TM

City of Olympia Shoreline Master Program Update

Public Workshop July 28, 2012

Today’s Agenda

• Welcome - Mayor Stephen Buxbaum

• Overview of SMP Update Process

• Shoreline Inventory/Characterization

• Shoreline Environment Designations

• Building Heights

• Shoreline Setbacks

• Sea Level Rise

• Vegetation Conservation

• Community Conversation

Overview - Todd Stamm, City of Olympia

• Shoreline Planning – Brief History – 13,000 years ago - Glaciers retreat

– 1971 - Shoreline Management Act (SMA)

– 1974 - Shoreline Master Program deadline

– 1976 - Thurston Region Shoreline Master Program (SMP)

Overview • Shoreline Amendments

– 1987 - Percival Creek “Special Area Management Plan”

– 1993 - Urban Waterfront (overwater) Plan

– 1997 - Heritage Park Amendment

– 2002 - Urban Housing Amendment (70’ limit)

Overview • Shoreline Update Directed

– 1995 – Legislature directs new guidelines

– 2000 – Ecology update guidelines

– 2003 – New update guidelines

– 2011 – Olympia’s update due

Overview • Olympia’s Update Process

– 2007 – TRPC receives update grant

– 2009 – TRPC provides inventory & model SMP to Olympia, Tumwater & Lacey

– 2010 – Olympia refines model and issues October 2010 Draft SMP

– 2012 – Planning Commission delivers recommendation to City Council

Inventory and Characterization - Margaret Clancy, ESA

Shoreline Environment Designations - Chrissy Bailey, Department of Ecology - Cari Hornbein, City of Olympia

Shoreline Environment Designations

• The method for accounting for different conditions is Shoreline Environment Designations (“SEDs”)

• SEDs provide the framework for implementing shoreline policies and regulatory measures

Shoreline Environment Designations

Based on: – Existing use pattern;

– Biological and physical character of the shoreline;

– Local goals and aspirations expressed in the Comprehensive Plan; and

– Criteria in the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines.

Shoreline Environment Designations

1. Purpose statement

2. Classification criteria

3. Management policies

4. Regulations

For each SED, the SMP must include:

Urban Intensity SED Urban Conservancy SED

Provide for high intensity water-oriented uses while protecting ecological functions and restoring functions in areas that have previously been degraded

Protect and restore ecological functions of open space, flood plain and other sensitive lands where they exist, while allowing a variety of compatible uses

•Priority for water dependent uses, second priority for water related and water enjoyment uses •Fully utilize urban areas before further expanding intensive areas •Achieve no net loss with new development •Provide physical and visual public access, where feasible

•Uses that preserve the natural character of an area or promote preservation of open space, flood plain, or sensitive lands should be allowed •Uses that result in restoration of ecological function if the use is compatible with the purpose and setting •Establish standards to achieve no net loss •Implement public access and recreation objectives •Water-oriented uses are a priority over non water-oriented uses

Assign to areas that currently support high intensity uses related to commerce, transportation or navigation or are suitable and planed for high intensity, water oriented uses

Assign to areas where development is compatible with maintaining or restoring ecological functions and areas that are not generally suitable for water dependent uses

Shoreline Environment Designations

NO NET LOSS

“The concept recognizes that any development has potential or actual impacts…through the application of appropriate development standards and mitigation measures in accordance with the mitigation sequence, those impacts will be addressed in a manner necessary to assure the end result does not diminish shoreline resources and values as they currently exist. Uses or development that impact ecological functions but are necessary to achieve other objectives of the Act shall protect ecological functions to the extent feasible and avoid new impacts before implementing other mitigation measures.”

Shoreline Environment Designations

NO NET LOSS

Shoreline Environment Designations Staff Proposed – October 2010 OPC Proposed – June 2012

Legend: Aquatic Natural Urban Conservancy Shoreline Residential Urban Intensity Port Industrial

Building Heights - Chrissy Bailey, Department of Ecology - Cari Hornbein, City of Olympia

Building Heights Single reference in the Shoreline Management Act :

“No permit shall be issued…for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above

average grade level…that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences…except where a

master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public

interest will be served.”

- Comparison of commercial, industrial , marinas, recreation, residential

Use Staff Proposed

Urban Intensity

OPC Proposed

Urban Intensity

OPC Proposed

Port Industrial

OPC Proposed Urban Conservancy

BUDD 3A, 4, 5A, 5B, 5C

BUDD 5A BUDD 5B BUDD 3A BUDD 4 BUDD 5C

Commercial 42’/65’ No vote No vote 35’ 35’ No vote

Industrial 42’/65’ 35’ No vote

Not allowed

Not allowed

No vote

Marinas 42’ 35’ 35’ 25’

25’ No vote

Recreation 42’ 35’ Not allowed 25’

35’ No vote

Residential 42’/65’ No vote Not allowed 35’ 35’ No vote

42’/65’ = 42’ height within first 100’ of OHMW and 65’ height within second 100’.

Building Heights

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 3A

- Existing Height – 50’ - Staff Proposed – 42’/65 ’ - OPC Proposed – 35’

- Existing Height – 52’ - Staff Proposed – 42’/65 ’ - OPC Proposed – 35’

2100 West Bay

1801 West Bay

- Existing Height – 43’ - Staff Proposed – 42’/65 ’ - OPC Proposed – 35’

- Existing Height – 47’ - Staff Proposed – 42’/65 ’ - OPC Proposed – 35’

1107 West Bay 1115 West Bay

Building Heights

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 3A

- Existing Height – 60’ - Staff Proposed – 42’/65 ’ - OPC Proposed – No vote

- Existing Height – 55’ - Staff Proposed – 42’/65 ’ - OPC Proposed – No vote

606 Columbia

704 Columbia

Building Heights

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 5A

915 Washington

- Existing Height – 53’ - Staff Proposed – 42’/65 ’ - OPC Proposed – No vote

Building Heights

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 5B

- Existing Height – 53’ - Staff Proposed – 42’/65 ’ - OPC Proposed – No vote

650 Marine Drive

Building Heights

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 5C

Shoreline Setbacks - Chrissy Bailey, Department of Ecology - Cari Hornbein, City of Olympia

• Account for environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline

• One measure for reducing the risk of damage or hazards from events like floods and erosion

• Can be part of a strategy to protect the opportunity for views and to achieve no net loss

Shoreline Setbacks

- Comparison of commercial, industrial , marinas, recreation, residential

Shoreline Setbacks Use Staff Proposed

Urban Intensity

OPC Proposed

Urban Intensity

OPC Proposed

Port Industrial

OPC Proposed

Urban Conservancy

BUDD 3A, 4, 5A, 5B, 5C

BUDD 5A BUDD 5B BUDD 3A BUDD 4 BUDD 5C

Commercial 30’ 50’ 30’ 50’ 50’ 100’

Industrial 30’/0’ 50’ 0’ NA NA NA

Marinas 30’ 50’ 30’ 50’ 50’ 100’

Recreation 30’ 50’ NA 50’ 50’ 50’

Residential 30’ 50’ NA 50’ 50’ 100’

30’/0’ = 30’ setback for buildings; 0’ setback for cranes, conveyors, etc.

Shoreline Setbacks

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 3A

- Existing Setback – 31’ overwater - Staff Proposed: 30’ - OPC Proposed: 50’

2100 West Bay

- Existing Setback – 26’ - Staff Proposed: 30’ - OPC Proposed: 50’

Shoreline Setbacks

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 4

612 5th

- Existing Setback – 22’ - Staff Proposed – 30’ - OPC Proposed – 50’

Shoreline Setbacks

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 4

516 4th

- Existing Setback – Overwater 57’ - Staff Proposed – 30’ - OPC Proposed – 50’

Shoreline Setbacks

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 4

201 Simmons

- Existing Setback – Overwater 5’ - Staff Proposed – 30’ - OPC Proposed – 50’

Shoreline Setbacks

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 4

320 4th

- Existing Setback – Overwater 10’ - Staff Proposed – 30’ - OPC Proposed – 50’

Shoreline Setbacks

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 5A

501 Columbia

- Existing Setback – Overwater 45’ - Staff Proposed – 30’ - OPC Proposed – 50’

Shoreline Setbacks

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 5A

525 Columbia

- Existing Setback – Overwater 22’ - Staff Proposed – 30’ - OPC Proposed – 50’

Shoreline Setbacks

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 5A

525 Columbia

- Existing Setback – 56’ - Staff Proposed – 30’ - OPC Proposed – 50’

Shoreline Setbacks

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 5B

915 Washington

- Existing Setback – Overwater 62’ - Staff Proposed – 30’ - OPC Proposed – 100’

Shoreline Setbacks

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 5C

1675 Marine

- Existing Setback – Overwater 58’ - Staff Proposed – 30’ - OPC Proposed – 100’

Shoreline Setbacks

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 5C

1700 Marine

- Existing Setback – 47’ - Staff Proposed – 30’ - OPC Proposed – 100’

Shoreline Setbacks

– Nonconforming structures – Reach BUDD 5C

650 Marine Drive

Sea Level Rise - Rich Hoey, City of Olympia

Vegetation Conservation - Margaret Clancy, ESA