers, only one of the towers can be 180 ft. tall (and this should be
the southernmost tower). Each additional tower shall be progressively shorter by 20 feet.
b. The podium height is no greater than 50 ft. (except for mechanical equipment and amenities associated
with the use of the podium roof as recreational space, which can be no higher than 60 ft.)
c. 100 ft. average distance is maintained between towers (in no case closer than 80 ft.)
d. Maximum width of towers is 125 ft.
e. Maximum floorplate of towers is 15,000 sq ft., which is reduced to 12,000 sq ft above 100 feet in
height
f.
Buildings are set back 10 ft. from view/access corridor, increasing public access
g. The tower must be set back from podium wall along the view/access corridors
h. The podium wall along the view/access corridor must be modulated
i.
50% of the podium roof is usable recreational space, of which 30% is landscaped
j.
No additional height on the tower is allowed for structural elements, architectural features, mechanical
equipment etc.
2. Retains the existing development option for Sites 10 and 11, with a maximum height of 100 ft. (“wedding
cake” building form).
3. Reduces the maximum height limit for the Municipal Dock site to 90 feet. No additional height is allowed
for structural elements, architectural features, mechanical equipment, etc.
4. Requires an additional 10-foot setback from the view/access corridor on the north side of the Municipal
Dock site, increasing public access
5. Clarifies that the FWDA is to conduct design review on all public properties on the west side using the
criteria and guidelines in the Thea Foss Waterway Design and Development Plan. The findings of the
FWDA design review are to be referenced in the shoreline permit.
October 3, 2007
Page 19 of 20
Page 21
6. Clarifies that City staff will conduct design review on private properties as part of the shoreline permit.
Applicants can voluntarily use FWDA design review on private properties.
7. Design review must consider (per SMA) the shoreline view impacts to a substantial number of residences.
8. Requires that the view of Mt. Rainier from the southeast corner of Fireman’s Park be considered as part of
the view impact analysis and protected.
9. Reorganizes and reformats this section of the code to make it more user-friendly and adds diagrams and
illustrations to clarify certain requirements.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. S-8 Shoreline District -Thea Foss Waterway, Proposed Land Use Regulatory Code Amendments,
Planning Commission Recommendation, October 3, 2007
B. Viewshed Analysis for the Thea Foss Waterway, Zone 1 South (North of the Murray Morgan Bridge),
October 3, 2007
C. Shoreline Study Area Viewsheds, October 2007
D. Comparison of Alternative Height Options for Zone 1 South, October 3, 2007
October 3, 2007
Page 20 of 20
Page 22
S‐8 Shoreline District – Thea Foss Waterway Proposed Land Use Regulatory Code Amendments
OCTOBER 3, 2007
SUMMARY OF REVISIONS:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Allows buildings up to 180 ft. on Sites 10 and 11 under an alternative development option
(“tower/podium” form):
o For projects incorporating multiple towers, only one of the towers can be 180 ft. tall (and this
should be the southernmost tower). Each additional tower shall be progressively shorter by 20
feet
o Podium height is no higher than 50 ft. (mechanical equipment and amenities associated with the
use of the podium roof as recreational space no higher than 60 ft.)
o 100 ft average distance is maintained between towers (in no case closer than 80 ft.)
o Maximum width of tower is 125 ft.
o Maximum tower floorplate is 15,000 sq ft., reduced to 12,000 sq. ft. above 100 feet in height
o Buildings are set back 10 ft. from view/access corridors, expanding them by 25%
o The tower must be setback from podium wall along the view/access corridors
o The podium wall along the view/access corridors must be modulated
o 50% of the podium roof is usable recreational space, of which 30% is landscaped
o No additional height is allowed for structural elements, architectural features, mechanical
equipment etc.
Retains existing development option for Sites 10 and 11, with a maximum height of 100 ft. (“wedding
cake” form)
Reduces the height limit for the Municipal Dock site from 100 feet to 90 feet.
Requires an additional 10 ft. setback from the view/access corridor on the north side of the Municipal
Dock site
Clarifies that the FWDA is to conduct design review on all public properties on the west side using
the criteria and guidelines in the Thea Foss Waterway Design and Development Plan. The findings of
the FWDA design review are to be referenced in a shoreline permit
Clarifies that City staff will conduct design review on private properties as part of the shoreline
permit. Applicants can voluntarily use FWDA design review on private properties
Design review must consider (per SMA) the shoreline view impacts to a substantial number of
residences
Requires that the view of Mt. Rainier from the southeast corner of Fireman’s Park be considered as
part of the view impact analysis
Reorganizes and reformats this section of the code to make it more user-friendly and adds diagrams
and illustrations to clarify certain requirements
S-8 Shoreline District
Draft Code Amendments (10-3-07)
Page 1 of 10
Page 23
*Note – This document represents the draft changes to the S-8 Shoreline District regulations related to the proposed
alternative development option (the “tower/podium” form). The new sections and language are highlighted in the
document. In addition to these changes, the document also reflects a reorganization of this section of the code. This
reorganization is intended to make this section easier to read, follow and understand. The changes that are associated
with the reorganization have not been highlighted, as they generally do not modify the affect of the regulations (this
includes numerous portions that have not been modified but have been relocated).
13.10.110 S-8 Shoreline District – Thea Foss Waterway.
A. Intent. The intent of the “S-8” Shoreline District is to improve the environmental quality of Thea Foss
Waterway; provide continuous public access to the Waterway; encourage the reuse and redevelopment of the area
for mixed-use pedestrian-oriented development, cultural facilities, marinas and related facilities, water-oriented
commercial uses, maritime activities, water-oriented public parks and public facilities, residential development, and
waterborne transportation; and to encourage existing industrial and terminal uses to continue their current operations
and leases to industrial tenants.
B. Description. The “S-8” Shoreline District is hereby described as an area, including all of Thea Foss Waterway,
and Wheeler Osgood Waterway between the west line of Dock Street, and the east line of “D” Street, and 200 feet
landward of the ordinary high water mark of said Waterways. For the purposes of this section, the west side of the
waterway begins at the northwestern corner of the waterway and extends to the southerly end adjacent to the “twin
96-inch” storm drains.
C. Environmental Designation. The “S-8” Shoreline District is hereby designated as an “urban” environment, as
summarily defined in Section 13.10.030 of this chapter, and as further defined within those elements of the
Shoreline Master Program which are adopted by resolution.
D. Substantial Development/Permitted Uses and Development Activities. The following uses and development
activities shall be permitted, subject to the issuance of a Substantial Development Permit, if required:
1. Bulkheads.
2. Commercial, non-water-oriented, over water, only within structures which existed on January 1, 1996.
3. Commercial, water-oriented, upland, or over water.
4. Dredging, maintenance, and for environmental remediation and habitat improvement projects.
5. Educational, historical, cultural, and archaeological areas.
6. Environmental remediation.
7. Habitat improvement.
8. Hotels/motels on the west side and on the east side only, south of the East 11th Street right-of-way.
9. Industrial uses which existed on January 1, 1996, on the east side of the Waterway. (Said industrial uses may
continue current operations, and owners of property and structures currently let for industrial purposes may replace
existing industrial tenants. Such uses may be expanded, adapted, repaired, replaced or otherwise modified, including
changes necessitated by technological advancements; provided, however, that the uses may not be expanded beyond
property boundaries owned, leased, or operated by the industrial user on January 1, 1996.)
10. New industrial uses, water-dependent or water related, in the area on the east side of the waterway, and north of
the centerline of East 15th Street, in conformance with the regulations set forth in Section 13.10.175.B.15 of this
chapter.
Page 2 of 10
Page 24
11. Landfill above the OHWM in conjunction with a specific use or landfill below the OHWM for environmental
remediation or habitat improvement.
12. Marinas and boat launch facilities, except as set forth in “F” below.
13. Piers, wharves, docks, and floats.
14. Recreation, water-oriented.
15. Residential; upland location only or within over water structures which existed on January 1, 1996, on the west
side of the waterway and on the east side only, south of the East 11th Street right-of-way.
16. Roads, railroad and bridge construction.
17. Utilities, underground.
18. Normal maintenance and repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire, or
elements.
E. Substantial Development/Conditional Uses and Development Activities. The following uses and development
activities shall be permitted subject to the issuance of a Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit, if
required; provided, that the applicant can demonstrate that any such use activity conforms with the criteria set forth
in Section 13.10.180 of this chapter, and subject to approval of the Department of Ecology as set forth in
Section 13.10.180 of this chapter:
1. Breakwaters.
2. Commercial, non-water-oriented, upland location only.
3. Dredging, non-maintenance.
4. New industrial uses, non-water-dependent or non-water related, in the area on the easterly side of the Waterway
and north of the centerline of East 15th Street in conformance with the regulations set forth in
Section 13.10.175.B.15.
5. Landfill below the OHWM in conjunction with a specific use other than environmental remediation or habitat
improvement.
F. Prohibited Use Activities. Boat launch facilities, which are not part of a marina facility, shall be prohibited within
Thea Foss Waterway. Car-top facilities are permitted.
G. Development Standards. The development standards section is divided into three separate subsections. The first
subsection is applicable to the west side of the Waterway; the second subsection is applicable to the east side of the
Waterway; and the third subsection is applicable to both sides of the Waterway.
1. West Side of the Waterway. The following regulations apply to the west side of the Waterway. Any new
building, structure or portion thereof erected on the west side shall be subject to the following standards.
a. Area Regulations
(1) Due to the significant public ownership on the west side of the Waterway, the areas bounded by Dock Street,
designated view/access corridors between Dock Street and the Waterway, and shoreline edge areas designated for
public use and access, are termed “development sites.” Twelve specific development sites are established per the
Thea Foss Waterway Design and Development Plan (Foss Plan). The term “development site,” when utilized in this
section, refers to the areas described herein and in the Foss Plan.
(2) The Foss Waterway Public Development Authority (FWDA) shall administer development of publicly-owned
properties and shall conduct design review of projects on public property on the west side of the Waterway.
Developers of private property are encouraged, but not required, to participate in the design review process
conducted by the FWDA. If the FWDA design review process is not utilized for development on private property,
City staff shall conduct the design review as part of the shoreline permit process and shall solicit comments from the
FWDA. The required design review shall utilize the design guidelines and other requirements found in the Foss
Plan and shall include consideration of view impacts (as further described below). The findings and/or comments of
Page 3 of 10
Page 25
the FWDA’s design review shall be referenced in shoreline permit decisions and given substantial weight in
determining whether a proposed project is consistent with the Foss Plan and its design requirements.
(3) View Impact Analysis. Project proponents shall conduct a view impact analysis for all new development that
exceeds 35 feet in height. The purposes of the view analysis are to assist in addressing the requirements of the
Shoreline Management Act, including RCW 90.58.320, and protecting a locally significant public view. The
analysis shall be submitted to the City as a part of the shoreline permit application. In addition, for projects utilizing
the FWDA design review process, the analysis shall be submitted to and reviewed as part of their design review
process.
(a) The view analysis shall identify potential impacts to public access to the shorelines of the State and the view
obstruction of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining the west side of the Waterway.
(b) The view analysis shall also identify potential impacts to the locally significant public view of Mount Rainier,
behind the Murray Morgan Bridge, as seen from the northern end of the southernmost viewpoint projection in
Fireman’s Park.
(c) In addition to the requirements found in the Shoreline Management Act, including RCW 90.58.320, shoreline
permits shall not be approved for any new or expanded building or structure of more than fifty feet in height that
will obstruct the locally significant public view of Mount Rainier, as described above.
(4) Any new building adjacent to Dock Street, view/access corridors, or the esplanade must provide pedestrianoriented uses and activities which are directly accessible from adjacent public spaces. These pedestrian-oriented
uses or activities include retail sales, eating and drinking establishments, or interior public art displays that can be
viewed from the public space.
(a) A minimum of 50 percent of the pedestrian level building frontage along the esplanade shall contain this type of
use.
(b) A minimum of 20 percent of the building frontage along the view/access corridors and Dock Street shall contain
this type of use.
(c) These uses shall be located at or near the corners where possible.
(d) Pedestrian access to ground-level uses shall be provided directly from adjacent walkways. Pedestrian entrances
shall be located no more than three feet above or below adjacent sidewalk grade.
(e) The Puget Sound Freight Building is exempt from the application of this requirement if this building is
renovated.
(5) Blank walls (walls that do not contain doors, windows, or ventilation structures) between two feet and eight feet
above the adjacent sidewalk shall be no longer than 20 feet in length.
b. View/Access Corridors.
(1) Fourteen view/access corridors are located adjacent to the development sites and are defined below. By
specifically designating these areas for public use and access, setbacks are not required on the front (Dock Street),
side and rear edges of the development sites (except as specifically required below); provided, that the required
public access areas, amenities and area-wide design features are provided.
(2) Fourteen 80-foot wide view/access corridors between Dock Street and the inner harbor line and generally
aligned with the extension of the urban street grid are hereby established. Three primary view/access corridors are
established at the alignment with South 13th, 15th, and 17th Streets. Eleven secondary view/access corridors are
established immediately south of the “Dock” Building, north and south of the Puget Sound Freight Building, north
of the Municipal Dock Building, and at the alignment of South 9th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, and 20th Streets.
(3) View/access corridors shall be developed concurrent with improvements on adjacent development sites. These
corridors shall be designed and constructed in coordination with the FWDA. All developments abutting a
view/access corridor(s) shall be required to develop one-half of all view/access corridors abutting their development
site(s).
(4) Buildings are not allowed in any designated waterfront esplanade, boardwalk, or view/access corridor, except
that weather protection features, public art, or areas provided primarily for public access, such as viewing towers
Page 4 of 10
Page 26
and pedestrian bridges, may be located in or over these areas, consistent with the Foss Plan. Pedestrian bridges over
secondary view/access corridors between development sites are allowed, provided they are a maximum of 10 feet in
width and 12 feet in height, and with a minimum clearance of 25 feet from the ground to the underside of the
structure.
(5) Primary view/access corridors may not be reduced in width and are generally fixed in location, but may be
moved up to 25 feet in either direction to accommodate site development. Secondary view/access corridors may be
moved to accommodate site development, although the total corridor width must not be reduced. To move
view/access corridors, the applicant must demonstrate the following:
(a) The movement is necessary to facilitate site design and would not compromise future development on remaining
development sites.
(b) The new view/access corridors created provide the same or greater public use value.
(c) Building design reflects the original view/access corridor by reducing building height in this area or by
providing additional public access and viewing opportunities.
(6) If the distance between any two view/access corridors is greater than 500 lineal feet, an additional public access
between Dock Street and the esplanade must be provided. This public access must be a minimum of 20 feet in
width, signed for public access, open to the public, and may be either outdoors or within a structure.
(7) Development over view/access corridors established at the alignment of South 16th and 18th Streets may occur;
provided, the structure meets the following conditions:
(a) The height to the underside of the structure is a minimum of 25 feet.
(b) The height does not exceed 50 feet.
(c) The structure is set back a minimum of 20 feet from the Dock Street facade of adjacent development sites.
(d) The total depth does not exceed 80 feet.
(8) Municipal Dock Site. Buildings on the Municipal Dock site shall be setback at least 10 ft. from the edge of the
view/access corridor between the Municipal Dock site and Development Site 10. This additional setback area shall
be designed and developed to facilitate additional public access and function as an extension of the abutting
view/access corridor. This setback requirement is not subject to variance.
Page 5 of 10
Page 27
c. Building Envelope Standards Table
North end of
Waterway to
center of
secondary
view/access
corridor
between
Development
Site 11 and the
Puget Sound
Freight Building
Center of the
secondary
view/access corridor
between Development
Site 11 and the Puget
Sound Freight
Building to center of
the secondary
view/access corridor
between Development
Site 10 and Municipal
Dock site
Center of
11th Street to
center of
15th Street,
extended
Center of
15th Street,
extended, to
center of
18th Street,
extended
Center of
18th Street,
extended, to
south end of
Waterway
None
Alternative 1
Alt. 2 1
None
None
None
None
50
50
none
50
50
40
40
Maximum Height
100
100
180
90
130
100
65
Modulation
Required – from
edge of view/
access corridors2
8 feet in at a
height of 50 feet
and between 50100 feet
8 feet in at a
height of
50 feet and
between 50100 feet
8 feet in at a
height of
50 feet and
between 50100 feet
8 feet in at two
locations, one
between a
height of 25
and 50 feet
and one
between 50
and 75 feet
8 feet in at two
locations, one
between a
height of 25
and 50 feet
and one
between 50
and 75 feet
8 feet in at two
locations
between a
height of 25
and 50 feet
Modulation
Required – from
edge of
esplanade 3
8 feet in at two
locations, one
between a height
of 25 and 50 feet
and one between
50 and 75 feet
8 feet in at
two
locations,
one between
a height of
25 and
50 feet and
one between
50 and
75 feet
8 feet in at two
locations, one
between a
height of 25
and 50 feet
and one
between 50
and 75 feet
8 feet in at two
locations, one
between a
height of 25
and 50 feet
and one
between 50
and 75 feet
8 feet in at two
locations, one
between a
height of 25
and 50 feet
and one
between 50
and 75 feet
8 feet in at two
locations
between a
height of
25 feet and
50 feet
Alternatives
Minimum Height
1
See Section 13.10.110.G.1.g, below, for
additional standards for Alternative 2
Center of the
secondary
view/access
corridor
between
Development
Site 10 and
Municipal
Dock site to
center of 11th
Street
Footnotes:
1. All new buildings must meet the minimum height limit for 50 percent of the structure footprint. This requirement does not apply to
buildings which existed as of January 1, 1996, structures in parks, the view/access corridors, the esplanade, or temporary uses or
maintenance structures.
2. Where a specific height is indicated, the actual modulation may occur at the floor elevation closest to the identified height.
3. Required building modulation at 25 feet in height adjacent to esplanade is not required if actual building height at this location is less
than 40 feet.
d. Site Coverage Restrictions. The following site coverage restrictions are imposed to reduce building profile and
bulk as buildings increase in height. These restrictions do not apply to developments along the westside of the
Waterway that utilize the Alternative 2 development option in Section 13.10.110.G.1.g.
(1) From grade to 50 feet in height: 100 percent coverage of development site allowed (subsurface parking may
extend under adjacent view/access corridors if conforming to Section 13.10.110.G.3.b(h) and/or beyond
development sites north of 11th Street where the esplanade is several feet higher in elevation than Dock Street.)
(2) From 50 feet to 100 feet: 70 percent coverage of the at-grade area is available for development, inclusive of
required modulations.
(3) Above 100 feet: 50 percent coverage of the at-grade area is available for development, inclusive of required
modulations.
Page 6 of 10
Page 28
e. Any new building must extend to the site edge for a minimum of 60 percent of the site perimeter. This provision
does not apply to developments along the west side of the Waterway that utilize the Alternative 2 development
option in Section 13.10.110.G.1.g.
f. Reduction of the required modulations and/or increased height limits on the western side of Waterway to
accommodate structural elements may be authorized in conjunction with the issuance of a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit or Shoreline Conditional Use Permit when all of the following are satisfied. This provision
does not apply to developments along the west side of the Waterway that utilize the Alternative 2 development
option in Section 13.10.110.G.1.g.
(1) That portion of the structure exceeding the underlying height limit or contained within the required modulation:
(a) Is designed primarily as an architectural or artistic feature and does not include signage or exterior mechanical
equipment;
(b) Does not provide habitable floor space;
(c) Does not exceed the underlying height limit by more than 25 feet;
(d) Has a cumulative width of 15 percent or less of the development site’s Dock Street frontage;
(e) Does not extend waterward of ordinary high water; and
(f) Is designed to minimize view impacts from neighboring properties through the use of location, materials, and
orientation.
(2) The reduction of the required modulations and/or the increased height will not adversely affect the intended
character of the shoreline district and will secure for neighboring properties substantially the same protection that a
literal application of the regulation would have provided.
(3) The reduction of the required modulations and/or the increased height will not be contrary to the intent of the
Shoreline Management Act and will be consistent with the policies of the Foss Plan.
g. Alternative 2 Development Option. As noted in the
building envelope standards table in Subsection G.1.c,
above, within the area between the center of the view/access
corridor between Development Site 11 and the Puget Sound
Freight Building and the center of the secondary
view/access corridor between Development Site 10 and
Municipal Dock site, there are two basic development
alternatives. Alternative 1 represents a mid-rise block form
of building design. The basic development standards
associated with Alternative 1 are mostly provided in the
table and subsections above. Alternative 2 represents a
tower and podium form of building design, which utilizes a
combination of a low-rise block form with one or more
tower elements that project up from the base (see Figure 2).
Most of the development standards associated with
Alternative 2 do not fit within the format of the above table
and subsections and, therefore, are provided below. For
projects utilizing Alternative 2, the following additional
development standards shall apply:
(1) Podium Height. The height of the podium shall be no
greater than 50 ft. Mechanical equipment and parapet
walls, as well as railings, planters, seating, shelters, and
other similar amenities associated with the use of the
podium roof as recreational space, shall be allowed up to a
maximum height of 60 ft.
Page 7 of 10
Page 29
Figure 2:
Alternative 1 – Mid-rise block form
Alternative 2 – Tower and podium form
(2) Tower Height. The maximum height
for any tower shall be 180 feet. Any
portion of a building extending above the
maximum height of the podium shall be
considered a part of a tower. For projects
with multiple towers on a single
development site, only one of the towers
shall be allowed to the maximum height
limit. The maximum allowable height for
each additional tower on that
development site shall be progressively
reduced by at least 20 feet. For example,
a project with three towers could have one
tower up to 180 feet tall, one tower up to
160 feet tall and one tower up to 140 feet
tall (see Figure 3). Additionally, the
tallest tower on each development site
shall be the southernmost tower and
additional towers shall step down in
elevation as they progress to the north;
provided, an alternative tower
arrangement can be allowed if it is found
to provide improved public access and
reduced view impacts. This height limit
is not subject to variance.
Figure 3: Tower Height – Progressive maximum height reduction
Figure 4: Tower Spacing – Averaging
In this example, the building’s two tower separations (80 and 120
feet) provide the required average separation of 100 feet
(3) Tower Spacing. For buildings that
incorporate multiple towers, the minimum
spacing between towers shall be an
average of 100 feet, with no less than 80
feet between any portions of any two
towers (see Figure 4). For single projects
with multiple buildings and multiple
towers, the average spacing between towers may be calculated based on all of the towers contained in that project.
(4) Tower Width. The maximum width of any tower shall be 125 feet. For purposes of this requirement, the width
shall be measured in a north-south direction, parallel to Dock Street.
(5) Tower Floorplate. The maximum floorplate area per floor for the portion of any tower above 50 feet in height
shall be 15,000 sq. ft. The maximum floorplate area per floor for the portion of any tower above 100 feet in height
shall be 12,000 sq. ft.
(6) Podium Setback. The podium portion of any building shall be setback at least 10 ft. from the edge of any
view/access corridor. This additional setback area shall be designed and developed to facilitate additional public
access and function as an extension of the abutting view/access corridor. This setback requirement is not subject to
variance.
(7) Tower Setback. Along the view/access corridors, the tower portion(s) of any building shall be setback at least
eight feet from the primary exterior face of the podium wall along the view/access corridors.
(8) Podium Modulation. For the portion of the exterior wall along the view/access corridors that is above 35 feet in
height, at least 50% of the length of the podium wall shall be setback a minimum of 8 feet (see Figure 5).
Page 8 of 10
Page 30
(9) Podium Roof. At least 50% of the
podium roof shall be improved as
recreational space for use by the tenants
and/or public. At least 30% of this
improved recreational space on the
podium roof shall be landscaped. The
use of native vegetation is encouraged.
Figure 5: Podium Modulation (along View/Access Corridors)
2. East Side of the Waterway. The
following regulations apply to the east
side of the Waterway:
a. Building Height. Any building,
structure, or portion thereof hereafter
erected shall not exceed a height of
Please Note:
This drawing is only intended
100 feet on the east side of the
to demonstrate the components
Waterway, except for the area north of
of this requirement. This is not the
East 15th Street, where an additional
only method for meeting this requirement
four feet of additional height is allowed
for every one foot a structure is set back on all sides.
b. Side Yard/View Corridor – same as required in the “S-1” Western Slope South Shoreline District Area
Regulations, Section 13.10.040.H.1, except for industrial uses which existed on January 1, 1996. Such side
yard/view corridor shall include the pedestrian circulation link required by Section 13.10.175.A of this chapter.
c. Front Yard Setback (street or road) – same as required in the “S-1” Western Slope South Shoreline District Area
Regulations, Section 13.10.040.H.1, except for industrial uses which existed on January 1, 1996.
d. Rear Yard Setback – same as required in the “S-1” Western Slope South Shoreline District Area Regulations,
Section 13.10.040.H.1, except for industrial uses which existed on January 1, 1996.
e. Lot Area – same as required in the “S-1” Western Slope South Shoreline District.
3. Additional Development Standards. These additional development standards apply to the entire “S-8” Shoreline
District.
a. The following structures are allowed above the height limit: television antennas, chimneys, and similar building
appurtenances, except where such appurtenances obstruct the view of the shoreline of a substantial number of
residences on areas adjoining the shoreline, and then only provided they meet structural requirements of the City of
Tacoma and provide no usable floor space above the height limitations. This provision does not apply to the tower
height limit for developments along the west side of the Waterway that utilize the Alternative 2 development option
(Section 13.10.110.G.1.g(2)) or to the portion of the west side of the Waterway from the center of the secondary
view/access corridor between Development Site 10 and the Municipal Dock site to the center of 11th Street.
b. Parking and Loading Regulations. The following parking and loading regulations shall apply to the “S-8” Thea
Foss Waterway Shoreline District:
(1) Parking is not required for any use located in the “S-8” Thea Foss Waterway Shoreline District.
(2) Parking which is developed shall conform to the parking and loading regulations set forth in Section 13.10.175
of this chapter. All parking provided on the east side of the Waterway shall not exceed the amount which would
have been required by Section 13.10.175 of this chapter.
(3) Angled street parking, where it conflicts with public transportation use, shall be prohibited.
(4) The following standards shall additionally apply to all parking provided on the west side of the Waterway:
(a) All new parking provided within the “S-8” Shoreline District must be located within a structure, except as
provided for in subsection (c) below and except for parking for sites developed as public parks (excluding
view/access corridors), any parking necessary to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
loading and unloading areas and within the Dock Street right-of-way. Structured parking facilities may
accommodate parking for surrounding uses; provided, that the principal use of a structure may not be a parking
Page 9 of 10
Page 31
facility. For-pay parking is allowed. Twenty percent of stalls in all new parking areas shall be set aside for public
use; provided, that one parking space per new residential unit is exempt from this requirement.
(b) Legally permitted surface parking areas as of January 1, 1996, may continue to serve existing uses.
(c) New surface parking may be provided as an interim principal use for a length of time not to exceed 15 years,
and requiring shoreline permit review every five years. Such surface parking may be allowed following
demonstration that the parking is landscaped and screened in accordance with the Foss Plan and the requirements of
Section 13.10.175, including the requirements for public access.
(d) Landscaping and/or building surface treatment consistent with the Foss Plan shall be provided on the sides
oriented toward Dock Street and designated view/access corridors. The waterward side of any building may not be
developed with above-grade structured parking.
(e) Access to structured parking may be provided in designated view/access corridors; provided, that the applicant
can demonstrate that access across the development site is not reasonably available, that public access along
Dock Street and through the view/access corridor is unimpeded, and that the minimum area necessary to provide
said access is used.
(f) Above-grade structured parking shall not be allowed as a visible use on the waterward side of any building, and
landscaping and/or building surface treatment consistent with the Foss Plan shall be provided on the sides oriented
toward Dock Street and designated view/access corridors. Parking uses visible from the building exterior shall be
screened or shall incorporate design measures to provide an appearance comparable to the rest of the building not
used for parking, utilizing landscaping and building surface treatment.
(g) Structured parking shall be designed to a minimum allowable height.
(h) Subsurface parking is allowed under view/access corridors, provided the structure is designed to a minimum
allowable height to optimize public access and views to the esplanade from Dock Street. Public access over
subsurface parking structures shall be designed to minimize grade discontinuation and meet the requirements for
ADA accessibility.
c. Use and Development and Sign Regulations. Use and development and sign regulations are set forth in
Section 13.10.175 of this chapter entitled “Regulations”.
d. Developments within the “S-8” Thea Foss Waterway Shoreline District shall also comply with the goals and
intent of the Foss Plan and shall incorporate unifying design elements as specified in said Plan.
Page 10 of 10
Page 32
Viewshed Analysis for the Thea Foss Waterway
Zone 1 South (North of the Murray Morgan Bridge)
October 3, 2007
The following images created in a 3D GIS model illustrate existing views and possible view
impairment from a maximum zoning build-out scenario at different heights. The “buildings” are
not supposed to look like buildings; rather, they are boxes filling up the maximum zoning
envelopes. In reality, a constructed building could be smaller than the maximum zoning
envelope, and it would certainly be more attractive. Also, there could be more “buildings” and
they could be sited at different locations than as depicted. The purpose of this analysis is to
provide a comparison of heights under one possible scenario.
Each block in a zoning envelope box is 10 feet square. Additionally, “measuring sticks” have
been placed to show the height of the zoning envelope boxes.
Three viewpoints are depicted and shown below. The Perkins Building contains 33
condominiums and all units share a roof garden. At the request of the residents, the selected
viewpoint is located in the roof garden area. Another viewpoint is located at the Fireman’s Park
overlook directly east of the Totem Pole, which is located towards the southeast corner of the
Park. The third viewpoint is located at the overlook area at the northern part of Fireman’s Park.
…R2007Y:\R378\Attachment_A_Viewshed_Analysis_Oct32007.doc
Page 33
Page 1 of 11
Viewshed Analysis from the Perkins Building Roof Garden
View from the Perkins Building Roof Garden
Existing Conditions, View to the North
100 Foot Zoning Envelope, 125 Foot Structural Element (Current Zoning), View to the North
Page 34
Page 2 of 11
April 2007 Proposal, View to the North
October 2007 Proposal, View to the North
Page 35
Page 3 of 11
Viewshed Analysis from Fireman’s Park East of the Totem Pole (South View)
View from Fireman’s Park East of the Totem Pole
Existing Conditions, View to the South
View from Fireman’s Park East of the Totem Pole (Current Zoning)
100 Foot Zoning Envelope, 125 Foot Structural Element, View to the South
Page 36
Page 4 of 11
April 2007 Proposal, View to the South
October 2007 Proposal, View to the South
Page 37
Page 5 of 11
Viewshed Analysis from Fireman’s Park East of the Totem Pole (East View)
Existing Conditions, View to the East
100 Foot Zoning Envelope, 125 Foot Structural Element, View to the East
Page 38
Page 6 of 11
April 2007 Proposal, View to the East
October 2007 Proposal, View to the East
Page 39
Page 7 of 11
Viewshed Analysis from Fireman’s Park East of the Totem Pole (North View)
Existing Conditions, View to the North
100 Foot Zoning Envelope, 125 Foot Structural Element, View to the North
Page 40
Page 8 of 11
April 2007 Proposal, View to the North
October 2007 Proposal, View to the North
Page 41
Page 9 of 11
Viewshed Analysis from the Northern Viewpoint in Fireman’s Park
View from the Northern Viewpoint in Fireman’s Park
Existing Conditions
100 Foot Zoning Envelope, 125 Foot Structural Element (Existing Zoning)
Page 42
Page 10 of 11
April 2007 Proposal
October 2007 Proposal
Page 43
Page 11 of 11
Page 44
Shoreline Study Area Viewsheds
Blue areas on maps are visible from the viewpoint | Red areas on maps are not visible from the viewpoint
Fireman’s Park viewpoint
Existing conditions
Current zoning
…R2007\R378\viewshed_calculations\ Attachment_B_Viewshed_Analysis_Graphic_Illustrations_Oct32007.doc
Page 45
Page 1 of 6
Fireman’s Park viewpoint
April 2007 proposal
October 2007 proposal
Blue: Visible | Red: Not Visible
Page 46
Page 2 of 6
Fireman’s Park north viewpoint
Existing conditions
Current zoning
Page 47
Page 3 of 6
Fireman’s Park north viewpoint
April 2007 proposal
Page 48
Page 4 of 6
Perkins Building roof viewpoint
Existing conditions
Current zoning
Page 49
Page 5 of 6
Perkins Building roof viewpoint
April 2007 proposal
Page 50
Page 6 of 6
Comparison of Alternative Height Options for Zone 1 South
October 3, 2007
Existing Regulations
April 2007 Proposal
October 2007 Proposal
100 Ft. Wedding Cake
Form
Hybrid
% reduction from
existing degrees of view
Fireman’s Park (Totem Pole)
Existing degrees of view
% reduction from
180 Ft. Tower &
Podium Form, with
stepdown
% reduction from
Near shore views (181°)
Mid shore views (175°)
Far shore views ( 95°)
Fireman’s Park (North)
76.2%
54.3%
24.2%
% reduction from
68.0%
61.1%
74.7%
% reduction from
71.3%
60.6%
73.7%
% reduction from
Far shore views ( 96°)
Perkins Building (Rooftop)
47.8%
28.9%
0%
% reduction from
44.4%
44.4%
27.1%
% reduction from
43.9%
43.9%
26.0%
% reduction from
Far shore views ( 92°))
39.2%
0%
0%
80 feet
29.8%
26.9%
44.6%
100/90/80 feet
16.4%
13.5%
19.6%
100/90/80 feet
96 ft wide at 50 ft,
expanding to 112 ft wide
between 50 and 100 ft
high at view/access
corridor
100 ft wide at
view/access corridor and
above
No additional corridors
Additional view
corridors between towers
(min. 100 ft. avg. width
above 50 ft.)
1,552,272 sq. ft.
1,079 linear ft. of bldg.
View/access Corridors Width
(at grade)
“Viewing” Corridors Width
At View/Access Corridors
Additional Corridors
Maximum Buildout
Building Frontage for Area
Site Coverage
Building Modulation
From View/Access Corridors
1,369,088 sq ft
100% at grade to 50 ft
70% from 50 ft to 100 ft
Not required
8 ft at 50 ft and between
50 ft and 100 ft
Not required
Municipal Dock
96/116 ft wide at 50
ft, expanding to
112/124 ft wide
between 50 and 100
ft high at
view/access
corridor
Sites 10 & 11
100 ft wide at grade,
expanding to 116 ft
wide above 50 ft at
view/access corridors
Additional view
corridors between
towers (min. 100 ft.
avg. width above 50 ft.)
1,409,078 sq. ft.
Sites 10 & 11
Municipal Dock
100% at grade to 50 ft
Not Required
70% from 50 ft to 90 ft
No additional
corridors
Municipal Dock
8 ft at 50 ft and
between 50 ft and 100
ft
Sites 10 & 11
8 ft at 50 ft high
and 8 ft at 35 ft
high for 50% of
corridor
From Esplanade
8 ft between 25 ft and
None
8 ft between 25 ft and 50
Not required
50 ft and between 50 ft
ft and between 50 ft and
and 75 ft
75 ft
*Near shore views are generally of the Thea Foss waterway and its shoreline; mid shore views are of Commencement Bay
and the shoreline and waterways of the tideflats and far shore views are of the shoreline areas abutting Northeast Tacoma
I:\GM\LRANGE\AMEND\2004 Annual Amendment\State Shoreline Review\2006 Review\PC Recommendation\Comparison of Alternative Height Options (10-3-07).doc
Page 51
Page 52
City of Tacoma
Thea Foss Waterway
ISSUES AND STAFF OBSERVATIONS REPORT
SEPTEMBER 19, 2007
The following report summarizes the oral testimony received at the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the S-8 shoreline regulations
held on April 18, 2007and written comments received prior to the comment deadline and provides a staff response to the comments, as warranted.
Comment
1.
Support proposed height amendment
2.
Oppose proposed height amendment
Source(s)
Bjornson,
Campbell,
Crooke,
Simon/Johnson,
Johnson, Toth,
Lynn, Meyer
Wheeler, Sarner,
Burkey, Lorenz,
Gray, Shaw,
Cummings (2),
Johnson (2),
Glick, Dzivak,
Lambert Jacobs,
Handmacher,
Barline, Beery,
Cohn, Furlong,
Furlong, Fayth,
Roberts, Rowley,
Malone, Zacek,
Vincenzo,
Purcell, Tinnin,
Casey, Caraher,
Cummings,
Rieber, Bennett,
Eakins, Gross
Response
Support noted.
Opposition noted.
Page 53
Comment
Source(s)
3.
Keep 100 foot limit.
Lambert, Beery
4.
The proposed 180 foot building height would affect
the view of Foss Waterway and Mount Rainier from
residences at Cliff Street Lofts.
Wheeler, Sarner,
Tinnin
5.
the view of residences at A Street.
Wheeler,
Johnson (2)
6.
the views of Thea Foss, Commencement Bay and
Mount Rainier from Fireman’s Park.
Wheeler, Sarner,
Jacobs,
Handmacher,
Barline, Furlong,
Furlong, Larsen,
Davenport,
Rieber, Vincenzo
7.
The residents living downtown have no legitimate
expectation of an unobstructed view of the water.
Bjornson
8.
The change in the height restriction will change the
view from street level which is a loss to all citizens.
The Commission should find a more equitable way to
encourage development without removing views for
Lorenz,
Davenport,
Gross, Casey
Response
The proposed amendment retains the existing regulations which have a
maximum height limit of 100 feet as an option within the affected area.
The 3D view impact analysis conducted as a part of the review of the proposed
alternative development option shows that the view of the Thea Foss
Waterway looking north from the Cliff Street residences would be impacted;
however; specific view impacts will be evaluated at the time of permit
application and a more specific view analysis will be prepared and evaluated.
The proposed alternative development option would not impact views of the
Foss Waterway looking east at this location as the development sites located
on the Foss Waterway are not affected by the proposed amendment. The view
of Mount Rainier would not be affected at this location as the mountain is
located to the south and east of the residences and the area of the Thea Foss
Waterway that is affected by the proposed amendment.
The 3D view analysis indicates that the existing height limit of 100 feet and
the proposed option to allow 180 feet in a podium and tower configuration
affect the views of residences. Near shore views would be affected at almost
any height while mid-shore views are impacted at heights above 140 feet and
far-shore views are impacted at heights above 160 feet (when viewed from the
rooftop of the Perkins Building). Residential views from lower floors would
vary in their impacts. Specific view impacts will be evaluated at the time of
permit application and a specific view analysis will be prepared and evaluated.
The proposed amendment prevents the obstruction of the view of Mount
Rainier for the southeast overlook located in the park from any future
development on the west side of the Waterway. The view of the mountain is
identified as a locally important view in the proposed regulations. The current
code does not protect this view. Also, the view of Commencement Bay from
the three northernmost overlooks located in Fireman’s Park will not be
impacted by the proposed amendment. The tower/podium form opens up
additional view corridors between the park and the waterway, substantially
improving the view.
The Shoreline Management Act does confer some protection to views from
residences adjacent to shorelines. Outside of the shoreline areas and adjacent
lands, Washington state does not provide protection of private views. There is
also very little view of the Foss Waterway at street level in the downtown.
The Thea Foss Plan and shoreline regulations require view/access corridors
and a continuous esplanade to provide viewing opportunities for the public. In
addition several parks are also located on or are planned for the Waterway. As
part of this proposal, the required view/access corridors will be expanded by
Issues and Observations Report
Thea Foss Waterway, S-8 Shoreline District Regulations
Page 2 of 26
Page 54
Comment
Source(s)
Tacoma residents.
9.
The current regulations, with a 100-foot height limit,
are unacceptable because of the view impacts. The
height limit should be reduced, not raised. The
viewshed analysis indicates that the allowable height
should be reduced.
10.
Leave the view for all of us, no just for those who can
afford expensive, tax-subsidized condos. Scenic
resources belong to everyone.
11.
Buildings deteriorate; vistas that make Tacoma what it
is will not. The code change will stultify growth and
Tacoma’s reputation as a jewel of the Northwest.
Construction of the towers will virtually eliminate
views of Commencement Bay for the residents of the
Perkins Building.
12.
Handmacher,
Johnson (2),
Gray, Barline,
Dzivak,
Cummings
Gray, Shaw,
Dzivak, Glick
Lambert, Larsen,
Roberts, Malone,
Johnson (2),
Casey, Beery,
Dzivak, Barline
Glick, Beery,
Fayth
Cummings (2),
Handmacher,
Stebich, Zacek,
Bennett, Eakins,
Lorenz
Response
25%. In addition, 50% of the podium roofs are to be usable for recreational
space by the building tenants and/or public.
The Planning Commission directed staff to develop a revised proposal which
lowers the maximum height for the Municipal Dock site to 90’. The economic
analysis conducted as part of this project revealed that development at a height
of less than 100 feet was not economically viable and that additional height
was necessary to attract investment.
The viewshed analysis indicates that the nearshore views from Fireman’s Park
are impacted more by the existing regulations than the proposed regulations;
however, the midshore views are impacted more by the proposed than the
existing regulations. From the Perkins building observation point, the
nearshore view impacts are greater with the existing than the proposed
regulations. The Foss Plan recognizes that view impacts will occur as
redevelopment occurs.
The Thea Foss Design and Development Plan (Foss Plan) and shoreline
regulations require view/access corridors and a continuous esplanade to
provide viewing opportunities for the public. As part of this proposal, the
required view/access corridors will be expanded by 25%. As previously noted,
park areas also provide opportunities for the public’s enjoyment of the
waterway.
The Foss Plan identifies primary and secondary view/access corridors and
includes policies that protect views at a variety of scale and locations. Also,
please see the response to comments #6, #7, #8 and #80.
The view analysis calculations of the proposal indicates that near-, mid-, and
far shore views will be reduced by between 26.9% and 44.6% from the rooftop
of the Perkins Building if buildings are built to the maximum zoning envelopes
in the exact configuration as shown in the 3D model. The actual view impact
may be less or more depending on any future project design. It is noted that
views from the Perkins Building will be impacted, but the residents will still
retain other views. In addition, residents have the opportunity to view
Commencement Bay from many public vantage points as does any other
resident of the city.
The Planning Commission directed staff to develop a revised proposal which
eliminates the alternative development option for the Municipal Dock site and
limits the height to a maximum height of 90 ft for this site, reduces the
Page 3 of 26
Page 55
Comment
Source(s)
13.
If the city prevails and adopts this height amendment,
it will set a precedent for the shoreline south of the
11th Street Bridge
Cummings (2),
Zacek, Sarner
14.
The decisions from the Shorelines Hearings Board
regarding permits for building in excess of 35 feet
have clearly stated the SMA does not bar such
development; it only places the burden on the
applicant to show that proposed height meets
“overriding considerations of the public interest.”
There have been several cases concerning view
impacts considered by the Shorelines Hearings Board
including: Tacoma, Olympia, Seattle, Vancouver and
Kirkland.
Handmacher,
Cooke
15.
The Shoreline Management Act has specific
provisions to protect views from residences located in
areas adjacent to the shorelines. RCW 90.58.320
prohibits buildings over 35 feet where views of
residences are blocked unless there are overriding
considerations of the public interest. There is no
overriding consideration of the public interest being
served by the proposed amendment.
Handmacher,
Cummings (2),
Davenport,
Zacek, Barline,
Rowley
Response
floorplate above 100 ft and requires that the tower portions of a building be
setback from the view/access corridors. These changes will modify the view
impacts from the Perkins Building.
The areas of the Foss Waterway North and South of the Murray Morgan
Bridge are planned for different levels of development and distinct policies
regarding their future use. Allowing a height amendment now, to the area
North of the Murray Morgan (11th Street) Bridge does not mean that another
height amendment is planned or if another height amendment were to be
proposed in the future that it will be guaranteed. Any other proposal to change
the height limits will be analyzed on its own merits and according to the
policies of the Shoreline Management Act, the City of Tacoma Comprehensive
Plan, the Shoreline Master Program and the Foss Plan.
City staff has reviewed Shoreline Hearings Board decisions concerning the
impact of proposed development on views. The Shoreline Hearings Board’s
function is to determine a project’s consistency with the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA) and with the jurisdiction’s Shoreline Master Program
(SMP). Each local jurisdiction has the primary responsibility for implementing
the SMA through the adoption of an SMP. The Shoreline Hearings Board
refers to two provisions of the SMA when considering the issues of view
access and view obstruction. They are the general policy section, RCW
90.58.020, and a specific provision, which deals with structures in the
shoreline district exceeding 35 feet in height, RCW 90.58.320. The Board
looks to the local SMP and the policies contained therein, so a local
jurisdiction does have authority to determine what it values.
RCW 90.58.320 provides guidance concerning the views from adjacent
residential property but also provides an exception to this protection when the
SMP provides for buildings higher than 35’ when the "overriding
considerations of the public interests" are served. The statute does not provide
a definition of "overriding considerations of the public interest" and does not
articulate any specific test or analysis to be applied in determining whether or
not the standard is met. Factors which may be considered in determining the
public interest in shoreline structures in excess of 35 feet may include, but are
not limited to, prior planning of the local government for the region and
property at issue, including land use plans contemplating and allowing
shoreline structures in excess of 35 feet; the level of investment of public funds
in the region and property at issue, with the expectation of the development of
shoreline structures in excess of 35 feet; public benefits and amenities
associated with the development of shoreline structures in excess of 35 feet;
Page 4 of 26
Page 56
Comment
16.
Guidelines adopted by the Department of Ecology in
2004 require the shoreline master program to protect
public views as well as residential views
WAC 173-26-221(4) (d).
Source(s)
Handmacher
Response
and the economic viability of shoreline structures in excess of 35 feet, as it
relates to achieving governmental objectives for the region and property at
issue, providing return for the public investment, and developing public
benefits and amenities. Please also see the response to comment #22.
The City of Tacoma has incorporated public access and protection of public
views into the Shoreline Master Program and the Thea Foss Waterway Design
and Development Plan. Entire sections of the Foss Plan are devoted to
addressing circulation and public access. Please see pages 11-18, and 36-46. In
addition, the Plan discusses view considerations and sets forth specific policies
and guidelines to be followed. Please see the Foss Plan’s Development PolicyShoreline Use #1 g (page 19) to maximize views while protecting those of
surrounding uses, the Urban Design Development Policy #8, page 2, which
protects public views from downtown and building orientation guidelines
found on page 53. Also the City’s shoreline regulations require that all
proposed development shall be designed to maximize the public view and
public access to and along the shoreline. In addition there are public access
requirements specifically for the S-8 shoreline district, the most notable being
the continuous, unobstructed esplanade. The City is currently updating its
Shoreline Master Program according to the 2004 Department of Ecology
guidelines. This update is required to be completed for the Master Program by
2011; however, prior to the completion of the update, proposed limited
amendments to the Master Program must be in accord with the appropriate
2004 WAC guidelines.
The WAC 173-26-221(4) (d).defines public access as the ability of the general
public to reach, touch and enjoy the water’s edge, to travel on the waters of the
state and to view the water from adjacent locations. Public access is one of the
primary objectives of the Foss Plan and its implementing regulations. The Foss
Plan is based on five goals; the first of which is to “create a public access
system with a continuous esplanade along the shoreline”. This goal ensures
that the public will always have direct access to “reach, touch and enjoy the
water’s edge”. The third goal speaks to managing the shoreline to “optimize
public access” while the fourth goal is to “provide opportunities for public
access and recreation”. Finally, the fifth goal is to enhance the waterway to
support marine and boating activities. The Plan is replete with policies,
objectives and intent statements to carry out these public access related goals.
The Thea Foss Waterway is intended to be a highly accessible waterfront. The
proposed amendment furthers these goals by increasing the width of the
designated view/access corridors which are the primary means by which a
Page 5 of 26
Page 57
Comment
Source(s)
Response
pedestrian can access the water’s edge and the esplanade. Further, the enlarged
view/access corridors are required to be designed and developed to facilitate
additional public access by the proposed amendment. The enlarged corridors
also expand the public’s ability to view the Foss consistent with the WAC
guideline. The Commission has directed staff to prepare a revised proposal
which will further increase the width of the corridors above the 50 ft elevation
by 16 feet.
17.
The Haub properties (Columbia Bank Center and their
north lot at 12th and A Street) would lose well over
50% of their views of Commencement Bay.
Barline, Casey
18.
Tacoma has a strong connection to its working
waterfront but increased density and the loss of views
will jeopardize this connection.
Beery, Burkey,
Gross
19.
These towers will substantially impact the views from
the Russell building. The towers will totally block all
the views from the lower three floors of the Russell
Building and substantially impact the views from the
upper floors.
There are no significant defenders of the general
public’s right to enjoy the waterfront views and the
view of The Mountain, even when there is a
significant civic heritage and ancient Native American
history involved.
Davenport,
Roberts, Casey,
Rowley
20.
Larsen
The proposed amendment does not alter the public access goals or
requirements of the Foss Plan or its implementing regulations except to
increase the public access by enlarging the view/access corridors. It is intended
that the proposed amendment will be used in conjunction with the extensive
existing public access requirements. It is recognized that some view impacts
will occur both to residential views and public views with the proposed
amendment; however, other viewing opportunities will be enhanced especially
for the pedestrian. The view analysis considered the view impacts from
Fireman’s Park at two locations to address the public view impacts.
Staff has not conducted a view impact analysis at this specific location to
determine the exact degree of impact; however, the property is included in the
3D model. Once the revised alternative as requested by the Commission is
completed, staff can calculate the view impact from this location.
The proposed amendment will serve to strengthen the pedestrian access on the
waterfront by increasing view corridors by 25% and by providing increased
opportunities for walking along the waterfront through the development of a
public esplanade. In addition, further access will be made with the requirement
that 50% of the podium roofs be used for recreational space by the building
tenants and/or public.
The revised proposal as requested by the Planning Commission will eliminate
the option to build a tower and limit the maximum height of the Municipal
Dock site to 90 feet, lessening the impacts on the Russell Building. Once the
revised alternative is completed, staff can review the view impacts at this
location.
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA), specifically RCW 90.58.020 and
90.58.320, does provide protection of the views of shorelines of the state for
the public and from adjoining residential property. The Department of Ecology
reviews local Shoreline Master Programs (SMP) and proposed amendments for
consistency with the policies of the SMA. The City of Tacoma’s SMP
implements the SMA and has identified primary and secondary view/access
Page 6 of 26
Page 58
Comment
21.
Source(s)
The New Tacoma Neighborhood Council is now in
favor of allowing the 180 foot height zoning change
providing that view corridors are provided similar to
what was shown in the computer animation.
RCW 90.58.320 expressly allows a structure in excess
of thirty-five feet that blocks a substantial number of
residential views when two conditions are met: (1) the
master program does not prohibit structures over 35
feet; and (2) when overriding considerations of the
public interest will be served.
Campbell
23.
City should analyze the view impacts to the larger
downtown area, identifying buildings with view
impacts and the uses of these buildings, particularly
those buildings with residential units that were
developed or occupied since 2004.
Vanzwalenburg,
Casey
24.
Are the proposed view impacts consistent with the
Waterway Plan’s Development Policy-Shoreline Use
#1 g (page 19) to maximize views while protecting
those of surrounding uses?
Vanzwalenburg,
Gross, Casey
22.
Response
corridors and contains policies for the protection of views of the waterfront
from adjoining properties and the downtown. The Shoreline Hearings Board
has also provided strong support for the protection of views in numerous
challenges. Please also see the response to comments #14 and #16. The
proposal also provides additional protections of the view of Mt. Rainier from
Fireman’s Park.
Comment noted.
Lynn, Cooke
The “overriding considerations of the public interests” test in RCW 90.58.320
requires a decision maker to first identify the general public interest of the
community in shoreline structures greater than 35 feet in height under the
specific facts and circumstances of the community and property at issue.
Thereafter, the decision maker must balance the identified public interest
against the private interests of residents in retaining a view of the shoreline
unobstructed by structures over 35 feet in height to determine whether the
general public interest of the community overrides by any margin, however
slight, the competing private interests.
The City created a 3D model of the surrounding area including all property
within 4,000 feet of the proposed amendment area in order to conduct its
viewshed analysis. The interactive computer model allows one to “see” the
view impacts of the proposed amendment at any location within the study area
at street level and at any elevation of an existing building. Although the view
impact analysis was refined to analyze in greater detail the impacts from three
vantage points, (the rooftop of the Perkins Building which is the nearest
residential building impacted by the proposed amendment and two locations in
Fireman’s Park to address impacts to public views) the viewshed model
allowed a visual depiction of the impacts of different building and height
scenarios from any location in the downtown area within the 4,000 foot radius.
It is important to note that this policy contains two parts. The first part
concerns maximizing views of new development from the Thea Foss
Waterway. New development along the Foss Waterway should be designed to
maximize the view opportunities through design, orientation, scale, and bulk.
The policy also recognizes the implicit trade-offs involved, that view impacts
are not always negative and new development does not only amount to a
subtraction of views, but rather, as is the case with the proposed alternative
development option, will create additional views from the Waterway.
Page 7 of 26
Page 59
Comment
Source(s)
Response
The second part of the policy concerns the protection of other adjacent views.
The City feels that the view analysis, together with the accompanying
computer modeling, does give ample information to analyze and minimize
view impacts. The important views to be protected are those near shore, mid
shore, and far shore views as seen from the view/access corridors identified in
the Foss Plan. These view/access corridors will be widened as part of the
proposed development. The other important view to protect is that of Mt.
Rainier as seen from Fireman’s Park. The near shore, mid shore, and far shore
views have been equally weighted in importance.
The original proposal called for all towers to be 180 feet in height. During the
Planning Commission’s review, changes were made to this proposal. The
maximum height of 180 feet can only be achieved if certain conditions are met.
Projects are also required to maintain an average of 100 feet between the
towers and the towers are restricted in width. As part of the alternative
development option, projects are also required to provide enlarged view/access
corridors. The proposal also requires that all rooftop mechanical and other
appurtenances must fall within the maximum height limit for the tower, which
effectively lowers the usable building height by at least 10 feet. No variance to
this requirement is allowed. The maximum height of the podium portion is set
at 50 feet although a 10 foot allowance is provided for mechanical equipment
and amenities associated with the use of the podium rooftop for recreation
activities by the tenants and/or public. Such amenities may include railings,
seating and planters. The proposal also provides that for projects incorporating
multiple towers, only one of the towers can be 180 ft. tall (and this should be
the southernmost tower). Each additional tower shall be progressively shorter
by at least 20 feet.
25.
Are important public views of the waterway from
downtown protected as required by the Waterway Plan
(Urban Design Development Policy #8, page 23)?
Vanzwalenburg,
Barline, Gross,
Casey
The Commission has requested a revised proposal which will reduce the
floorplates of the towers above 100 feet and limit the building height on the
Municipal Dock site to 90 feet. After the revised alternative is completed, the
view impacts will be re-evaluated.
The Foss Plan does not identify the locations of the important downtown
public views of the Waterway. The Foss Waterway can be viewed from a
variety of public spaces including Fireman’s Park, Pugnetti Park (21st and
Pacific), the Chihuly Bridge and public rights-of-way. For the purposes of the
viewshed analysis, two locations were chosen in Fireman’s’ Park, the closest
downtown public space to the area affected by the proposed amendment. The
Page 8 of 26
Page 60
Comment
Source(s)
26.
How much view impact is too much?
Vanzwalenburg
27.
Foss Harbor’s goals are to preserve and enhance view
and access corridors via slender building massing,
enhance pedestrian connections and open space,
provide visual interest with a variety of scales, expand
the linear nature of the esplanade with new green
space and integrated pedestrian areas, reinforce both
visual and physical connections to the waterfront,
orient the buildings to take advantage of the views and
light, develop a transit-oriented program, enhance the
Tacoma waterfront skyline by creating a gateway at
the north end of the waterway, and activate the
streetscape and provide a safe neighborhood.
The towers to be placed on the podium should be offset from the podium along the at-grade view corridor.
This prevents a straight vertical plane of 180’ along
the at-grade view corridor. The at-grade view corridor
should remain at a minimum of 100’ in width.
The floor plate of the tower above 100’ (from grade)
should be reduced by 20%. This would provide for a
Johnson
28.
29.
Response
scope of the Foss Plan does not extend into the downtown area. The
Downtown Plan and zoning code do not provide any requirements or
protections for views of the waterway from any downtown location. Requiring
such protection would be an amendment to the Downtown Plan which is
outside the jurisdiction of the shoreline and the scope of the proposed
amendment.
This is a matter of balancing short-term versus long-term benefit. In the longterm, new development can become part of the view and a defining
characteristic of both urban form and image of the city – the city’s identity. In
this sense, view impact is not necessarily negative and often the protection of
current views can be short sighted and inhibit long-term benefits. The
assumption behind this question is that views are the primary way residents are
connected to the waterfront which is not the case. Pedestrian connections exist
and will be strengthened through the development of the public esplanade.
Many buildings whose views may be impacted are outside the shoreline
district and are within the Downtown Commercial Core Zoning District which
allows buildings up to 400 feet in height. New buildings built within the
adjacent downtown area consistent with the maximum height allowed or even
at lesser heights could impact views of the waterway from existing buildings.
Comment noted.
Meyer, Jacobs
The Planning Commission concurred with this recommendation at their
September 5th meeting and directed staff to prepare a revised proposal
incorporating this change.
Meyer
Page 9 of 26
Page 61
Comment
30.
narrowing of the tower above the bluff line and
enhance views.
Remove the Municipal Dock site from consideration
of any height above 100 ft. Planning over many years
has envisioned that parcel as public space to be used
for a water transportation hub, potential farmer’s
market, tour boat embarkation pier or similar uses.
Source(s)
Response
Jacobs
31.
The allowable height should step down to a maximum
of 90’ on the Municipal Dock site.
Meyer
32.
The 180 foot tower on the west side of the Thea Foss
Waterway would be inconsistent with the scale of the
neighborhood and would also be taller than nearly
every building in Tacoma.
Rowley
33.
It is unclear how this proposal meets the
redevelopment concept or the urban design
development policy for the Municipal Dock site.
Specifically, page 29 of the Waterway Plan and
Design Development Policy #4 on page 23.
Vanzwalenburg,
Gross
The Municipal Dock site is owned by the City and according to the City
Charter cannot be sold. The site can be leased however. The proposed
amendment does not preclude any of the suggested uses from developing on
the property. However, the Planning Commission at their September 5th
meeting directed staff to prepare a revised proposal which would limit the
height on the Municipal Dock site to 90 feet.
While the plan for the west side of the Thea Foss Waterway includes policies
relating to consistency of character, it also does not preclude heights greater
than the existing warehouses. In fact, The “Redevelopment Concept” for the
Warehouse District of the Foss Waterway, where the proposal is located, states
that “Minimum height limits for the district are established at the same height
as the warehouse buildings. Greater heights may be allowed to achieve more
innovative building profiles and greater use of open space.”
The Municipal Dock site has specific policies attached that distinguish it from
the other proposed sites. The Redevelopment Concept states an intent that “the
main warehouse structures be preserved or be replaced by similar structures,
continue with current uses or be rehabilitated with new adaptive uses (pg. 29).”
Furthermore, “Any redevelopment of the Municipal Dock building should not
preclude the opportunity for its use as a passenger ferry terminal as identified
in the study.”
Enlarging the building envelopes does not necessarily preclude a project from
meeting these criteria and may provide more flexibility to balance community
goals, adequate infrastructure, and economic feasibility. Likewise, the
maximum height of 50’ for the podium as a part of the alternative development
option is consistent with the height of the historic warehouse structures. It is
important to note that the policies for the Historic Warehouse District and the
Municipal Dock Site anticipated many of these issues: “Residential infill
development will occur between the existing warehouses. Minimum height
limits for the district are established at the same height as the warehouse
buildings. Greater heights may be allowed to achieve more innovative building
profiles and greater use of open space. Typical uses in the district will be
residential, retail commercial, office, cultural facilities, and marina village
Page 10 of 26
Page 62
Comment
Source(s)
Response
(29).” For this area, the minimum height is 50’ with the use of the existing
regulations and the Plan clearly anticipates greater height allowances.
34.
Is the cumulative impact of allowing build out under
this proposal consistent with the Waterway Plan and
policies of RCW 90.58.020 given the development
that has already occurred on the Foss?
Vanzwalenburg
35.
Has the development along the Foss Waterway met the
mixed-use goals and policies of Tacoma’s shoreline
master program or is the development becoming too
weighted toward one type of use?
Vanzwalenburg
The FWDA also expressed concern about the Municipal Dock site and
requested a maximum height limit of 90 feet for this site which would lower
the existing allowed height by 10 feet. The Commission directed staff to
develop a revised proposal incorporating the 90 foot height limit and
eliminating the alternative development option as a choice for this site.
The cumulative build out under this proposal remains consistent with the
Waterway Plan and the 1995 DEIS prepared for the Foss Waterway
Development Alternatives Plan. The DEIS evaluated buildings up to 180 feet
in height under the High Intensity Alternative. In addition, an addendum was
recently prepared that provides additional environmental information
describing potential visual impacts based on the results from an updated
viewshed analysis. The Commission has requested a revised proposal which
eliminates the alternative development option on the Municipal Dock site and
restricts the height on this site to 90 feet. The revised proposal also reduces the
maximum size of tower floorplates above 100 feet to 12,000 sq ft. The revised
proposal also requires a setback of the towers along the view/ access corridors
and a reduction in the height of the podium for 50% of the edge adjacent to the
view/access corridors. All of these revisions will reduce the maximum build
out for projects using the alternative development option and for future
development of the Municipal Dock site.
The Shoreline Plan Concept of the City of Tacoma Shoreline Master Program
for the S-8 District states that: “The greatest reuse and redevelopment potential
of Thea Foss Waterway is for mixed use development, including cultural
facilities, residential, marinas, water-oriented commercial, water-oriented
public park and public facilities development, and waterborne transportation
(pg 56).”
Although a quantitative analysis has not been performed, a cursory inventory
of uses indicates that cultural facilities, residential, marina, and water-oriented
parks are all becoming established on the Foss Waterway. Currently, the
FWDA is in the design stage for a new water-oriented recreation park site on
the South end of the Foss Waterway. The City is also engaged in a pilot ferry
program that will transport pedestrian passengers from Des Moines to the
Municipal Dock site for the 2008 Tall Ship festival. While all the mixed-use
goals of the Foss plan have not been met, largely due to market constraints and
limitations, the Foss has made substantial progress towards this vision.
Page 11 of 26
Page 63
Comment
Source(s)
36.
Is the City or the Foss Waterway Development
Authority assessing the percentages of uses that are
occurring on the development sites to ensure the
cumulative effect remains consistent with the
Waterway Plan and the Shoreline Management Act?
Vanzwalenburg
37.
How has the public interest in shorelines of the state,
as set forth in RCW 90.58.020, been promoted or
enhanced by this proposal?
Vanzwalenburg
38.
How is this proposal consistent with the Shoreline
Guidelines WAC 90.58.020 and WAC 173-26-221 (4)
(d)?
Vanzwalenburg
Response
Though the City has not assessed the percentage of uses that are occurring on
the Foss Waterway, the City’s control of 12 development sites has afforded a
unique opportunity to implement the vision for the Foss that is outlined in the
Shoreline Master Program and the Thea Foss Waterway Design and
Development Plan, ensuring consistency with these policies and the SMA.
Further, the City does not believe it necessary or required to assess a
percentage of uses—neither is outlined in the Foss Plan or the Shoreline
Management Act. The waterway is currently developed with a wide mix of
uses and will continue to be as development occurs.
The west side of the Thea Foss Waterway is located within a designated
Regional Growth Center, an area that is expected to accommodate the highest
intensity development in the City of Tacoma, and is designated as an “Urban
Environment” in the City’s Shoreline Master Program, which assumes that the
highest intensity residential, commercial, and industrial uses. This proposal
clearly fulfills the vision of these local and regional designations by providing
a high-intensity mixed-use development that maximizes the use of the
shoreline while enhancing public access and creating additional viewing
opportunities.
The highest preference for Shorelines of the State, as set forth in RCW
90.58.020 is for uses that protect the statewide interest over the local interest.
In this case, the development of the Thea Foss into higher density mixed-uses,
upholds the state interest in growth management and the goals of the GMA as
set forth in RCW 36.70A.020, as well as the goals and policies of the Vision
2020 and forthcoming Vision 2040 regional planning documents. Likewise,
this proposal supports the development of public access via the esplanade; is
directly connected to the largest marina on the waterway and this use clearly
influences the design concept and economic viability of the entire project; the
proposal will create improved overall design quality, as well as contribute to a
safer, expanded environment for public use of the waterfront.
In response to WAC 90.58.020, please see the response to comment #37.
WAC 173-26-221 (a) Applicability, states that “Public access includes the
ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water’s edge, to
travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from
adjacent locations.” Section (4) (d) identifies the standards that local shoreline
master programs must follow in implementing public access on shorelines of
the state. These standards pertain to the shoreline master program as a whole.
The City of Tacoma’s Shoreline Master Program is consistent with the
Page 12 of 26
Page 64
Comment
39.
40.
41.
42.
There is no single policy in the comprehensive plan
that prohibits buildings of 180 feet along the
waterfront. Instead, there are policies that speak how
best to accommodate growth while preserving open
spaces and other natural qualities that make this area
an enjoyable place to live.
The greater good is not directed at the Tacoma
community but, rather, the primary benefit will be to
those lucky enough to afford to buy or sell million
dollar condos.
The Foss Waterway is defined as part of the City’s
urban center in the Comprehensive Plan as well as in
the four-county effort that led to the Vision 2020 Plan
which encourages residential growth and employment
in centers. The City identified the Thea Foss
Waterway as being within the City’s downtown
mixed-use center – the center among all centers – and
the focal point for the City’s development and growth.
This encourages high-rise apartments, clustered
housing, and intense urban development that would
foster transit, pedestrian activity, and result in a livable
urban community.
The Foss Waterway is a part of the downtown mixed
use center and fostering high density is appropriate to
meet Growth Management Act compliance.
Source(s)
Response
standards of WAC 173-26-221 (4) (d) and includes numerous policies and
requirements that seek to maximize public access to the shoreline to the
greatest extent feasible. The proposed building envelopes uphold the policies
of the SMP by providing greater protection of views than the current building
envelopes provide while also increasing the opportunities for the public to
“reach, touch, and enjoy the water’s edge.” Furthermore, there will be no net
loss of ecological function. The City of Tacoma has taken numerous measures
to minimize the view impacts of this proposal; and public access will be
provided via the esplanade and roof access on the podium. Also see comment
#16.
Policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the shoreline regulations in the
Tacoma Municipal Code for the Thea Foss Waterway promote a variety of
heights.
Cooke
Davenport,
Eakins, Barline,
Fayth
Lynn
Bjornson, Lynn
RCW 90.58.320 provides guidance where issues of building height are
concerned, by requiring a test of the “overriding considerations of the public
interest.” The redevelopment of the waterfront into an active, vibrant, safe, and
publicly accessible place will benefit the entire Tacoma community and
encourage the active enjoyment of the Waterway.
Comment noted. The City of Tacoma Shoreline Master Program also
characterizes the Foss Waterway as an “Urban Environment.” The
Comprehensive Plan places a High Intensity designation on the affected area
on the land use map. This designation assumes densities greater than 80
dwelling units per acre will be achieved and that buildings will be regional in
scale.
The downtown mixed use center is not only a local designation but is
designated as a growth center in Vision 2020, the central Puget Sound region’s
growth, transportation and economic development strategy. As such, the
downtown center is expected to absorb a greater share of population and
employment growth for the city, county and the four-county region.
Page 13 of 26
Page 65
Comment
43.
44.
When given only the “either-or” option of the existing
100-foot building box or the new 180-foot version, the
taller but spaced buildings seems a logical choice. The
existing 100-foot zoning is poorly conceived and not
in the spirit of the Shoreline Management Act.
The 1990 EIS weighed the impact of development of
this scale, in this location. No new impacts are
expected beyond those already considered by the EIS.
Source(s)
Cummings,
Barline, Dzivak
Simon/Johnson
45.
The City did not take into account the tax credits when
calculating the return on investment for the developer.
Davenport,
Handmacher
46.
Tax exemption benefits and incentives do not rest with
the developer, rather with the buyer of the
condominium unit.
Simon/Johnson
47.
Taxpayer dollars should not be spent catering to the
whims of a private developer in the matter of impact
studies and sought after changes in height restrictions.
Roberts, Casey,
Cummings(2)
Response
The existing 100 foot zoning has been reviewed and approved by the
Department of Ecology for consistency with the Shoreline Management Act.
The Thea Foss Waterway has a variety of height limits on the west side
depending on the location on the waterway and range from 65 to 130 feet with
provisions for an additional 25 feet for architectural features.
The 1995 EIS considered a High Intensity alternative that assumed 180’ tall
buildings for the entire area of Zone 1. The alternative development option
affects only 3 sites and allows a tower and podium building form that is
significantly different than the development scenario studied in the EIS which
assumed much wider buildings. Also, the proposed amendment limits the
number of buildings that can be 180’ to one tower per site. The Commission
has requested a revised proposal to limit the application of the alternative
development option to two sites which will further reduce the impacts.
The economic analysis was conducted looking at maximum zoning envelopes
under different maximum heights. It is recognized that the multifamily tax
incentive could provide some benefit if a proposed project includes
apartments. The development scenario assumed for the purposes of the
analysis was that the residential units would be condominiums. The developer
does not receive financial benefit as the tax exemption benefits the buyer of the
condo unit. However, the availability of the tax incentive could attract
additional buyers of the units that would not otherwise be present and therefore
the developer may indirectly benefit.
The City’s Multifamily Tax Incentive which exempts property taxes for new
multifamily housing in designated areas benefits the owner of the property. For
condominiums, the buyer of each unit will receive the benefit. For an
apartment development, the owner of the apartment building will receive the
benefit which can be passed on to renters through lowered monthly rents. The
developer benefits indirectly from the program by being provided with a
marketing tool for “for sale” or rental properties.
One of the primary duties of the Planning Commission is to consider
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or Regulatory Code. The Tacoma
Municipal Code spells out the process by which private parties can request an
amendment and the criteria by which the amendment will be reviewed. The
proposed amendment was originally submitted by the applicants in 2004 and
was considered with other application requests received that year. It is not
unusual and, in fact, it is more common that the Commission as a part of its
annual review considers applications that have been submitted by outside
parties. For example, the Commission, as part of the 2007 Amendment cycle,
Page 14 of 26
Page 66
Comment
48.
49.
50.
51.
The developer has met full compliance with the
Development Agreement through completing required
improvements to the marina, in a timely fashion and
exceeding the mandated investment of 1 million
dollars.
The goals and guidelines set forth in the Foss Plan
depends on development and infrastructure – both
public and private – to create and embody the vision of
the Foss Waterway in the public interest as an asset
and an amenity.
From a pedestrian standpoint, this area has poor
connectivity to downtown and what exists is limited
and inconvenient.
Source(s)
Simon/Johnson
Simon/Johnson
The Foss Waterway Design and Development Plan recognizes that both public
and private resources and development will be necessary for the revitalization
of the waterfront.
Lynn, Casey,
Johnson
Due to topography and the presence of the mainline railroad tracks, physical
access is difficult to achieve. However there are multiple points to access the
waterfront from the downtown area, including 4th Street, 11th Street, 15th Street,
and the Bridge of Glass. The Foss plan calls for improving the connectivity
over time as funding permits.
All new parking within the S-8 Shoreline District is required to be structured,
with only a few exceptions. Surface parking is only allowed as an interim use.
For more details, please review TMC 13.10.110 (I).
Dock Street is not available for on-street parking
because it is narrow and cannot be expanded;
therefore, any parking to attract retail shoppers will
need to be off-street.
An increase in the number of residents will result in
more eyes on the street and make the area safer.
Lynn, Johnson,
Casey
53.
Tacoma has an open inviting waterfront (unlike
Seattle). Please keep it that way and not make it a
crowded, condo-ridden and hidden view of the
waterfront.
Shaw, Glick,
Zacek, Beery,
Fayth
54.
The Esplanade is too narrow to encourage public use
through this section of the Foss and the condo
development will discourage a sense of public
ownership of the waterfront.
Beery,
Davenport,
Gross
52.
Response
is considering four requests by private applicants. Staff from CED conducts
the necessary analysis of each of the application requests which may involve
specialized studies conducted by others.
Comment noted.
Bjornson
It is intended that the Waterway be redeveloped with a variety of activities and
uses that will attract users to waterfront in an attractive, comfortable and safe
setting.
The Thea Foss plan calls for a mix of uses and activities. Twelve sites on the
west side are identified that are intended to redevelop. The Foss Waterway
Development Authority was created to market these sites for private
redevelopment projects. The Plan also calls for public spaces and parks and
these sites are also identified. The primary park will be the esplanade which
will run the entire length of the water’s edge.
Policies for the Foss Waterway seek to create a mixed-use waterfront that will
invite greater shoreline activity and enjoyment for the public. Residential
development is viewed as a component of this mixed-use waterfront that will
help stimulate other forms of commercial, marine, and public facilities. The
sites, in this part of the Waterway, are narrower that those found in the south
and therefore the esplanade is narrower not only for the 3 affected properties
but for all properties in Zone 1. The required minimum width of the esplanade
Page 15 of 26
Page 67
Comment
Source(s)
55.
It prohibits an open plaza. Lower the maximum
podium height to 40 feet or less. Also, increase the
proposed setback from 10 feet to 20 feet, to provide
relief from the canyon effect.
Jacobs
56.
Forget events like the Tall Ships as this type of
development would hamper large “public” gatherings.
Davenport
57.
The Esplanade will be a compilation of public and
private development requiring an active lease on site
10. In this way the goal of having the Esplanade run
the length of the Foss Waterway’s west side will be
fully realized.
We need nice open areas such as that along the
Schuster Parkway that can be enjoyed by many. The
large individual buildings also create a microclimate
on the shadow side where the public is not enticed to
go.
The proposed towers will significantly increase
shading of the Thea Foss Waterway and proposed
esplanade.
Simon/Johnson
58.
59.
Caraher
Handmacher,
Gross
Response
on the west side of the Waterway is 20 feet according to the City’s shoreline
code.
The proposed amendment does not prohibit an open plaza. In fact it requires
that the view/access corridor be expanded to 100 feet in width which will
create an open area of at least 12,000 sq ft that can be developed as a plaza.
The minimum setback is 10 feet and could be greater if the project designer
wants to incorporate a plaza. Also, the proposal has been modified at the
request of the Commission so that at least 50% of the podium must be reduced
from 50’ to 35’along the view/access corridor façade.
There is nothing in the proposed amendment that would prevent future public
events from occurring on the Waterway. As is the case in any area, public
gatherings occur on public spaces and on private property only with consent of
the owner. Of the three affected sites, one is publicly-owned and is intended to
remain in public ownership. Of the other 2 sites, one is privately owned and
the other site is planned to be transferred from public ownership to private
ownership. The public areas of the waterway including parks, esplanade and
the view/access corridors will all be available for events and festivals.
This section of the esplanade is in a state of disrepair. The City has received a
grant for the partial rebuilding of the esplanade but private investment will be
required to ensure permanent public improvements. Upland property owners
must pay an assessment for routine maintenance and security in public spaces
and the remainder of the esplanade will be funded by the developers.
The esplanade will provide for public access and enjoyment, as well as views
of the immediate waterfront. Due to the site constraints of this area, the
esplanade will only be 20 feet wide through the Warehouse District, however,
large open areas are available at Thea’s Park, located just north of the affected
area.
The shading analyzing conducted in the EIS shows that shading of the
esplanade will occur with buildings that are greater than 12.5 feet in height.
The draft EIS notes that when the sun reaches 15 degrees altitude (which
occurs at different times depending on the season) existing structures and the
adjacent hillside will begin to cast shadows to the water’s edge. The
view/access corridors are intended to limit the shading impacts. The EIS
analysis of the High Intensity alternative considered 180 ft tall building that
occupied 69% of the shoreline frontage of the Zone 1 area. The proposed
alternative development option breaks up the shadows not only by widening
the view/access corridors but by the required spacing between the tower
portions of the building where the maximum height is set at 50 feet.
Page 16 of 26
Page 68
Comment
Source(s)
60.
A 50 foot high podium height creates a canyon wall
effect along Dock Street and the view and access
corridors.
Barline, Jacobs
61.
Pertaining to the at-grade view corridors only – the 50’
maximum height of the podium should be reduced to
35’ or less for a minimum of 50% of the view corridor
façade.
Is there a minimum square footage needed for a viable
project?
Meyer
62.
63.
Increased height is needed for success of Foss
Waterway redevelopment. There are a limited number
of development sites which need to support sufficient
population and activity to support businesses and to be
economically viable.
Vanzwalenburg
Bjornson
Response
In the revision to the draft proposal requested by the Commission, the lineal
feet of shoreline frontage combined for sites 10 and 11 including the
view/access corridors is approximately 1,023 feet of which 240 feet would be
view/access corridors and another 336 would be limited to the maximum
height of 50 feet thus significantly reducing the shading impacts identified in
the 1995 EIS.
The purpose of the required view/access corridors is to provide spacing
between buildings. As more buildings are constructed on the waterway, Dock
Street will be lined with buildings of varying heights and widths, most of
which will be greater than 50 feet. However, on September 5th, the Planning
Commission directed staff to revise the proposal based upon a
recommendation by the Foss Waterway Development Authority to reduce the
height of the podium to 35’ for a minimum of 50% along the view/access
corridor façade.
The Planning Commission, on September 5t h, directed staff to develop a
revised proposal to incorporate this recommendation.
There is a minimum square footage needed for a viable project but that varies
depending on the type of use, the economic market, and timing. The proposal
is for shoreline regulatory changes that would allow a development to occur
based on the market conditions at that time. Please see comment #64. All
developments are subject to shoreline permit approval and will go through a
separate review as part of the shoreline substantial development permit
process.
The Height and Economic Analysis conducted by BST Associates found that
increased height was needed to attract private investment. Without investment,
increased density and activity will not occur. The alternative development
option, as proposed for public comment, provides for an increase in the
maximum square footage that can be built which could result in more
residential units and businesses. The Thea Foss Plan supports the
redevelopment of the waterfront at a sufficient intensity to achieve the
revitalization and to recoup public investment in the acquisition, clean-up and
improvement of public spaces along the Waterway. The Commission has
requested a revise proposal which restricts the height on the Municipal Dock
site, modifies the dimensions of the podium and reduces the floorplates of the
towers which will reduce the maximum build out of the affected development
Page 17 of 26
Page 69
Comment
Source(s)
Response
64.
The height amendment is not necessary for economic
feasibility.
Handmacher,
Furlong, Casey
65.
The proposed 180 foot building height would
negatively impact property values.
Wheeler, Sarner
66.
Well-designed higher-density development, properly
integrated into an existing community, can become a
significant community asset that adds to the quality of
life and property values for existing residents while
addressing the needs of a growing and changing
population.
While a limited number of units may lose a view
corridor resulting from taller buildings; their overall
value should not be negatively impacted as the area’s
property values will increase with the Thea Foss
Waterway and Downtown Tacoma redevelopment.
The City is converting publicly owned land to the
exclusive use of private developers. The 20 foot public
sidewalk, dwarfed by skyscrapers, is a poor trade-off
for a long term lease of public lands.
Gardner Johnson
sites.
The economic analysis conducted as part of this project revealed that
development at a height of less than 100 feet was not economically viable and
that additional height was necessary to attract investment.
According to the Pierce County Assessor’s office, the primary determinant of
property values is the selling price of properties occurring in the area. The
Assessor’s office indicated that to support a claim of a value loss, an appraisal
of the property would need to show that the property would sell for less than
the purchase price.
Comment noted.
Gardner Johnson
Please see the response to comment #65.
Davenport, Fayth
The Municipal Dock site will remain in public ownership but can be leased for
50 years for development. The other 2 sites are intended to be privately owned
and developed. The narrow width of the development sites in this area of the
waterway limits the ability to have both a wider esplanade and feasible private
development. In addition to the esplanade, the view/access corridors are to be
developed with public amenities and provide for the public’s enjoyment of the
water.
Comment noted.
67.
68.
69.
100 ft. is bad enough. Allowing an additional 80 ft.
does not serve the public. It only serves the developer.
Don’t change the zoning for a developer’s
profitability.
70.
The Foss Waterway Development Authority advocates
for private developers, shirking its responsibility to
protect publicly owned property and provide a long
term vision for this precious inlet.
Burkey, Johnson
(2), Dzivak,
Cummings,
Lambert, Jacobs,
Barline, Fayth
Cummings
The Development Authority is an independent legal entity created to assist and
implement redevelopment consistent with the adopted Thea Foss Waterway
Design and Development Plan. To accomplish their mandate, they have
brought investors from inside and outside the community who have invested
over $300 million on sites designated in the adopted Plan as mixed use
development sites to protect and gain a return on City investment. In addition,
Page 18 of 26
Page 70
Comment
71.
72.
73.
The City identified the area as the single greatest
opportunity for Tacoma’s economic revival. They
invested $7,000,000 and bought 27 acres of
contaminated properties and began the process of
cleaning them up. The City invested $90,000,000 to
clean up the waterway. They created and funded the
FWDA to oversee the marketing and development of
the area. They then invested another $45,000,000 in
infrastructure (marinas and the esplanade) with the
aim of creating a center piece of a dense urban area.
The public can recoup its investment by being able to
SEE the working waterfront framed by the foothills of
the Cascade and Olympic mountains in the
background and the muddy rush of the Puyallup river
as it mixes with the Bay in the foreground. By being
able to EXPERIENCE it, the public will recoup OUR
investment.
This is a “spot zoning” change for one developer. A
more comprehensive look at the complete Thea zoning
should be undertaken.
Source(s)
Response
they have acquired 3.69 additional acres on the Foss for park purposes to
ensure and protect public access to the waterway and approximately 1,500
lineal feet of new transient moorage is being installed at the mouth of the Foss
for the public’s use. The Authority has obtained approximately $4 million
in public and private dollars to restore the publicly-owned Balfour Dock
Building for the Maritime Center. Long term planning and vision
responsibility for the Foss Waterway still lies with the City and the Tacoma
City Council and not with the Development Authority.
There has been considerable public investment in the Thea Foss Waterway in
an attempt to transform the formerly blighted industrial waterfront into a
showplace for the city. Public investment is expected to continue but the
fruition of the Foss potential is also dependent on private investment.
Lynn
Burkey
Davenport,
Jacobs, Barline,
Gross
The City Council, when it made the decision to purchase properties along the
Thea Foss Waterway and to take the lead in environmental clean-up, did so
with the intent that the majority of the properties would be resold for
development purposes. Twelve development sites have been identified on the
western shore. The proposed amendment affects two of these sites and a third
parcel owned by the City, the former Municipal Dock Building site. This site
cannot be sold due to a charter provision. It can however be redeveloped by
either the City or leased to a private party for a period of 50 years and
redeveloped by the private party. The public’s opportunity to see and
experience the waterfront is provided at designated public spaces and parks,
including the esplanade which is a linear park that will eventually run the
entire perimeter of the waterfront, and other public parks interspersed among
the development sites. Public access to the waterfront is also provided at 14
designated view/access corridors. These corridors are proposed to be expanded
by 25% in the proposed amendment.
The City Attorney has advised the Commission on the four findings that are
necessary to constitute a spot zone according to Washington State case law.
All four must be present. They are: 1) The zoning decision must single out an
area within a larger area or district to be specially zoned for a “use
classification,” 2) the use classification at issue must be different from, and be
Page 19 of 26
Page 71
Comment
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
Source(s)
Recommend that there are advantages to addressing
the Thea Foss Waterway in a more comprehensive
manner rather than proceeding with the height
amendment independent of the comprehensive update,
including:
• Promoting physical and visual connectivity to
downtown
• Assessing the cumulative impact of current
development
• Assessing the economic factors driving
development
• Addressing view impacts comprehensively
This proposed amendment began in 2004, and is still
in progress. As such, there is a need to complete this
application in a timely fashion – separate from the
aspects completing the Shoreline Comprehensive
Review.
The 180-foot height is the same as what was proposed
a few years ago and is still a great idea.
Van Zwalenburg,
Handmacher,
Jacobs, Barline
Gross
Proposed height increase is consistent with what other
cities are doing; e.g., Seattle and Bellingham.
Retaining businesses important to our community, like
the Russell Investment Group, is far more vital to the
City than speculative new development.
Bjornson
No traffic study has been conducted by the city
regarding this development. The existing right-of-way
is substandard for vehicles and pedestrians.
Davenport,
Casey, Beery
Response
inconsistent with, that of surrounding properties in the larger area or district, 3)
the use classification at issue must not be in general accordance with the
applicable comprehensive plan, 4) the use classification must bear no
substantial relationship to the general welfare of the affected community.
The City is currently performing a comprehensive update of the Shoreline
Master Program, according to the new 2004 guidelines from the Department of
Ecology. However, this amendment was originally submitted in 2004, prior to
the initiation of the comprehensive update. The issue of height in the proposed
amendment will not be changed during the update process. Furthermore, while
the update is in process, all limited amendments must be in accord with the
2004 WAC guidelines.
Simon/Johnson
Comment noted.
Toth
Although the maximum height of 180 feet has been retained in the draft
proposal, there are significant differences from what was proposed in 2004
including limiting the number of towers that can reach 180 feet and stepping
down the height of the towers where more than one tower is proposed on a
development site.
Comment noted. Staff and the Planning Commission also reviewed the
allowable heights for waterfront areas in Portland and Vancouver, BC.
Local businesses will not be displaced by this proposal. A more vibrant and
diverse waterfront may in fact attract more businesses and a skilled labor force
that wish to locate near the unique public amenities and lifestyle that the
waterfront offers.
The Planning Commission is not reviewing a development project but
modifying the development regulations for a small area of the waterfront. Any
future development project proposed for the waterway will need to address its
traffic impacts and mitigate those impacts as may be required by the City.
Depending on the project, a traffic study may be required and will be
determined at the project development stage.
Handmacher,
Barline, Stebich,
Davenport
Page 20 of 26
Page 72
Comment
Source(s)
Response
80.
Changing the height disregards the risk that many of
the first homebuyers took in moving to downtown
Tacoma and sill discourage others from taking the
same risk.
Bennett, Gross,
Barline, Casey
81.
This is a short term decision that only benefits a few.
The public’s interest is not being served by the
proposed amendment.
Burkey, Barline,
Fayth, Beery
82.
These towers do not fit the criteria for “waterdependent uses” as defined in the Shoreline
Management Act.
Cummings (2),
Barline
83.
Residential is not a preferred use under the SMA and
this proposal requires 51% of the building to be for
residential use.
Vanzwalenburg,
Barline, Gross
84.
We have enough condos.
Gray
85.
The demand for higher density homes – by renters and
owners – is expected to increase in the future.
For generations, married couples with children
dominated our housing markets and led to an exodus
to the suburbs but today those households make up
less that 25 percent of American households, and they
will be less than 20 percent by 2020.
The developer bought this property knowing the
existing height limit. They have designed a building
consistent with the existing regulations and promised
Gardner Johnson
Downtown continues to be a desirable place to live. The north end of the
waterway has experienced little investment and is not very inviting. Private
investment that may occur because of the proposed amendment could bring
new and enhanced public amenities which would be an attractant for more
housing.
The decision making process is guided by the long range comprehensive plans
for the shoreline and Foss Waterway. The Shoreline Master Program and the
Thea Foss Waterway Design and Development Plan provide long term vision
and values for how the shoreline should be used. Please also see the responses
to comments #15 and #22.
In TMC 13.10.030, the classification of a water-dependent use is defined as “a
use or a portion of a use which requires direct contact with the water and
cannot exist at a non-water location due to the intrinsic nature of its operation”.
The SMA also allows uses that are water-related and for water-enjoyment. The
sites included in this proposal incorporate the largest marina on the waterway
and upland locations are directly integrated with this water-dependent use. Any
redevelopment will include upland facilities for the marina.
Per the SMA, preferred shoreline uses are classified as water-dependent uses,
public access, and natural functions. Residential uses are not considered waterdependent and are therefore not a “preferred use.” Staff is recommending that
the requirement for 51% of the building to be in residential use in order to use
the alternative development option be deleted from the proposed amendment.
The requirement for residential use is not essential for the proposed height
amendment. Future development projects may still include residential uses but
they also will need to include water dependent, water related or water
enjoyment uses in the project.
The proposed amendment does not require condos to be built. Please also see
the response to comment #83.
Comment noted.
Gardner Johnson
Comment noted.
Handmacher,
Barline, Larsen,
Roberts
Foss Harbor LLC submitted their application to increase the height in 2004.
The previous conceptual plans submitted to the FWDA were developed in
2000. The existing regulations remain in effect. There is no requirement for the
86.
87.
Page 21 of 26
Page 73
Comment
88.
89.
90.
the FWDA to build in accordance with the height
limit. Now that they have some control over the sites
they are saying that they can not build within the
existing regulations.
The proposal is inconsistent with the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, including policies of the Foss
Plan that encourage maintaining the historic waterfront
and maritime character and the policies of the
Downtown Plan that talk about preserving views from
downtown to the waterfront.
It is important to residents, businesses and developers
to maintain consistency over time in the policies and
regulations. Continuing to change the policies and
regulations reduces this consistency and improperly
affects existing residents, businesses and developers
who have made decisions based on the existing
regulations.
The FWDA Urban Design Review Committee
(URDC) is now being charged with requiring view
analysis studies not previously considered by the
Committee. The Committee has limited authority and
is advisory only.
Source(s)
Gross
Gross, Casey
Jacobs
Response
alternative development option to be used by project proponents. The FWDA
through its agreements can require either option. The FWDA has expressed
support for the proposed amendment, as a means to encourage redevelopment
of this portion of the Waterway.
The redevelopment concept for this area of the Foss calls for the preservation
of remaining warehouse structures or replacement with similar structures.
While the Foss Plan includes policies relating to consistency of character, it
also does not preclude heights greater than the existing warehouses. In fact, the
redevelopment concept states that “Minimum height limits for the district are
established at the same height as the warehouse buildings. Greater heights may
be allowed to achieve more innovative building profiles and greater use of
open space.” See also response to comments #30, #32 and #33.
The Downtown Plan and zoning code do not provide any requirements or
protections for views of the waterway from any downtown location. Requiring
such protection would be an amendment to the Downtown Plan which is
outside the jurisdiction of the shoreline and the scope of the proposed
amendment. See also response to comments #16, #23 and #25.
While it is certainly desirable to provide predictability in plans and regulations,
there is also a need to have a process to respond to changing conditions and
circumstances. Amending the shoreline regulations requires following specific
state and locally-adopted procedures, which include substantial opportunities
for public involvement and comment. It is unrealistic to expect public policy to
remain unchanged once adopted. If that were the case, the Foss Waterway
would remain an area reserved for heavy industry and shipping.
The FWDA receives its authority from the first operating agreement between
the City and the FWDA. The FWDA has three primary components when
working with project proponents: the Purchase and Sale Agreement,
Development Agreement and Environmental Agreement. The Development
Agreement requires the developer to go through four phases of design review.
As part of the FWDA review process, the UDRC conducts a detailed review of
projects for consistency with the goals, policies, and guidelines of the Foss
Plan. The existing policies and guidelines include guidance that view impacts
should be reviewed and minimized (see pages 52-53 of the Foss Plan). The
recommendations of the UDRC are incorporated in the above-cited agreements
and also given substantial weight in the City’s permitting process. The
proposed amendment does not add any new responsibilities to the UDRC. The
intent is to clarify that the UDRC is to consider view impacts using the
Page 22 of 26
Page 74
Comment
91.
The economic analysis is inaccurate. The report states
that an internal rate of return (IRR) must be 20%.
Lenders are willing to finance projects with an IRR of
17%.
Source(s)
Casey
92.
The economic report lists the value of Site 10 at $38
per sq. ft., which is greater than the sales price of this
site listed in the Option to Purchase agreement.
Casey
93.
The economic report includes the cost of developing
the esplanade as a developer cost but the City is
paying for the construction of the esplanade.
The economic report includes development costs that
are too high as compared to other condo projects being
built.
Casey
The views from individual units in the Perkins
Building have been ignored. The views from lower
floors will be impacted to a greater extent than the
view from the roof deck.
Handmacher
94.
95.
Casey
Response
guidance of the Foss Plan and to help ensure that the view analysis reviewed
by the UDRC is the same as the view analysis reviewed by the City during the
permit process.
IRR is commonly used to evaluate the financial performance of development
projects. The purpose of the economic study is not to provide a developer’s pro
forma but is instead a guide to see if developers might be interested in these
sites. The study presents an economic assessment of the feasibility of
constructing several building sizes and building forms on the three parcels. The
target equity of 20% is being used as an indicator of overall project feasibility.
IRRs significantly below the target would likely not result in a project. A
developer or lender could choose to proceed at IRRs below the 20% target.
In response to this comment, and the comments below regarding the economic
analysis, the Commission asked the consultant to respond to these issues. On
June 20, 2007 the City’s consultant presented additional information to the
Commission regarding the methodology used in the analysis.
The economic analysis used the most recent appraisal as a basis for
determining the land costs for all three parcels. Using the lower dollar amount
suggested by Mr. Casey would result in a project cost difference of 0.5% to
0.74%. This change is too small to significantly affect the model results.
The esplanade costs used in the model already accounted for the portion of the
esplanade that is being funded from grant dollars. The model includes the cost
to build the remaining portions of the esplanade as developer costs.
The economic consultant contacted numerous developers and a contractor to
develop a representative cost estimate of development costs. The cost of
construction has risen sharply recently due to a sharp increase in material
prices and a strong economy, which has decreased the number of bidders
submitting on projects and increased margins to participate.
The rooftop view was used in the viewshed analyses to represent a view that is
shared by all residents of the Perkins Building. This viewpoint was also chosen
in response to comments received from residents of the Perkins Building at the
community meeting held on February 15, 2006. Views from individual units
may vary greatly depending on where the unit is located in the building. The
interactive 3D model allowed the Commission to pick any floor to see the view
impacts from that location, which they did on several occasions when the 3D
model was presented. Commission members also visited the Perkins Building
and entered individual units. The viewshed analysis indicates that view
impacts from other locations may be different than those that are depicted in
Page 23 of 26
Page 75
Comment
Source(s)
96.
The screenprint images in the document and the 2D
images (“the blue-red maps”) that look down on the
area from above appear to be inconsistent, showing
different levels of view blockage. The 2D maps
understate the view impacts.
Handmacher
97.
The 2D maps are also misleading in that they include
territorial views across the tideflats where little water
is visible. The chart that compares the view impacts of
the height alternatives demonstrates that by including
these territorial views the actual view impacts are
distorted.
Handmacher
98.
The proposed alternative development option will
allow substantially more development than is possible
under the existing regulations.
Jacobs
99.
The Russell Investment Group makes all business
decisions, including office space needs and long-tern
growth plans, on the basis of a number of factors and
the best available information. Statements made by
third parties regarding our intentions do not reflect the
view of Russell.
Walkey
Response
the screenprints.
The methodology used for creating the 2D images is described on pages 4-6 of
the SEPA Addendum. In order to provide a comprehensive view analysis for
this project, staff utilized three primary tools, a 3D model (which was
displayed in interactive presentations and in hardcopy screen prints), 2D maps
demonstrating areas that would be visible and areas that would not be visible,
and a chart providing calculations of relative view impact. The 3D model and
2D maps utilize different computer software but utilize the same observation
points and analyze the same height options. Spatial Analyst, the program used
to create the 2D maps, utilizes a terrain model to create a map of areas that are
not visible from the various vantage points (similar to a cast shadow). The 2D
maps do not reflect an overhead view; they reflect the view from the individual
viewpoints. The two methods are consistent and demonstrate the same levels
of impact.
The methodology used to calculate view impacts is explained on page 6 of the
SEPA Addendum and notes that the criterion used to determine if a view was
present was based on the ability to see 50% or more of the area in the
respective nearshore, midshore and farshore categories. Shoreline views
include not only the water but the adjacent uplands. The Foss Waterway area is
described as a nearshore view, Commencement Bay and the port area are the
midshore views and the farshore views are the areas adjacent to Northeast
Tacoma and Browns Point.
The Commission asked that the proposal be modified to require building
modulations and to decrease the height on the Municipal Dock site, which has
further reduced the maximum build-out potential. With these changes, the
difference in the maximum build-out between the existing regulations and the
proposed regulations is less than 40,000 sq ft., a relatively small difference
(approx. 3%) considering the maximum built-out under either scenario is
around 1,400,000 sq. ft.
Comment noted.
Page 24 of 26
Page 76
Source Key:
Oral Testimony from Public Hearing (April 18, 2007)
Johnson, Ted – Simon Johnson, 1019 Pacific Ave, #1119, Tacoma, WA 98402
Lynn, Bill – Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, P.O. Box 1157, Tacoma WA 98401
Malone, Diane – 1120 Cliff Ave., #404,Tacoma, WA 98402
Toth, Richard – 525 Broadway, Tacoma, WA 98402
Zacek, Sandra – Rancho de Manana, LLC, 401 Fawcett Ave. Suite 203, Tacoma, WA 98402
Beery, Kathi – 1120 Cliff Ave. #301, Tacoma, WA 98402
Handmacher, Jim – Morton McGoldrick, PO Box 1533, Tacoma, WA 98401 (representing the Perkins Building)
Casey, Paul – 1101 A St. #503, Tacoma, WA 98402
Cummings, Pat – 1101 A St., #503, Tacoma, WA 98402
Jacobs, Frank – 1202 N. Tacoma Ave., Tacoma, WA 98403
Rieber, Gayle – Gayle Rieber Photography, 1121 A St., Tacoma, WA 98402
Davenport, Tom – 1101 A St. #804, Tacoma, WA 98402
Gross, Steve – 1101 A Street, Unit 803, Tacoma WA 98402
Caraher, Kathy – 1120 N. 27th St., Tacoma, WA 98403
Tinnin, Chris – Cliff Street Loft
Purcell, Sondra – 204 Tacoma Ave. S., #24, Tacoma, WA 98402
Vincenzo, Joe – 1120 Cliff St., Tacoma, WA 98402
Written Testimony (received on or before April 27, 2007)
Barline, John – 1301 A Street, Suite 900, Tacoma, WA 98402-4299 – letter, dated April 19, 2007
Beery, Kathi – e-mail, dated April 16, 2007
Beery, Kathi – letter, dated April 20, 2007
Bennett, Peter – 1101 A Street #807, Tacoma, WA 98402 – e-mail, dated April 27, 2007
Bjornson, Eric – 711 Court A, Suite 114, Tacoma WA 98402 – email, dated April 9, 2007
Burkey, Milissa – e-mail, dated April 14, 2007
Campbell, Marty, New Tacoma Neighborhood Council – letter, dated April 27, 2007
Casey, Paul J. – e-mail dated April 27, 2007
Cooke, John – 1201 Pacific Ave, Suite 2100, P.O. Box 1157, Tacoma , WA 98401-1157 – letter, dated April 27, 2007
Cohn, Jill – 711 S Lawrence St, Tacoma WA – e-mail, dated April 12, 2007
Cummings, Paula – 1101 A Street, Unit 801, Tacoma, WA 98402 – e-mail, dated April 17, 2007
Cummings (2), Pat – 1101 A Street, Unit 801, Tacoma, WA 98402 – e-mail, dated April 17, 2007
Davenport, Tom – 1101 A Street Suite 806, Tacoma, WA 98402-5007 – letter, dated April 22, 2007
Dzivak, Nalana – 1730 Point Woodworth Dr. N.E., Tacoma, WA 98422 – e-mail, dated April 13, 2007
Eakins, Shannon and Marc Dombrosky – e-mail, dated April 25, 2007.
Fayth, Jon – 1113 A Street #207, Tacoma, WA 98402 – letter, received April 23, 2007
Furlong, Ralph – e-mail, dated April 12, 2007
Page 25 of 26
Page 77
Furlong, Sheila – e-mail, dated April 12, 2007
Glick, Sara – e-mail, dated April 16, 2007
Gardner Johnson – 119, 1st Ave S, Suite 410, Seattle, WA 98104 – letter dated April 26, 2007
Gray, Colleen – 3818 South 9th Street, Tacoma WA 98402 – e-mail, dated April 18, 2007
Gross, Steve – 1101 A Street, Unit 803, Tacoma WA 98402 – letter dated April 25, 2007
Handmacher, James – 820 “A” Street, Suite 600, P.O. Box 1533, Tacoma, WA 98401 – letter, dated April 13, 2007
Jacobs, Frank – 1202 No. Tacoma Avenue, Tacoma, WA 98403 – letter, dated April 18, 2007
Johnson (2), Opal – e-mail, dated April 16, 2007
Lambert, David – 2915 N. 10th, Tacoma, WA 98406 – e-mail, dated April 16, 2007
Larsen, Charles – 2111 7th St SE, Puyallup, WA 98372 – e-mail dated April 19, 2007
Lorenz, Joan and Frederick – e-mail, dated April 16, 2007
Meyer, Don – 535 E Dock St, Suite 204, Tacoma WA 98402 – letter, dated June 21, 2007.
Roberts, Dave – 922 N Stadium Way, Tacoma, WA 98403 – e-mail, dated April 27, 2007
Rowley, Mark A. – 1191 2nd Ave, Seattle, WA 98101-2939 – letter, dated April 27, 2007
Sarner, Robin M.D. – 1120 Cliff Avenue, #401, Tacoma WA 98402, – e-mail, dated April 7, 2007
Sarner, Robin M.D. – 1120 Cliff Avenue, #401, Tacoma WA 98402, – letter, dated April 20, 2007
Shaw, Stan – e-mail, dated April 18, 2007
Simon, Herb and Johnson, Ted – letter, dated April 27, 2007
Stebich, Stephanie – 1101 A Street, Unit 704, Tacoma, WA 98402 – e-mail, dated April 17,2007
Walkey, Deedra S. US General Counsel – e-mail dated April 26, 2007
Wheeler, Jack – 1120 Cliff Avenue, #201, Tacoma, WA 98402 – e-mail, dated April 5, 2007
Zacek, Sandra – Rancho de Manana, LCC, 401 Fawcett Ave Suite 203, Tacoma, WA 98402 – letter, dated April 21, 2007
Other Information
Meyer, Don – Foss Waterway Development Authority, 535 E Dock St, Suite 204, Tacoma WA 98402 – letter, dated June 21, 2007
Vanzwalenburg, Kim – Washington Department of Ecology, PO Box 47774, Olympia, WA 98504 – letter, dated June 11, 2007
Page 26 of 26
Page 78
Members
Thomas M. Smith, Chair
David A. Boe, Vice-Chair
Kevin Briske
Melody Curtiss
Carolyn L. Davidson
Robert T. de Grouchy, III
Thomas W. Donovan
Jeremy C. Doty
Scott Morris
Minutes
Ryan Petty, Director
Peter Huffman, Planning Division Manager
Public Works Department
Charles Solverson, P.E., Building Official
Tacoma Public Utilities
Heather Pennington, Water Representative
Cathy Leone-Woods, Power Transmission & Distribution Assistant Manager
747 Market Street, Room 1036, Tacoma, WA 98402-3793
Phone (253) 591-5365; FAX (253) 591-2002
www.cityoftacoma.org/planning
MEETING:
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
TIME:
Wednesday, April 18, 2007, 4:00 p.m. /Public Hearing at 5 p.m.
PLACE:
Tacoma Municipal Building, City Council Chambers
First Floor, 747 Market Street, Tacoma, WA
Members
Present:
Thomas Smith (Chair), David Boe (Vice-Chair), Kevin Briske, Carolyn Davidson,
Robert de Grouchy III, Thomas Donovan, Jeremy Doty, Scott Morris,
Melody Curtiss (arrived at 4:33 p.m.)
Staff
Present:
Peter Huffman, Donna Stenger, Brian Boudet, Molly Harris, Lihuang Wung
(Community & Economic Development); Caroline Haynes-Castro, Shanta Frantz,
Shirley Schultz, Lisa Spadoni (Public Works); Steve Victor (Legal Department);
Heather Pennington (Tacoma Water)
Others
Present:
(As listed in the “Public Hearing Testimony” section)
Excerpt
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Thea Foss Waterway Zone 1 Height Regulations
Chair Smith called the public hearing to order at 5:07 p.m. He stated the subject and the
procedures for the hearing, and announced that, in addition to oral testimony, written comments
may be submitted through 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 27, 2007. Chair Smith called on staff to make
a brief presentation.
Ms. Donna Stenger stated that the subject of the public hearing is the proposed amendment to
the City’s shoreline regulations particularly related to the Tacoma Municipal Code (TMC),
Ë
The Community and Economic Development Department does not discriminate on the basis of handicap in any of its programs and services.
Upon request, accommodations can be provided within five (5) business days. Contact (253) 591-5365 (voice) or (253) 591-5153 (TTY).
Page 79
Minutes of Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of April 18, 2007
Page 2
Chapter 13.10, which is part of the Master Program for Shoreline Development. The
amendment applies to S-8 Thea Foss Waterway Shoreline District.
The proposed amendment would allow an increase in the maximum height to 180 feet on three
development sites, modify the building envelope and other standards, clarify the responsibilities
of Thea Foss Waterway Development Authority for conducting design review, and add a new
requirement to protect the view of Mt. Rainier from the view overlook located near the southeast
corner of Fireman’s Park.
Ms. Stenger mentioned that copies of the staff report summarizing the proposal are available in
the back of the room. Also available are CDs containing appropriate background information
and support studies. All of this information is also available on the City’s website.
Ms. Stenger reviewed the background of the proposed amendment. In 2004, Foss Harbor LLC
submitted an application to the Planning Commission requesting a change in the S-8 Thea Foss
Waterway Shoreline District regulations for the west side of Thea Foss Waterway for the area
north of the Murray Morgan Bridge (Zone 1) to increase the maximum building height from the
current 100 feet maximum height to 180 feet. The application was accepted by the Commission
consistent with the process set forth in TMC 13.02 and included for review with other proposed
amendments as a part of the annual amendment review package for 2004.
After conducting a public hearing on September 15, 2004 and reviewing testimony, the
Commission modified the draft proposal and recommended to the City Council an amendment
to the S-8 regulations which provided an option to increase the height to 180 feet, subject to
meeting certain requirements, and only for the southern portion of Zone 1, an area located
south of the Puget Sound Freight Building. The Council held a public hearing on October 26,
2004, and subsequently concurred with the Commission’s recommendation and adopted the
proposed S-8 code changes by Substitute Ordinance No. 27296 on November 16, 2004.
After Council approval, the proposed code amendment was submitted to the Department of
Ecology (DOE) for review and approval, pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA)
requirements. DOE conducted a review and solicited public comments. After reviewing the
testimony and the City’s record, DOE suggested that additional analysis of the proposed
amendment was warranted to address view impacts, particularly of nearby residences, and that
additional opportunity for public discussion of the new view analysis be provided. In November
2005, the City withdrew the proposed amendment from further review by DOE in order to
conduct a new view analysis and to reevaluate the 2004 approved amendment based upon the
new view analysis. This process commenced in December 2005.
One of the most significant aspects of the reevaluation was the view impact analysis. Staff used
computer modeling programs which allowed interactive 3D views from different locations, at
different heights, with different building forms, and within 4,000 feet of the affected shoreline
area. Ultimately, three vantages points were selected: the Perkins Building roof deck, and the
overlook areas at the southeast corner and the northern end of Fireman’s Park. In addition to
using the computer modeling, the City hired TCF Architecture to conduct a view analysis and
massing study. TCF presented diagrams depicting different variations of building massing which
could be possible but are not specifically required by the proposed regulations. The architectural
renderings were overlaid over actual photographs looking at different view points from the same
vantage points used in the 3D modeling. Unlike the 3D models which used the maximum zoning
envelopes, the TCF renderings were more schematic building designs and modulations, thus
Page 80
Page 3
providing a different perspective for the Commission. Staff also conducted a 2D viewshed
analysis to calculate the viewable areas (where 50% or more of views are unobstructed) and
determine the degree of view impact from the same vantage points.
Various development scenarios were examined in the 3D models, the TCF architectural
renderings and the viewshed analysis. The “wedding cake” form showed buildings at 50 feet
(the minimum height) and 100 feet (the maximum height) with building modulations at certain
heights as required by the existing code. The “tower-and-podium” form depicted maximum
building envelopes at heights of 140, 160 and 180 feet using the tower and podium building
form in several configurations, including towers at a maximum floorplate of 15,000 and 12,000
square feet. For the tower option, the Municipal Dock site and Site 10 each had one tower
depicted; and on Site 11, three towers are depicted, with a stepping down of height of the
towers northward.
An economic feasibility analysis was also conducted to determine the likely return on investment
from these development scenarios and whether the return was sufficient to attract investment.
Ms. Stenger continued to report on the public involvement process. A community meeting was
held early in the process in February 2006 to explain the review process and to answer
questions from the public. Staff created a stakeholders list and notified everyone on the list of
every meeting the Planning Commission held when this item was on the agenda. Several
citizens have participated throughout the entire process. Staff attended a joint meeting of the
Foss Waterway Development Authority (FWDA) Board and its Urban Design Review Committee
in March 2007 and presented the 3D computer model as well as other relevant information.
Staff also held a community meeting on April 4, 2007 to provide an opportunity for interested
parties to learn more about the proposed amendment and ask questions.
For the record, the notice for tonight’s public hearing was sent to interested stakeholders,
Neighborhood Council representatives, business and community organizations, City
departments, State agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, other governmental agencies, the Puyallup
Tribe, large institutions, environmental organizations and others. Notice was also mailed to
taxpayers of record for properties on the Thea Foss waterway and within 400 feet of these
properties. In total, the notice was sent to more than 1,600 addresses. Public notice signs were
posted on the affected properties on the Thea Foss Waterway. In addition, a legal notice and
advertisement of the public hearing was published in The News Tribune on April 4, 2007 and a
copy of the notice was posted on the City’s internet website.
An addendum to the 1995 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Thea Foss
Waterway Development Alternatives Plan was prepared. The addendum provided additional
environmental information describing potential visual impacts based on the results from the
updated viewshed analyses.
Ms. Stenger went on to provide a more detailed description of the proposed code amendment.
The proposed amendment provides for an alternative development option (tower and podium
building form) on three development sites (Municipal Dock site, Site 10 and Site 11) located in
the southern portion of Zone 1. A maximum building height of 180 feet would be allowed only if
the majority of the building’s use is residential. No additional height or variance to the 180-foot
limit is allowed; all rooftop mechanical and other appurtenances must fall within the envelope.
Maximum floorplate for the tower portion exceeding the podium is no more than 15,000 square
feet.
Page 81
Page 4
For projects incorporating multiple towers, only one of the towers on each site can be 180-foot
tall (and this should be the southernmost tower). Each additional tower shall be progressively
shorter by at least 20 feet. Towers have to be spaced apart an average of 100 feet and no
closer than 80 feet. The towers are restricted in width to 125 feet, as measured from and
parallel to Dock Street.
The maximum height of the podium portion is set at 50 feet, although a 10-foot allowance is
provided for mechanical equipment and amenities associated with the use of the podium rooftop
for recreation activities by the tenants and/or public. Such amenities may include railings,
seating and planters. 50% of the podium roof has to be usable for recreational space, of which
30% has to be landscaped.
The podium needs to have a setback of 10 feet from the access/view corridor, which would
expand the existing width of the view/access corridor from 80 to 100 feet, with a 10-foot setback
on each side, which needs to be developed with pedestrian amenities and landscaping.
As in 2004, the proposed amendment retains the existing building envelope regulations as a
development option, with a maximum height limit of 100 feet and required building modulations
at certain intervals (“wedding cake” building form).
The proposed amendment clarifies the responsibilities of FWDA for conducting design review
on all public properties on the west side using the criteria and guidelines in the Thea Foss
Waterway Design and Development Plan. The design review must consider the shoreline view
impacts to a substantial number of residences adjacent to the shoreline. The amendment also
clarifies that City staff will conduct design review on private properties including view obstruction
as part of the review of shoreline permit applications.
The revised amendment adds a new, significant requirement to protect the view of Mt. Rainier
from the view overlook located near the southeast corner of Fireman’s Park. No development
can obstruct that view. The view of Mt. Rainier from this viewpoint is identified as a locally
important view. This is the first time the City has put in the code the protection of the view of the
Mountain that also affords some protection to shoreline views.
Finally, the proposed amendment includes changes that represent a reorganization of the S-8
Thea Foss Shoreline District regulations. These changes include the addition of diagrams and
illustrations as well as some explanatory text to help differentiate those portions of the code that
apply to all development on the Thea Foss Waterway from regulations that apply only to the
east or west sides of the Waterway. The reorganization is intended to make this section of the
shoreline code easier to read, follow and understand.
Upon conclusion of Ms. Stenger’s presentation, Chair Smith called for oral testimony.
(1)
Ted Johnson – Simon Johnson, 1019 Pacific Ave., #1119, Tacoma, WA 98402
Mr. Johnson is a partner with Foss Harbor, LLC, which owns development site 11 and has
a lease option agreement with the Foss Waterway Development Authority (FWDA) for site
10, which are two of the parcels affected by the proposed amendment. Mr. Johnson
began with a PowerPoint presentation to summarize their proposal. He said that the long,
horizontal facades on Thea’s Landing prompted them to explore other alternatives. The
Page 82
Page 5
“wall” created by the Thea’s Landing project is about seven stories tall and approximately
350 feet long.
He showed pictures taken at Coal Harbour, Vancouver, BC that better express what Foss
Harbor hopes to accomplish on their site(s); that being waterfront with esplanades,
people-access places, and towers on top of podiums. Foss Harbor’s goals are to preserve
and enhance view and access corridors via slender building massing, enhance pedestrian
connections and open space, provide visual interest with a variety of scales, expand the
linear nature of the esplanade with new green space and integrated pedestrian areas,
reinforce both visual and physical connections to the waterfront, orient the buildings to
take advantage of the views and light, develop a transit-oriented program, enhance the
Tacoma waterfront skyline by creating a gateway at the north end of the waterway, and
activate the streetscape and provide a safe neighborhood.
Zone 1 has constraints in that the sites are narrow, there is a roadway that cannot be
moved, and there are railroad tracks as well as an adjacent bluff. The dimensions of the
Zone 1 relevant sites are 620 feet and 400 feet in length and 120 feet wide. In
comparison, the dimensions of the sites in the Thea’s Landing area are approximately 380
feet long and 200 feet wide. The height of the bluff is between 90 and 96 feet above
uplands. In comparison, the bluff in zone 2 is 60 to 70 feet above the uplands. The
current zoning requirement for a structure in that area is 130 feet. Schuster Parkway and
Interstate 705 also separate the sites in Zone 1. From a pedestrian standpoint, Mr.
Johnson stated, there is a definite lack of connectivity to downtown. The esplanade will be
only 20 feet wide in Zone 1.
The current Plan calls for substantial density in this area. Mr. Johnson showed a
schematic concept of future tower development. It begins to open up views of the water
and the skyline. With their proposal, it will begin to resemble Vancouver, B.C. and
Portland waterways.
Mr. Johnson continued explaining the renderings in his PowerPoint presentation. He
stated that their vision is to provide a 130- to 150-foot wide open area designed to
accommodate retail. Dock Street is not available for on-street parking because it is
narrow and cannot be expanded; therefore, any parking to attract retail shoppers will need
to be off-street. They also want to create a gathering place in the center of the esplanade,
possibly with a water feature; as well as expand the marina’s convenience store and
possibly add a boutique store.
(2)
Bill Lynn – Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, P.O. Box 1157, Tacoma, WA 98401
Mr. Lynn also represented the Foss Harbor, LLC. He stated that views will be impacted
from erecting tall buildings.
There will also be some view enhancements and
improvements; however, view impacts are fully permissible under the applicable law.
When the Planning Commission, as well as the City Council recommended approval of the
proposed amendment a few years ago, they fully understood that the Thea Foss
Waterway was to be intensely developed with urban uses. They understood that this
proposal would have some view impacts and made a conscious decision that the
overriding public interest was the public interest of the public-at-large, and not the interest
of a few people whose views may be impacted.
Mr. Lynn said that when this matter went to the Department of Ecology (DOE), they
indicated that they wanted a better job of articulating the public interest that warranted the
view impacts. It is legal to impair views according to the Shoreline Management Act
Page 83
Page 6
(SMA), but only when it is demonstrated that there is an overriding public interest – not an
overwhelming public interest. The City does not need to guess what the public interest is
because of the volumes of plans and policies, as well as a long history of City actions that
help us define what the public interest is. Whenever the leaders of the City have had an
opportunity to decide what the public interest is with respect to the Foss Waterway, they
have decided that the public would be served by an intensely-developed urban shoreline
in this area.
Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), once the policies and plans have been
adopted it is required that they are implemented. Prior to the GMA, the Shoreline code
was separate from the City’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. The GMA now states
that plans and policies have to be integrated and work together. The Foss Waterway is
defined as part of the City’s urban center in the Comprehensive Plan as well as in the fourcounty effort that led to the Vision 2020 Plan which encourages residential growth and
employment in centers. The City’s Plan identifies the site as a High Intensity area where
residential density should exceed eighty dwelling units per acre. The City went beyond
that and identified the Thea Foss Waterway as being within the City’s downtown mixeduse center – the center among all centers – and the focal point for the City’s development
and growth. This encourages high-rise apartments, clustered housing, and intense urban
development that would foster transit, pedestrian activity, and result in a livable urban
community.
The City’s Shoreline Master Program identifies the waterway as an urban area, the
highest classification, which encourages residential, marine and commercial uses, as well
as mixed-uses.
The City has a history of investment in the Thea Foss Waterway with the expectation of a
certain type of private development to follow, Mr. Lynn stated. The area had suffered from
100 years of industrial development, after which there were empty buildings and
contaminated properties (three hot spots were identified by the EPA). Leaders of the City
identified the area as the single greatest opportunity for Tacoma’s economic revival. They
invested $7,000,000 and bought 27 acres of contaminated properties and began the
process of cleaning them up. The City invested $90,000,000 to clean up the waterway.
They created and funded the FWDA to oversee the marketing and development of the
area. They then invested another $45,000,000 in infrastructure (marinas and the
esplanade) with the aim of creating a center piece of a dense urban area. The City also
adopted and subsequently amended the Thea Foss Waterway Development Plan, which
was the product of 40 public meetings involving 900 people, over a period of years. That
Plan became a little more specific; stating that the waterway is to be a very active area, a
focal point, a mixture of uses with the esplanade, pedestrian-friendly activities, and transit.
The “public interest” has been articulated in City Plans and actions. We know that the City
expects the area not to remain as it is today with a few run-down buildings on the north
end and some marinas. Rather, the City expects more, as they have invested a lot of
money with the expectation that they will get more private development.
We acknowledge these Plans do not dictate a particular building form. There are probably
a number of ways in which to achieve the goals. According to the City’s regulations, one
of the ways to achieve the goals is by the kind of buildings that are presently permitted
under the development regulations, as previously explained by Ms. Stenger and
Mr. Johnson. The existing regulations have been approved by the DOE and implement
the City’s vision. There also may be other ways to accomplish the vision; however, we
must pay attention to what is feasible and what is practical. In 2004, City leaders decided
Page 84
Page 7
that it was necessary to go taller, in order to make it an economically practical vision for
the City to achieve. The decision was made to gather more verification through this
review. Staff engaged BST to prepare a report which takes into account all of the practical
considerations that Mr. Johnson described; the limitations on the property, the high
groundwater table, construction costs, market rents, etc. The conclusion of that report
was, in order to have a practical and feasible development of the type that the City said it
wants on the waterway through its Plan documents, the City should allow taller buildings.
Mr. Lynn stated that there is a public interest that warrants some view impacts. He
encouraged the Planning Commission to ask the people opposing the amendment: Is the
kind of development that they envision along the waterway consistent with the vision that
the City has articulated? If so, is it practical and feasible?
(3)
Diane Malone – 1120 Cliff Ave., #404,Tacoma, WA 98402
When I relocated to Tacoma from Seattle in 1992, I quickly realized that the downtown
core was a very undesirable area. A decade later, the downtown core has become
revitalized and a very inviting area. But growth always comes with controversy and
concerns. The tower proposal offers a great threat and would rob all of us of what we
have come to love – the view of the waterway. The waterway belongs to all who live,
work, play and visit here.
(4)
Richard Toth – 525 Broadway, Tacoma, WA 98402
The 180-foot height is the same as what was proposed a few years ago and is still a great
idea.
(5)
Sandra Zacek – Rancho de Manana, LLC, 401 Fawcett Ave., Suite 203, Tacoma, WA
98402
Allowing the maximum height of 180 feet would substantially impact the views from the
Perkins Building and downtown Tacoma and would set a precedence for future
development in other areas of the Waterway. The Shoreline Management Act protects
residential waterfront views and a height variance would be allowed only if overriding
considerations of the public interest were served. The proposal is not serving the public
interest. Tacoma is first and foremost a waterfront city and the waterfront should be
preserved for residents of not only the waterfront, but the entire city and the county.
Keeping the waterfront intact and people-friendly and protecting the view provides
substantial benefits to the city, in that (1) it makes the city a great place to live, work and
play; (2) it gives potential condo buyers more reasons to buy condos thereby helping all
developers, not just one; and (3) it allows the City to present an impressive waterfront
destination to attract tourists. People come to see tall ships, not tall buildings. The shortterm money the city will recoup on the towers would be greatly diminished by the longterm gains of protecting our waterfront now.
San Francisco’s waterfront around the Bay Bridge has undergone a renaissance in the
past few years after the 1989 earthquake destroyed the bridge. We have an opportunity to
become a waterfront community. We should achieve a vision that does not repeat the
mistake of other cities; or like San Francisco, Tacoma would have to wait for an
earthquake to regain our waterfront. Do not allow the 180-ft towers to dwarf our waterfront.
These towers will be viewed with sadness and disgust for the treasured assets that they
Page 85
Page 8
have destroyed. Please safeguard our irreplaceable waterfront and protect the rights of all
residents of Tacoma.
(6)
Kathi Beery – 1120 Cliff Ave., #301, Tacoma, WA 98402
I am for high density development but taking away waterfront from the city is a bad move.
On Seattle’s waterfront, the Harbor Steps condo development makes the walkway feel
very private. The Thea Foss esplanade is so much narrower; it will not feel like a public
place and we will not have a sense of the community with these towers in front of the
waterfront. The developer is not bringing in the amenities that we need in downtown such
as grocery stores and schools. Seattle is trying to reconnect with their warfront. We are at
the point to save our waterfront and should avoid the path Seattle has taken.
(7)
Jim Handmacher – Morton McGoldrick for Perkins Building, P.O. Box 1533, Tacoma, WA
98401
I represent residents of the Perkins Building and the Perkins Building Owner’s Association.
I also have my own stake in this, as our law office is located on the sixth floor of the Bank
of America building which is right across the street from Firemen’s Park. These towers
would be taller than the Bank of America building which is a seven-story building.
I delivered a letter to the Planning Commission last Friday, and hopefully, you all have had
time to review it. I would like to highlight some critical issues from that letter. The most
important is that you are dealing with an amendment to the City’s Master Shoreline
Program. DOE has adopted regulations that govern what must be in the Master Program.
The one that is relevant here is WAC 173.26.221, which says that the Shoreline Master
Program must adopt provisions such as maximum height limits to minimize impacts to
existing views from public property or substantial number of residents. That is a regulation
that has not really been discussed much in your meetings but is directly on point. It goes
on to say, “where there are irreconcilable conflicts between views in either waterdependent shoreline uses or physical public access, the views must give way”. But this
project does not include either a water-dependent shoreline use or a physical public
access. This project is simply residential condominiums and the views do not give way to
that type of a use. That means the DOE regulations require the City to set a maximum
height limit that protects views, not only from the Perkins Building, but also the public
views from Firemen’s Park. It’s not an option, it’s not discretion, and it is something that
has not been adequately brought to your attention prior to now.
Secondly, Shoreline Management Act, Section RCW 90.58.320 prohibits the issuance of a
permit for a building more than 35 feet in height that will obstruct a view from a substantial
number of residences. That statute will not come into play directly on this matter because
you are not being asked to issue a permit. The Shoreline Hearings Board has repeatedly
rejected much smaller projects than what you are being asked to consider here. They
have never approved a permit that I am aware of, for a structure anywhere near the size of
the project that you are being asked to review here. Since a permit cannot be granted for
a project of 180 feet on the shoreline that impacts views from a substantial number of
residences, which this clearly does, why are you considering changing the code to allow
maximum heights of 180 feet? The only effect is the chilling effect it will have on
development in the uphill areas, because of the threat of the impact on those views, not
because in reality they can never be built.
The proper action, under the SMA, is not to raise the height to 180 feet, but to lower the
height below 100 feet. The views from the Perkins Building could be protected probably at
Page 86
Page 9
100 feet. The views from Firemen’s Park will be severely impacted at 100 feet and that’s
a public park. It is the only public viewing area in all of downtown Tacoma. Because its
elevation is less than 100 feet as we have now found out through these view studies, it
cannot be protected at a 100-foot height. You are going to be doing a complete review of
the entire Shoreline Master Program in the next year. This is an inappropriate time to
consider changing the height along a portion of the Foss Waterway. Is 100 feet
appropriate when it is going to impact Firemen’s Park? Is 130 feet south of the 11th Street
Bridge appropriate when the Perkins Building is at an elevation of less than 100 feet?
Those are issues that need to be addressed in the upcoming review. Those views need to
be protected and are required to be protected.
Economic feasibility has really been a major red herring. First of all, the economic
feasibility study is flawed because it does not take into account the property tax exemption
that this project would receive. According to the information that we were given at the
public meeting last week, if you take the tax exemption into account, you can build at 50
feet and still be economically feasible. The developers bought this property in 2001
knowing the height limit and telling the FWDA; in fact, promising in writing, to build in
accordance with the height limit. They drew up a beautiful set of conceptual plans, which I
have provided you, that shows a very attractive development that they were going to build
on these properties if the FWDA sold them the land. The FWDA in reliance upon those
promises sold them the land. They now own site 11 and they have a right to own site 10.
Yet now they are backing away and saying we don’t want to build in accordance with what
we told you. There was a financial feasibility plan that was given to the FWDA by these
developers. It’s a classic bait and switch. After they get control of the property, they say
they can’t build in accordance with rules. I say, “Hold their feet to what they promised to
do.” If they’re not willing to build under the existing rules, they should sell it back to the
FWDA and let somebody else do it in accordance with what they originally said could be
done.
The last thing I want to speak about is whether this is good public policy. This is what you
are hearing from many of the people who are opposed to this. Because that is really what
your job is. It is not to make this a more attractive investment for two individuals in this
city. It’s to say what is best for the City as a whole? And what is best for the revitalization
of downtown? Is it to create a wall between downtown and its waterfront; to create a wall
to prevent people from seeing Commencement Bay? Is it to block the views from the only
public viewpoint in downtown and the place where people congregate for things like the
Tall Ships Festival? You are damaging those businesses and those residents who have
made an investment in downtown solely for a speculative profit for somebody else. And
that’s really what is wrong with this project. This project will significantly impact the views
of the occupants of the Russell Building. It is important to the City that the Russell
Company stays in town. It is important to the City to not give them an excuse to leave
town. And that is true of all of the other businesses that have located in that area and the
residents that have bought into the Perkins Building. I would ask you to very seriously
consider what you are doing to the City by going along with the proposal that has been
offered. I would ask you to reject this proposal at this time and take a look at all of the
height limits as part of your overall shoreline review that is coming up over the next year.
Chair Smith acknowledged receipt of Mr. Handmacher’s letter and noted that it is part of
the public record.
Page 87
(8)
Page 10
Paul Casey – Perkins Owner, 1101 A St., #503, Tacoma, WA 98402
I am an architect and have had an ongoing architectural practice in the Tacoma area for
over 20 years. I am also a resident in the Perkins Building in a 5th floor unit. The view
from my unit is the computer view that all of you have seen multiple times.
The amount of work that I have seen completed by City staff in promoting this amendment
is literally unprecedented. There are volumes of work – all very good work and a lot of
good effort. As you know, the 1995 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
considered a variety of heights depending on the intensity of the use. The 2000 zoning
rules set the height at 140 feet; in 2003 they were set at 100 feet, and now we’re going
back to 180 feet. So, over the last 12 years since the EIS, we’ve had three changes – or
one change in height every four years. That amount of change in zoning requirements is
also unprecedented. Those changes were apparently (looking through the old record)
based on civic perceptions and needs at that time and also economic needs by the
various individuals looking at various lots.
I want to address three issues that I think have been overlooked in all this process. One is
access to the area. By the City’s own report, this area has poor connectivity and what
exists is limited and inconvenient. But staff also underplayed some of the facts in
relationship to those statements. The right-of-way for Dock Street is 40 feet wide and it is
limited by the adjacent railway. That allows, according to the earlier Foss Waterway Plan,
two 11-foot traffic lanes, which are of substandard width; two 5-foot bike lanes; and a
sidewalk on one side. As already been pointed out by Mr. Johnson, there is no parking
on-street. So, essentially on-street parking, which is free in other areas on Dock Street,
will be missing in this area. Public parking is going to be in parking lots. If you look at
Thea’s Landing and the Museum of Glass parking, it is all “pay me” parking, pay the
developer, pay the building owner parking. I have been to most of the sessions regarding
this amendment and I have not seen any mention of an updated traffic impact analysis for
this area, or for Dock Street, at all. I might be mistaken; I just haven’t seen one presented.
My calls to City Engineering have gone unanswered, so I don’t know if they’ve done
anything or not.
Going back to the original DEIS, which was based on 1990 data, they showed two ways to
get off of Dock Street in this area – one at 15th and the other at 4th and Schuster. The
existing Levels of Service (LOS) of A and B (which are good) went down to LOS E and F
based on any of these developments. By approving a higher intensity development you
are just making bad traffic worse. That is like adding insult to injury if the City hasn’t
evaluated the traffic impacts with updated numbers. I would think, under the normal
course of business, that the City would have evaluated the traffic impacts before
considering a height increase that increases the allowable building area of the projects
that can be built. The City has a minimum standard of LOS D. Anything that goes on in
this area is going to be below the minimum standard from the get-go.
I have only done a cursory review of the economic analysis by BST Associates. One of
the things that I find interesting is that the basis of their evaluation was an internal rate of
return for the developer of a minimum of 20 percent before you can attract development in
this area. My research with bankers and other developers indicate that it is really about 17
percent before banks will consider lending money. That is a small decrease but still
significant.
The report also lists the land costs for site 10 as having a value of $38 per square foot in
the economic analysis. Based on the square footage, that yields a value of $1,719,000.
Page 88
Page 11
Last Friday, I got a copy of the lease agreement and the purchase and sale agreement on
site 10 that Mr. Johnson had talked about. The agreement talks about a purchase value
of about one million dollars, and another quarter million in other compensation to the City,
for a total of about $1.25 million. That’s one-half million dollars less than what the
economic analysis used as a basis for their evaluation. Of course, that cost is used to
show how the lower-rise projects aren’t profitable.
The report also lists that the developer is responsible for the cost of developing the
esplanade at about $4,000 per linear foot. Based on the property length, that’s $1.5
million dollars. Based upon staff reports and everything I’ve read, this esplanade, which is
supposed to be 20 feet wide, is going to be built in front of site 10. I looked at the same
purchase and sale agreement, paragraph 4.2, which has provisions for an extension of the
lease (meaning Simon & Johnson have to actually extend the lease) and has several
requirements. The second requirement says that the City, before they will extend, has
fully funded construction of that portion of the esplanade fronting the premises. That’s
another $1.5 million dollars that the City is picking up, and I may be wrong – maybe the
lease agreement that I have is out-of-date, but according to FWDA staff, this was the
latest version.
Then I looked at the report in terms of construction costs. I was looking at the 100-foot
option. That is something that I’m acquainted with in terms of my own practice. The
economic analysis reports in 2005 dollars that this type of construction would on average
cost $394 per square foot. On another project with a developer that I am working with,
they have an average cost in 2007 of $285 per square foot. So, assuming 10 percent
inflation over the last two years, I backed out two years of inflation from the current $285
cost down to $231 per square foot. Their value is 70 percent higher than a comparable
building that is being built elsewhere in Tacoma.
I’m sure we can argue all day long about what the City has done during this process.
They have done a wonderful job in analyzing the view impacts; however, I think in their
zealousness to address the DOE requirements to look at the residential views, they have
completely ignored the original Foss Development Plan. City staff, by their own
comments, said that one of their goals is to be consistent with that development plan;
however, they are not. On page 19, under shoreline use development policies, item G
states: “Maximize view opportunities, while protecting views of surrounding uses“. Not just
residential uses, but all uses, which could mean the Russell Building. Under urban
design, page 23, development policies, item 8: “Important public views of the waterway
from the downtown should be protected”. The third point that the Plan brings up is under
public and private building development sites, page 52. It reads: “The building height
limits and view/access corridors established in the regulatory process were intended to
mitigate view impacts to surrounding uses. Each new development should consider a
variety of views, including its own orientation to maximize views, and the impact to
surrounding views, including view from other sites on the waterway, views from
surrounding locations to the waterway and views available to surrounding properties that
may be affected by the development of the waterway”. The Foss Development Plan is
very clear that views from downtown are critical in the determination of what should be
done down on the Foss Waterway. The latest staff reports have completely ignored those
impacts.
In closing, I am a recent purchaser in the Perkins Building, at the end of 2005. However,
there were several owners that bought their units in 2003/2004. I know those owners
were essentially trailblazers coming downtown. Trailblazer are the people that come first,
Page 89
Page 12
get all the accolades, and get all the kudos from everybody for being there first. However,
if this 180-foot view adjustment is passed, the views from the Perkins will definitely be
harmed without possibility of repair. Instead of being viewed as trailblazers, I think the
Perkins owners that bought earlier, are going to be remembered as scouts – those are the
guys that came back to camp with arrows in their back.
(9)
Pat Cummings – Perkins Owner, 1101 A St., #503, Tacoma, WA 98402
I once sent you a DVD to describe what impacts your decision will have on many residents
living in downtown. Many of you have a view from your home. Imagine if the county
decides, for the sake of the public at large, to destroy the view you enjoy from your home.
Many of us purchased the property with the desire to enhance our quality of life with a
beautiful view. Your decision could be supporting a very obstructive view curtain for the
Foss Waterway, which is a very precious resource. How do we define the “public at
large”? Enabling this type of development on this small footprint with this obstructive view
impact to residents and businesses is said to be a way of developing the waterfront and
helping the public at large – I can’t help to believe the “public at large” that would be
served by this zoning change are those lucky people who can afford the 180-degree
unobstructed view of the water and the mountains. The “public at large” also would be
defined as those who want to broker arrangements in order to enhance purchases they
made for development; that’s the smaller “public at large” to be benefited. This is an
important decision; when the bell is rung, it is rung.
(10) Frank Jacobs – 1202 N. Tacoma Ave., Tacoma, WA 98403
I will submit a letter of comments and would like to highlight three points in the letter. First,
the City of Tacoma has initiated a complete review of all existing shoreline regulations
including height regulations. It will take several years to complete the review. Perhaps it
would be wise to simply wait the completion of the comprehensive review of the entire
west shoreline segment, rather than act on isolated small redevelopment parcels.
Secondly, the applicant only owns one site in the study area, i.e., site 11. They lease site
10 from the Foss Waterway Development Authority and for a time had an option to
purchase it, but it appears that option is no longer in effect. The Municipal Dock site is
owned by the City and managed by the FWDA. With one site in ownership, it could easily
be construed as a spot zoning or a conditional use application without a specific project for
review.
Third, if the changes are approved, the developer would be allowed to build substantially
more rentable square feet by using the tower option, but would offer very little to the public
in trade for this huge increase in value. A 10-ft widening of view corridors is being
considered, however, there would be an increase in building square footage of 200,000
square feet. It is substantially beneficial to the developer, not the public. It is not right.
I would like to request that the article by Peter Callaghan, published in The News Tribune
on April 12, 2007, be included in the public record. The first paragraph of the article reads:
“When it comes to a proposal to increase the allowable building heights on three pieces of
land on Tacoma’s Foss Waterway, seeing is disbelieving. That is, once you see computergenerated displays of what taller buildings will look like from the Foss and from downtown,
you won’t believe that anyone would think this is a good idea.” The last paragraph is
equally interesting and it reads: “Tacoma shouldn’t sell its birth right – views of the
mountain and the water – to the highest bidder. These views won’t disappear following
Page 90
Page 13
construction. They will only be transferred to those who can afford to live in taxpayersubsidized condos that are well out of reach for the average resident.”
Our job, yours and mine, is to protect the public interest of over 200,000 people who live
here, not the rights of a development company.
(11) Gayle Rieber – Gayle Rieber Photography, 1121 A St., Tacoma, WA 98402
I’m grateful of the meeting and public hearing notices concerning this issue that have been
sent to people in the immediate area of my business. I wish all the residents in Tacoma
and Pierce County had received such notices. You would be overwhelmed by the number
of people that suddenly realize what is at stake here. The view is there for all to enjoy at all
times. We have paid tax dollars to clean up the waterway and we expect it to be there
always. Expecting me to have to walk on the esplanade to see the waterway or go to a
particular spot in Fireman’s Park to be able to look and see the mountain is unrealistic.
(12) Tom Davenport – 1101 A St., #804, Tacoma, WA 98402
I own a unit in the Perkins Building which does not have the view of Commencement Bay,
but I enjoy the water view from the rooftop. I also walk and ride my bicycle on a daily
basis, frequenting such areas as the Glass Museum, the waterfront, Fireman’s Park,
Spanish Steps, Wright Park and Broadway business area. Closing off the waterway to
residential high-end development is not in the best interest of any citizen except for those
who purchase property on the waterfront. If this project was Class A office space bringing
a Fortune 500 company to Tacoma, with appropriate connection to downtown, I may
support it. The 20-ft esplanade is not enough to handle the crowd for such events as the
Tall Ships. It is a heritage to be able to stand in any part of the Fireman’s Park to get a
substantial view of the water and the mountain. It is a huge mistake to make the decision
now because maybe someday the project could be feasible with a 100-foot height limit.
(13) Steve Gross – Perkins Building
I need to make two disclaimers: (1) I am a recent resident of Perkins Building and I bought
it with full knowledge of the proposed project and the rezone in S-8 district; and (2) I have
been a City of Tacoma employee for 6 months, but have never spoken with City staff or
elected/appointed officials about this project. My knowledge of the project has been
obtained from reviewing the public record and attending meetings.
I am testifying as a citizen and as a staff who has worked in local governments for 15
years, in Lynwood, Seattle, Pierce County and Tacoma. I would like to address the policy
formulation aspect of what you are being asked to do, which is to modify the City’s policy
based upon a specific development. The zoning and height limits have been changed 4 or
5 times over the last few years. The proposed amendment also is internally inconsistent
with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Foss Waterway Design and Development Plan,
an element of the Comprehensive Plan, allows for residential uses, but encourages
maintaining the historic waterfront and maritime character along the waterfront. The
Downtown Plan also talks about preserving views from downtown to the waterfront and
from the waterfront to downtown.
The City Council has revised their thinking about how the waterfront should be developed.
A few years ago, the east side the Thea Foss Waterway was available for residential
development. The Council changed the policy to prohibit residential uses north of the 11th
Page 91
Page 14
Street Bridge. The same thing goes here. The policy does not make sense in the context
of overall downtown development to allow a segregation of the waterfront.
The available public walkway is going to be in shadow most times of the day, starting
approximately at 2:00 p.m. and is not going to be pedestrian friendly and not subject to
amenable public uses and access.
One of the things residents, businesses and developers are looking for is consistency in
land use policies and regulations. Continuing to change these policies and regulations
defeats the purpose of informing them what could be developed on the property when they
bought the property. In this case, the developed knew what they could build when they
bought the property. The City has been striving to attract people to come to downtown with
such strategies as tax incentives, transit investment, and parking improvement.
Consistency in policy has been an attraction to developers and residents. To do a small
redevelopment while the City is pursuing a comprehensive review of shoreline
development rules is not the best policy.
There is a perception which could become a reality. Last fall, the City threw an urban
pioneer celebration party to thank everyone who has come to live downtown. The
perception is that we’ve made downtown vibrant, economically feasible and a good place
to be, but now we are being punished.
What’s the best thing to do in the waterfront? Is it to encourage residential or to encourage
traditional maritime activities? We need to ensure the internal consistency, i.e., to make
sure the Downtown Plan, the Foss Waterway Plan for both sides of the waterway, and
other elements of the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with each other. We need to
provide predictability for developers and for people who live here and those who want to
come and live here.
(14) Kathy Caraher – 1120 N. 27th St., Tacoma, WA 98403
I am a flight attendant and have been in a lot of cities all over the world. I have found that
the most vibrant cities are those that have a waterfront with adequate public access and a
lot of water-related events and performances. Baltimore’s harbor area is a good example
of what Tacoma should strive for. We need nice open areas such as that along the
Schuster Parkway that can be enjoyed by many. The large individual buildings also create
a microclimate on the shadow side where the public is not enticed to go.
(15) Chris Tinnin – Cliff Street Loft
I am 32 years old and have lived in Tacoma my whole life. I have purchased a unit in the
Cliff Street Lofts. Being a part of Tacoma’s revitalization means a lot to me. Seeing some
development for more people to live in downtown is a good idea, but high-rise condos
concern me. There are a lot of “me’s” in the city that don’t know about this, but would feel
the same. Please remember the public not just the developers.
(16) Sondra Purcell – 204 Tacoma Ave. S., #24, Tacoma, WA 98402
The City Council in 1999 presented me an award for helping to save Albers Mill. The
building was not ready for occupation until 2005. There was a time span from saving the
building to its actual use. We have to look long term. This is waterfront. We want waterrelated activities, but what we really want is authenticity, which is really hard to get in new
buildings in Tacoma. Tacoma is not Kirkland, not Bellevue. We need to think about
authenticity and scale. The Foss Waterway Development Authority has been working very
Page 92
Page 15
hard to develop water-related projects but such projects don’t always pencil. Tacoma is a
great town and let’s keep it that way.
(17) Joe Vincenzo – 1120 Cliff St., Tacoma, WA 98402
I use the Fireman’s Park frequently. The view is what I would like you to protect. Do not
allow the lift of the height limit to go through.
Chair Smith closed the public hearing at 6:52 p.m. He reiterated that written comments would be
accepted until 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 27, 2007, and all of the oral and written testimony would
be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the next regular meeting scheduled for May 2,
2007.
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
CITY OF TACOMA
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
TO:
Peter Huffman, TEDD Division Manager
FROM:
Kyle J. Crews, Assistant City Attorney
DATE:
January 27, 2006
SUBJECT:
Shoreline Management Act Public Access/Residential
View Provisions
The Planning Commission has asked for a legal opinion regarding the Shoreline
Management Act (“SMA”) jurisdiction over the protection of residential shoreline
views from adjoining residential properties versus the SMA jurisdiction for the
protection of shoreline views from commercial properties. As a preliminary
matter, in Washington State there are no cases or statutory laws that grant
property owners a right to a view. See Pierce v. Sewer and Water Districts, 123
Wn.2d 550 (1994), and Collinson v. John L. Scott, Inc., 55 Wn. App. 481 (1989).
Indeed, without a private contract or easement, private citizens have no right to
views. Washington does not adhere to the “doctrine of ancient lights” by which a
property owner has a right to an easement for light air over the property of
another. In the Pierce case, the Water District erected a tower that blocked a
property owner’s view of Mount Rainier and the Cascades. The owner then sued
the Water District for an inverse condemnation “taking.” The Courts stated:
“Clearly, there has been no specific declaration by our legislature of
an intention to pay compensation for nonexistent property rights;
i.e., access, air, view and light; furthermore, absent such rights, the
condemnation proceedings herein do not violate Art. I, § 16, of our
state constitution, which requires the payment of just compensation
for the taking or damaging of property rights.”
In Collinson, the Court ruled that the mere building of a structure which blocks an
adjacent land owner’s view is not a nuisance.
A different analysis of the right to views exists under the SMA,
RCW Chapter 90.58. Specifically, RCW 90.58.320—Height Limitation
Respecting Permits states:
No permit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter for any new or
expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above
KJC/Memo/Huffman Shoreline Mgmt Act 1-27-06.doc
Page 203
Peter Huffman
2
January 27, 2006
average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the
view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such
shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the
same and then only when overriding considerations of the public
interest will be served. (emphasis added).
The City is controlled by the above SMA provisions, and adopted the relevant
administrative code regulations governing the SMA, WAC 173-27, through
Tacoma Municipal Code (“TMC”) Chapter 13.10.
The above language in RCW 90.58.320 indicates that commercial properties are
not addressed in that statute, i.e. “the view of a substantial number of residences
on areas adjoining such shorelines.” The term residence is not defined in either
the SMA provisions in RCW 90.58, or the provisions under WAC 173. However,
in TMC 13.10.030.48 “Residential uses” are defined as:
“Residential uses” means one-family dwellings, apartments, and
condominiums. Hotels, motels, and boatels are considered to be
commercial, not residential, uses.
Further, under statutory interpretation, the term residence must be given its
ordinary meaning, which is defined as “the act or fact of abiding or dwelling in a
place for some time, an act of making one’s home in a place.” Webster’s Third
New Int’l Dictionary, 1968 Edition. It is clear then that a condominium would be
classified as a residential structure and be afforded the view protection granted
under RCW 90.58.320 even without Tacoma’s definition above.
Since Tacoma has its own Shoreline Master Program, the public access and
view provisions of WAC 173-26 (see WAC 173-26-221(4)) can be illustrative of
what type of regulations could be adopted to prevent or modify view blockage
within shoreline districts. They are not, however, controlling in presently adopted
City regulations, but are used in the adoption of any new Tacoma shoreline laws.
When it comes to the issue of residential versus commercial shoreline view
blockage under Tacoma’s program, one must first look to the general regulations
of TMC 13.10.175, and the specific shoreline district regulations.
For example, for residential uses in the “S-3” Shoreline District,
TMC 13.10.175.17.b (2) states:
(c) The expansion of single-family dwellings waterward of their
present location shall be allowed; provided significant view
blockage to neighboring properties does not occur.
Page 204
Peter Huffman
3
January 27, 2006
Contrast that regulation with the language of TMC 13.10.175.17.b:
(4) “S-8” Shoreline District – Thea Foss Waterway: Residential
development shall be permitted in upland locations and shall be
designed for multiple-family development only, excluding duplex
and/or triplex development.
where nothing is mentioned about view protection. The individual districts
also have specific regulations, and using the S-8 District again as an
example, in TMC 13.10.110, upland residential structures are presently
limited to 65 to 130 feet in height. In addition, TMC 13.10.110.G.3 grants
reductions of the required modulations for structures on the western side
of Thea Foss when all specifically listed requirements are listed including
TMC 13.10.110.G.3.a:
(6) Is designed to minimize view impacts from neighboring
properties through the use of location, materials, and orientation.
It is once again noted that no protection for views is granted to “commercial
properties.”
As you have noted in your report to the Planning Commission, in the most recent
case coming from the Shoreline Hearing’s Board on the subject of view,
Alexander v. Port Angeles SHB No. 02-027 and No. 02-2-028 (2003), the Board
enunciated four principals regarding view blockage in shoreline districts as
follows:
1.
That a building or structure must not obstruct the view of a
substantial number of residences.
2.
That residences must be on or in an area adjoining the
project area.
3.
The building must exceed 35 feet in height.
4.
There must be an actual obstruction of view.
It is clear from the Board’s decision that there must be a meaningful
consideration of residential views; the Board was silent on commercial views
being impacted. In over turning the City of Seattle’s decision to grant a permit for
a tower in Allegra Development Co. v. Seattle, SHB 99-08 and 09, (1999), the
Board strongly suggested that there be a survey of residences in the area
impacted by the development to assess the potential affect that the proposed
development would have on residential views. See also Portage Bay v.
Shoreline Hearings Board, 92 Wn.2d 1 (1979), [a denial of a permit for a
Page 205
Peter Huffman
4
January 27, 2006
shoreline development on aesthetic grounds must be based on specific aesthetic
standards in the SMA, or in a refined master program]. In my opinion, the
Shoreline Board’s focus on a Tacoma development would be on the negative
impacts on residential views only, and not on commercial structures.
Additionally, given the City’s current regulations and RCW 90.58.320, if the
structure is a mixed residential-commercial development, then it would most
likely be considered a residential structure for an analysis of the blockage under
the SMA.
In addition to the question relating to the residential versus commercial view
blockage, there is the protection of views afforded to all property owners of
shoreline districts and the public based on the more general public access
provisions of the SMA. As previously stated, the current regulations of Tacoma
are controlled by RCW Chapter 90.58 and our own Shoreline Master Program.
However, any new developmental guidelines are adopted pursuant to
WAC 173-26-010 and WAC 173-26-171.
First, RCW 90.58.100(2) requires local master programs to include:
(b) A public access element making provision for public access to
publicly owned areas;
(f) A conservation element for the preservation of natural
resources, including but not limited to scenic vistas, aesthetics, and
vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wildlife protection.
TMC 13.10.030.45 defines “Public access area as follows:
“Public access area” means an area, pathway, road, or structure
open to use by the general public and affording contact with or
views of public waters.
TMC 13.10.030.46 defines “Public use/public access” as follows:
“Public use/public access” means the protection of the public’s right
to use navigable waters and the provision of both physical and view
access to and along the public waters.
Taking once again the specific regulations for S-8 Shoreline District as an
example, TMC 13.10.110.A states that the intent of the regulations are:
. . . to provide continuous public access to the Waterway. . .(Thea
Foss)
Page 206
Peter Huffman
5
January 27, 2006
The City’s general shoreline regulations under TMC 13.10.175.A read:
...
1. Public Access Criteria.
a. All proposed developments shall be designed to maximize the
public view and public access to and along the shoreline where
appropriate. Public access shall be required for all shoreline
development and uses, except for single-family residences or
residential projects containing fewer than four dwelling units. . .
(emphasis added).
There are exemption criteria further provided in this section for this rule
concerning public access, but the broad sweep of the rule and the City’s own
public access definitions clearly justifies an analysis above and beyond the mere
impact on residential views as provided in RCW 90.58.320, in my opinion.
Finally, pursuant to WAC 173-26-221(4)(a) any new adoption of guidelines must
meet the public access requirements which includes the public ability to
. . .”reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge . . . and to view the
water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. . .
This language is in keeping with the present public access definition of the
Tacoma’s Shoreline Master Program. Clearly, the state guidelines further direct
cities to look beyond residential properties in any analysis of potential view
blockage and focus on the impact on the public as a whole.
If you have any additional questions on this matter, please advise.
Page 207
Page 208
CITY OF TACOMA
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
TO:
Peter Huffman, CEDD Division Manager
FROM:
Kyle J. Crews, Assistant City Attorney
DATE:
July 14, 2006
SUBJECT:
Thea Foss Waterway Height Regulations/Design Review
Inter-Relationships
ISSUE
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of June 21, 2006, requested information about
the Foss Waterway Development Authority (“FWDA”) regarding its responsibilities and
the scope of its authority and practices concerning the review of shoreline projects to be
constructed on the Foss Waterway.
SHORT ANSWER
The FWDA has limited authority in the actual conditioning of shoreline development
applications in the City’s current procedural permit process for the Foss Waterway.
However, the recommendations of the FWDA are given substantial consideration by the
Land Use Administrator during permit review.
BACKGROUND
The request was in the context of a discussion between the Commission Members and
staff regarding the proposed amendment to raise the maximum allowable height of a
portion of the Western S-8 Thea Foss Shoreline to allow tower development. It was
suggested that the FWDA Design Review Committee (“DRC”) could review future
development proposals through its design review process to determine the best
placement of towers, orientation, modulation, etc., to minimize the view impairment by
structures over 35 feet in height to a substantial number of residences. This would be
accomplished by adding to the Tacoma Municipal Code (“TMC”) a requirement that a
view analysis be conducted by the applicant and by adding further criteria to evaluate
development proposals which would be used in the design review process, thereby
deferring decisions on the specifics of the building design for minimizing view impacts to
the design review process rather than trying to set out specifically the “thousand
variations” in the TMC 13.10.110 regulations.
KJC/Memo/Huffman Thea Foss 7-13-06.doc
Page 209
Peter Huffman
-2-
July 14, 2006
Any analysis of the contemplated additional authority to be delegated to the FWDA DRC
must be premised with a review of the inter-relationship between the State Shoreline
Management Act, the legal authority of the FWDA, the Tacoma Master Program
Shoreline regulations (TMC 13.10.110), the Thea Foss Waterway Design and
Development Plan (“TFWDDP”), and finally, the authority of the Land Use Administrator
and the Hearing Examiner in their review of shoreline permit applications for the Foss.
Currently, the DRC has limited authority in the ultimate design review decision made by
the Land Use Administrator under TMC 13.05 and TMC 13.10 for projects affecting the
shoreline views of a substantial number of residences. Those issues concerning
aesthetics and view impacts are presently addressed through SEPA and the shoreline
permitting process under TMC 13.10, TMC 13.12, and RCW 90.58. On the other hand,
an argument can be made that prior to the permit review process by City staff, a project
can be reviewed by the DRC because within the TFWDDP, which is an element of the
City’s Shoreline Master Program, there are design goals, policy statements, and
guidelines relating to the design review by both the FWDA and the City, and which
address building design and view considerations. Under TMC 13.10.110.J, Foss
shoreline uses and developments are subject to compliance with the TFWDDP. The
FWDA is charged with incorporating into their review of potential projects on Foss
Waterway property the relevant elements of the TFWDDP. This process serves as a
sort of a “triage” before the permit process, and could require a view impact analysis of
a project, including specific conditions to minimize view impacts, that then could be
contained within an agreement prior to the sale or lease to a private developer. Of
course, properties not located in areas controlled by the FWDA would not be subject to
this prior review, but would be subject to any view impact analysis required through
SEPA and RCW 90.58.320, along with a review of those guidelines contained in the
FWDDP. With these issues in mind, the following analysis is provided.
POWERS AND AUTHORITY OF THE FWDA
The power to establish a public authority corporation like the FWDA comes from state
law, RCW 35.21. Specifically, RCW 35.21.745 allows the City to create a public
authority corporation, and that statute allows the authority to own and sell real and
personal property; to contract with individuals, associations, corporations, the state, and
the United States; to sue and be sued; to loan and borrow funds and issue bonds and
other instruments evidencing indebtedness; to transfer any funds, real or personal
property, property interests, or services; to do anything a natural person may do; and to
perform all manner and type of community services. The authority is restricted,
however, from having the power of eminent domain. The Charter of the FWDA was
established by the City on October 1, 1996. The Charter reiterates the powers
confirmed by RCW 35.21.745 and RCW 35.21.747. The powers of the FWDA likewise
are confirmed under TMC 1.60, “Public Corporations.” Under Article X of its Charter the
FWDA has the power to create committees such as the DRC. Under Article VI 1(e) of
its Charter, the FWDA:
. . . has the power to sell assets for consideration determined by the
Authority to be in the best interest consistent with the purpose,
Page 210
Peter Huffman
-3-
July 14, 2006
including consideration greater than the reasonable market value or
acquisition costs, or charge for services determined by the Authority
to be in the best interests consistent with the purpose . . .
On January 1, 2000, the Second Operating Agreement with the Thea Foss Waterway
Development Authority was adopted. The City and FWDA desired to provide for the
anticipated transfers of certain development uplands owned by the City to the FWDA,
together with trust properties held by the Metropolitan Park District. The expectation
was that the FWDA would, subject to easement or boundary line adjustments for a
public esplanade, lease or sell certain of those properties for redevelopment purposes
to developers selected through the procedures set forth within the agreement, starting
on page 3. Under the title of “Role and Responsibilities,” the criteria for evaluating
redevelopment proposals for each site was set forth to be consistent with the TFWDDP.
Specifically, the agreement states on page 4:
The Board shall establish criteria for evaluating the potential development
alternatives proposed for each site. The FWDA and the City agree that
sale of the development property, rather than leasing, is the preferred
approach to redevelopment subject to the criteria established by the
Board. At a minimum, the evaluation criteria shall include the following:
whether the proposed redevelopment is consistent with the Master
Redevelopment Strategy and the Foss Plan (Foss Waterway Design and
Development Plan); whether the proposed redevelopment meets minimum
development thresholds established by the FWDA; the public benefit
associated with the proposed redevelopment; the economic viability of the
proposal; the experience of the development team; whether the team
includes local participation; the financial return that the proposed
redevelopment will provide to the FWDA and/or the City; the long-term
economic impacts to the Waterway and the City; and whether the
proposed redevelopment complements and enhances the adjacent
developments. In evaluating competing redevelopment plans, the Board
should consider the projected timeline for commencement and completion
of the redevelopment. The Board may expand the evaluation criteria to
include additional, more specific criteria for each site.
(Emphasis added.)
The second agreement also speaks to “the Proposed Development Agreements,
Purchase/Sale Agreements or Development and Lease Agreement.” On page 6, the
agreement further states:
Upon selecting the developer(s), the FWDA will negotiate a Development
and Purchase/Sale or Development and Lease Agreements that are
consistent with the Foss Plan and the Master Redevelopment Strategy, to
provide for conveyance of a fee simple or leasehold interest in the site(s)
within the Development Uplands to a developer, and the development of
Page 211
Peter Huffman
-4-
July 14, 2006
such sites. The specific terms and conditions of any Development
Agreements, Purchase/Sale Agreements, or Development and Lease
Agreements must be reviewed and approved by the Tacoma City
Attorney. Any sale of property to a developer shall be at the fair market
value of the property as determined by MAI Appraiser or other appropriate
valuation technique . . .
Any transfer of site(s) [by sale or lease] pursuant to a Development and
Purchase/Sale or Development and Lease agreements is contingent upon
the developer initiating full or partial redevelopment within a specified time
frame as provided in such Agreements, in order to ensure that
implementation of the overall Foss Plan and the Master Redevelopment
Strategy proceeds in a timely and orderly manner. (Emphasis added.)
In the second Agreement, it is also noted on page 7 that the FWDA must comply with all
applicable law:
Notwithstanding any other provisions herein, FWDA property disposition
procedures shall comply with applicable State law and City ordinances as
generally designated in Exhibit “A” hereto, and the Trust Agreement.
Finally, on page 10 of the second agreement it is stated:
In submitting a recommended site development on any property, whether
City owned, held in trust by the FWDA, or owned by the FWDA, the FWDA
shall confirm to the Council that it believes such proposal is consistent
with the Foss Plan. The Council shall accept or reject the FWDA’s
recommended proposed Development and Purchase/Sale or
Development and Lease Agreements by an affirmative vote of five
members of the Council.
As noted above, the FWDA is under a legal obligation to comply with the state laws and
City ordinances. This would include, of course, the State’s Shoreline Management Act
and specifically RCW 90.58.320, which provides:
No permit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter for any new or
expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average
grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a
substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines
except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only
when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served.
(Emphasis added.)
In reviewing the issue of when RCW 90.58.320 comes into play, the State Shorelines
Hearings Board in their decision of Richard P. Grill and Annette T. Tamm v. Baraka,
LLC and City of Anacortes, SHB No. 02-001 (2002), stated on page 10:
Page 212
Peter Huffman
-5-
July 14, 2006
The wording of the statute strongly suggests the determination of whether
a proposed project meets the requirements of RCW 90.58.320, is to be
based on an analysis of an individual permit. This suggestion is based
first upon the introductory words of the statute; i.e. “[n]o permit.” Secondly
it is based upon the later language, which provides an exception to the
general rule of the statute. That exception reads: “except where a master
program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding
considerations of the public interest will be served.” (Emphasis added.)
It is clear that state statutes control over conflicting City ordinances and ordinances
control over conflicting provisions of any comprehensive plans. Under the Growth
Management Act, RCW 36.70B.030 (2) it is stated, in part, that:
During project review, a local government or any subsequent reviewing
body shall determine whether the items listed in this subsection are
defined in the development regulations applicable to the proposed project
or, in the absence of applicable regulations the adopted comprehensive
plan. At a minimum, such applicable regulations or plans shall be
determinative of the:
(a) Type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may
be allowed under certain circumstances, such as planned unit
developments and conditional and special uses, if the criteria for
their approval have been satisfied; . . . (Emphasis added)
After the Shoreline Management Act, the general shoreline regulations under
TMC 13.10.175A regarding public access and views, and the specific regulations under
the S-8 Shorelines District Regulations, TMC 13.10.110, are the primary regulating
authority. In Mountain Associates v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742 (1986), the Board
ruled that if the regulation and comprehensive plan elements can be harmonized, then
they both can be used to regulate the project development. However, if there is a
conflict, then the regulations control. Lund v. Dept. of Ecology, 93 Wn. App. 329 (1998).
TMC 13.10.110(J) provides, in part:
. . . Developments within the “S-8” Thea Foss Waterway Shoreline District
shall also comply with the goals and intent of the Thea Foss Waterway
Design and Development Plan and shall incorporate unifying design
elements as specified in said Plan.
Page 213
Peter Huffman
-6-
July 14, 2006
CONCLUSION
1
The TFWDDP imposes on the DRC a process found in pages 141-142 of the appendix
to the Plan. However, at this time, the DRC’s decision can only be given as much
weight in the actual permit review process as the law allows. By practice, considerable
deference is given to the DRC in the permit review as long as there is no conflict with
state laws or City codes in their recommendations. While it is not prohibited that the
DRC look at design issues affecting view blockage, the authority of the DRC does not
extend to reviewing projects for potential environmental impacts, nor is it a substitute for
the review required under SEPA and the shoreline permit process. As noted previously
in the case of Grill v. City of Anacortes, the analysis under RCW 90.58.320 as to view
blockage for a substantial number of residences comes with the review of an individual
permit using the process now in place under TMC 13.05 for the authority of the Land
Use Administrator, and the authority of the SEPA Responsible Official under
TMC 13.12, and upon appeal under the authority of the City Hearings Examiner. (See
TMC 1.23.050 B.2 and .10). The DRC process to analyze view impacts, per SMA and
SEPA, is not an official one under the authority granted to the FWDA under the relevant
state (RCW 35.21) and City (TMC 1.60) codes, the Charter of the FWDA, and the
current operating agreements.
Current City of Tacoma Shoreline regulations would have to be amended, in my
opinion, to allow the DRC to have the actual substantive authority that some may
ascribe to it now.
The DRC decision now acts first as a condition precedent (if approved by the City
Council) for the sale of land, much like a legal covenant running with the parcel to
control its use, and secondly, the decision serves as additional factual input into the
Land Use Administrator’s analysis of the shoreline permit application under his current
role as authorized by TMC Chapter 13.05 and TMC 13.10, and specifically
TMC 13.10.110.
Finally, the Planning Commission could recommend for adoption the addition of
supplemental criteria and requirements for consideration by the Land Use Administrator
to specifically address shoreline view impacts to a substantial number of residences as
an alternate means to address the “thousand variations” of Code requirements which
would be highly impractical to enforce.
Please advise if you have any further questions on these issues.
cc:
Peter Katich
Donna Stenger
1
It is noted that the issue of how far the plan elements can influence the actual use regulations is now
before the Shorelines Hearings Board in the case of Valero Logistics Operations et al., v. City of Tacoma
and Pioneer Cay Development, LLC, SHB No. 06-001. A decision will soon be forthcoming from the
Board.
Page 214
CITY OF TACOMA
LEGAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
Peter Huffman, Planning Division Manager
FROM:
Steve Victor, Assistant City Attorney
DATE:
February 6, 2007
SUBJECT:
Legal Issues Associated with View Protection in Washington
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Under current Washington State law, may the City enact zoning ordinances which are
designed to protect views for solely aesthetic purposes; and, more specifically, would
Washington State law support a zoning ordinance that prohibits the construction of any
buildings or other structures which would obstruct the view of Mount Rainer as seen
from the southeast corner of Fireman’s Park?
BRIEF ANSWER:
Existing Washington State law does not provide a definitive answer regarding whether a
city may enact zoning ordinances which are designed to protect views for solely
aesthetic purposes. However, it is clear that such legislation such as zoning that
prohibits the construction of any buildings or other structures which would obstruct the
view of Mount Rainer as seen from the southeast corner of Fireman’s Park could be
subject to challenge on one or more of three grounds. That zoning to protect views for
aesthetic purposes (1) is in excess of the city’s police powers and thus unconstitutional
and/or (2) is in violation of substantive or procedural due process and thus
unconstitutional and/or (3) constitutes a “taking” thus obliging the city to pay just
compensation for the deprivation of property rights.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
1. Police Power.
The City of Tacoma (“City”) derives its authority to enact zoning regulation from the
State Constitution’s grant of police power and associated statutes:
Any country, city, town or township may make and enforce
within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other
regulations as are not in conflict with general laws.
Washington Constitution. Art XI, sec. 11.
Page 215
Peter Huffman
-2-
February 7, 2007
The (City) council…may…as is deemed reasonably
necessary or requisite in the interest of health, safety, morals
and the general welfare... regulate and restrict the location
and…the height…of buildings and other structures…
RCW 35.63.080.
Generally speaking, an exercise of police power must be “reasonably and properly
expressed . . . (and) . . . have a substantial and reasonable relation to the promotion or
protection of the public health, comfort, morals, safety and general welfare, or other
purposes within the police power.” 1 In the context of land use regulations governing
aesthetics, such as “view protection,” the Washington courts have allowed local
governments to consider view protection when making land use law; however, they
have not yet ruled that aesthetics may be the sole determinative in exercising police
powers:
We believe the issue of whether a community can exert
control over design issues based solely on accepted
community aesthetic values is far from “settled” in
Washington case law…Clearly, however, aesthetic
standards are an appropriate component of land use
governance. 2
Instead, the courts have upheld laws and/or decisions authorizing “view protection”
where there is a separate statutory basis allowing view protection, such as SEPA or
SMA, and where there is additional considerations beyond aesthetics, such as adverse
effect on property values, blockage of sunlight and casting shadows, and/or increased
traffic and noise. 3 Therefore, enacting a zoning ordinance which, as an example,
protects the view of Mount Rainier from Fireman’s Park without any other public
purpose considerations or statutory support may, if challenged, be determined to be in
excess of the City’s police powers.
2. Due Process.
In addition to limitations on the City’s police powers, enacting zoning ordinances, which
are designed to protect views for aesthetic purposes, could, under existing law, be
found to violate a property owner’s constitutional right to substantive and/or procedural
due process. Generally speaking, “(a) land use ordinance satisfies (substantive) due
1
2
3
See McQuillen Mun. Corp. §25.18 (3rd Ed).
Anderson v. Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64 (1993).
See Department of Ecology v. Pacesetter, 89 Wn.2d 203 (1977); Polygon v. City of Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59 (1978).
Page 216
Peter Huffman
-3-
February 7, 2007
process standards only if it (1) is aimed at achieving a legitimate public purpose, and
(2) uses means to achieve that purpose that are reasonably necessary and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals.” 4
A land use ordinance will satisfy procedural due process standards if the ordinance
provides specific guidelines for the application and implementation of the law, as well as
sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent the arbitrary administration or enforcement
thereof. 5
In the context of view protection cases, the courts have struck down land use
decisions/laws where the aesthetic standards imposed on property owners have been
deemed unconstitutionally vague. 6 Yet, even if a proposed view protection ordinance
and administrative procedures could be drafted in a manner which avoids
unconstitutional vagueness in order to satisfy procedural due process concerns, there is
little guidance from the courts on whether such a law would qualify as a legitimate public
purpose and whether such a law would not be deemed unduly oppressive upon the
property owners who would be affected. Thus, there is a risk that said law could be in
violation of substantive due process.
3. Taking.
If government regulation denies a private owner all economically beneficial or
productive use of the property, a taking has occurred and the owner is entitled to
receive just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. 7 If the regulation does not
deprive all economically beneficial use of the property, but the regulation goes beyond
preventing real harm to the public and instead imposes an affirmative public benefit, or
infringes on a fundamental attribute of ownership, then a taking has occurred, unless
(1) the regulation substantially advances a legitimate public interest and (2) interest
outweighs the adverse impacts to the landowner. 8
Thus, if a court determines that a view protection ordinance denies a property owner all
economically viable use of his or her property or that it is enacted merely to impose a
public benefit that is outweighed by the adverse impacts on the property owner, then the
City may liable to pay just compensation to the property owner for the diminution in
value.
4
See W. Main Assocs. v. Bellevue, 106 Wn.2d 47 (1986) (citations omitted).
See Anderson v. Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64 (1993).
6
See Anderson v. Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64 (1993); Western Homes v. Issaquah, 1998 Wash. App. Lexis 638 (1998).
7
See Guimont v. Seattle, 77 Wn. App. 74 (1985).
8
Id.
5
Page 217
Peter Huffman
-4-
February 7, 2007
CONCLUSION:
Washington State law does not expressly authorize the enactment of zoning ordinances
which are designed to protect views for solely aesthetic purposes, nor does it expressly
prohibit such zoning. However, Washington case law appears to demand more than
just an aesthetic concern in order for a City to exercise its police powers, satisfy due
process, and avoid a determination that a taking has occurred, in formulating zoning
which protects views. Therefore, if enacted, legislation such as zoning that prohibits the
construction of any buildings or other structures which would obstruct the view of Mount
Rainer as seen from the southeast corner of Fireman’s Park could be subject to
challenge on one or more of three grounds. That zoning to protect views for aesthetic
purposes is (1) in excess of the City’s police powers and thus unconstitutional and/or
(2) in violation of substantive or procedural due process and thus unconstitutional
and/or (3) constitutes a “taking” thus obliging the City to pay just compensation for the
deprivation of property rights.
SIV\Memo\ViewProtectionMemo.doc-lad
Page 218
CITY OF TACOMA
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
August 30, 2007
RE:
Overriding Public Interest Test in RCW 90.58.320
This memo responds to a request for a legal opinion regarding the proper
meaning and application of the "overriding considerations of the public interest"
standard included in RCW 90.58.320 regarding permits for structures within the
shoreline zone that exceed 35 feet in height.
BRIEF ANSWER:
The "overriding considerations of the public interest" test in RCW 90.58.320
requires a decision maker to first identify the general public interest of the
community in shoreline structures over 35 feet in height under the specific facts
and circumstances of the community and property at issue. Thereafter, the
decision maker must balance the identified public interest against the private
interests of residents in retaining a view of the shoreline unobstructed by
structures over 35 feet in height to determine whether the general public interest
of the community overrides by any margin, however slight, the competing private
interests.
ANALYSIS:
RCW 90.58.320 states:
No permit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter for
any new or expanded building or structure of more
than thirty-five feet above average grade level on
shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a
substantial number of residences on areas adjoining
such shorelines except where a master program does
not prohibit the same and then only when overriding
considerations of the public interest will be served.
(Emphasis Added).
Page 219
-2-
August 30, 2007
The statue does not provide any further definition of "overriding considerations of
the public interest" and does not articulate any specific test or analysis to be
applied in determining whether or not the standard is met. Nor have any
reported decisions of Washington courts provided such an analysis with respect
to the statute at issue. In order to provide some guidance as to how to apply the
standard, it is necessary to attempt to first define what is meant by the term
"considerations of the public interest" and then to determine how to measure
when that interest "overrides" the private interest of any substantial number of
residents in an unobstructed residential view of the shoreline.
The analysis provided in this opinion assumes that a determination has already
been made that development of shoreline structures in excess of 35 feet will
obstruct the views 1 of a substantial number of residents 2 .
1. The "public interest"
It is well-settled in Washington law that courts may look to the dictionary
definition to define the meaning of terms when they are not defined in a statute. 3
Webster's New College Dictionary defines "public interest" as "the well being of
the general public." The Oxford Political Dictionary provides an alternative
definition of "public interest" as "the aggregation of the individual interests of the
persons affected by a policy or action under consideration." In general, then a
reasonable definition of the "public interest" is that it is the interest of the entire
community as opposed to the interest of one or a group of individual members of
the community.
Placed in the context of RCW 90.58.320, the statute calls for the decision maker
to consider the overall community’s interest in shoreline structures over 35-feet in
height against the private interests of residents in retaining a view of the
shoreline that is unobstructed by structures over 35 feet in height. What may
constitute a public interest in shoreline structures over 35 feet in height is
necessarily specific to the particular community, property, and underlying facts at
issue in each case. While administrative decisions are not binding precedent on
courts of law 4 , administrative decisions of the Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB”)
1 Shoreline Hearings Board cases, while not precedent for courts, have found as few as 12 residential views to be
"substantial." See Grill v. Baraka, SHB No. 02-001 (2002) and Alexander v. Port Angeles, SHB No. 02-027 and 02-028
(2002).
2 An obstruction greater than 18% of the view may be considered obstructed for purposes of RCW 90.58.320. Alexander
v. Port Angeles, SHB No. 02-027 and 02-028 (2002), citing Bachelder v. Seattle, 77 Wn. App. 154, 164, 890 P.2d 25
(1995).
3 State v. Watson, 146 Wn.2d 947, 956, 51 P.3d 66 (2002).
4 See R.D. Merrill Co., v. PCHB 137 Wn.2d 118, 142, 969 P.2d 458 (1999).
Page 220
-3-
August 30, 2007
support the conclusion that public interest must be assessed on a fact-specific,
case-by-case basis and must be clearly articulated by the decision maker. 5
Factors which may be considered in determining the public interest in shoreline
structures in excess of 35 feet may include, but are not limited to, prior planning
of the local government for the region and property at issue, including land use
plans contemplating and allowing shoreline structures in excess of 35 feet; the
level of investment of public funds in the region and property at issue, with the
expectation of the development of shoreline structures in excess of 35 feet;
public benefits and amenities associated with the development of shoreline
structures in excess of 35 feet; and the economic viability of shoreline structures
in excess of 35 feet, as it relates to achieving governmental objectives for the
region and property at issue, providing return for the public investment, and
developing public benefits and amenities.
2. The "overriding" test.
As noted earlier, there are no decisions from Washington courts addressing
when the public interest in shoreline structures in excess of 35 feet overrides
private interests in unobstructed views of the shoreline. The context of the SMA,
however, both judicial and administrative decisions, have considered the general
question of overriding interests in nonshoreline contexts. In the most general
sense, Washington courts have employed a simple balancing test when they
must determine which of two competing interests "overrides" the other. 6 In
applying a balancing test, courts do not require that one interest greatly
outweighs another, but rather seek to determine which interest is greater by any
margin, however slight. 7
Administrative decisions have also applied a simple balancing test to determine
when the general public interest "overrides" other statutorily protected interests.
In applying RCW 90.58.320, the SHB has not established any set of rules or
guidelines for determining when the public interest, in structures over 35 feet,
overrides the competing interests of residents. Rather, the SHB has evaluated
the nature of the public interest on a fact-specific, case-by-case basis and then
has balanced that interest against the interest of residents to a view of the
shoreline unobstructed by structures over 35 feet in height. 8
5 Allegra Dev. Camp v. Wright Hotels, SHB 99-08 (1999).
6 Myers v. Boeing Co., 115 Wn.2d 123,133, 794 P.2d 1272 (1990).
7 Gardner v. Loomis Armored, 128 Wn.2d 931, 949, 913 P.2d 377 (1996).
8 See Guon v. Vancouver, SHB No. 93-53 (1994), and Grill v. Baraka, SHB No. 02-001 (2002)
Page 221
-4-
August 30, 2007
In addition, RCW 90.54.020(3) contains language very similar to that found in
RCW 90.58.320. RCW 90.54 generally prohibits human actions that will lower
water levels in streams and ponds except where "overriding considerations of the
public interest" will be served by such actions. As with decisions of the SHB,
Decisions of the Pollution Control Hearings Board (“PCHB”) have not established
any general rules for applying the test but have evaluated the public interest on
fact-specific, case-by-case basis and have applied a simple balancing test to
determine when the public interest overrides the general statutory prohibition. 9
CONCLUSION:
In applying the "overriding considerations of the public interest" test in
RCW 90.58.320, a decision maker must first identify the public interest in
shoreline structures over 35 feet in height under the specific facts and
circumstances of the case at issue. Thereafter, the decision maker must balance
the identified public interest against the private interests of residents in retaining
a view of the shoreline unobstructed by structures over 35 feet in height to
determine whether the general public interest of the community overrides by any
margin, however slight, the private interests.
9 See Auburn School Dist. No. 408 v. State, PCHB, No.96-91 (1996); Black Diamond Assoc. LTD. v. State, PHCB 96-90
(1996), and Postema v. PCHB, 142 Wn.2d 68,90, 11 P.3d 726 (2000).
Page 222
CITY OF TACOMA
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Spot Zoning in Washington Law
DATE:
August 30, 2007
You have requested a legal opinion regarding the issue of what is considered
unlawful "spot zoning" in Washington law.
ANALYSIS:
The Washington Supreme Court defines an illegal spot zone as:
[A] zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or
district and specially zoned for a use classification totally different from,
and inconsistent with, the classification of surrounding land and not in
accordance with the comprehensive plan. The main inquiry is whether the
zoning action bears a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the
affected community. Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon,
133 Wn.2d 861, 875, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997) (citing Lutz v. City of
Longview, 83 Wn.2d 556, 573-74, 520 P.2d 1374 (1974).
Under the reported decisions of Washington courts, in order to constitute a spot
zone, a zoning action must meet four criteria: (1) the zoning decision must single
out an area within a larger area or district to be specially zoned for a “use
classification"; (2) the use classification at issue must be different from, and be
inconsistent with, that of surrounding properties in the larger area or district; (3)
the use classification at issue must not be in general accordance with the
applicable comprehensive plan 1 , and (4) the use classification must bear no
substantial relationship to the general welfare of the affected community.
Based on the reported cases, it appears that all four criteria must be met in order
for a zoning action to be deemed an unlawful "spot zone". Other Washington
Supreme Court decisions have held that even if a zoning decision meets criteria
one through three above, so long as there is adequate public benefit and
justification, the zoning decision will be deemed valid. In Save Our Rural Env’t v.
Snohomish Cy., 99 Wn.2d 262, 368, 662 P.2d 816 (1983) (citing Anderson v.
1
Exact conformity is not required because the comprehensive plan is used “as a planning guide,
not a land use decision-making tool.” Schofield v. Spokane County, 96 Wn. App. 581, 587, 980
P.2d 277 (1999).
Page 223
Island Cy., 81 Wn.2d 312, 325, 501 P.2d 594 (1972), the court held that a zoning
decision challenged as spot zoning would be overturned only when it:
[G]rants a discriminatory benefit to one or a group of owners to the
detriment of their neighbors or the community at large without adequate
public advantage or justification.
Similarly in Save a Neighborhood Environment v. City of Seattle, 101 Wn.2d 280,
676 P.2d 1006 (1984), the Washington Supreme Court found that a rezone
decision challenged as spot zoning was valid because the rezone “provides
housing for a significant segment of the community” and, therefore, bore a
substantial relationship to the public welfare. The court stated:
When faced with a rezone challenge, our main inquiry is whether the
zoning action bears a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the
affected community. SANE, 101 Wn.2d at 286.
CONCLUSION:
Under Washington State Law a zoning decision is unlawful spot zoning only
when each of four (4) criteria are met. The zoning decision must single out an
area within a larger area or district to be specially zoned for a “use classification";
the use classification at issue must be different from, and be inconsistent with,
that of surrounding properties in the larger area or district; the use classification
at issue must not be in general accordance with the applicable comprehensive
plan, and the use classification must bear no substantial relationship to the
general welfare of the affected community. Even where the decision meets the
first three of the four criteria, if the zoning decision bears a substantial
relationship to the general welfare of the affected community it is not unlawful
spot zoning.
Page 224

Thea Foss Waterway S-8 Shoreline District

Transcription

Similar documents

2 Laurent Kamiel - Franprix - and Eloi Flipo

Cumberland Harbour is a natural paradise.

Jacques-Cartier Street Improvement

South Venice Civic

13th Amendment Poster_front - National Constitution Center

Bulletin - Innisfil

Lines in the Sand: Geomorphic and Geospatial Characterization and

September 06.pub

Home / Artist Spotlight / Motley Crue and Alice