City of Tacoma, WA Chapter 19.06 General Policies and Regulations

§ 19.06.010 Shoreline use.

Shoreline uses refer to specific common uses and types of development (e.g. residential recreation, commercial, industrial, etc.) that may occur in the City’s shoreline jurisdiction. Shoreline areas are a limited ecological and economic resource and are the setting for multiple competing uses. The purpose of this section is to establish preferred shoreline uses. These preferences are employed in deciding what uses should be allowed in shorelines and resolving use conflicts. Consistent with the Act and Guidelines, preferred uses include, in order of preference: shoreline enhancement and restoration; water-dependent uses; water-related and enjoyment uses; and single-family development when developed without significant impacts to shoreline functions. Mixed-use developments may also be considered preferred if they include and support water-oriented uses. All uses and development must be consistent with the provisions of the environment designation in which they are located and the general regulations of this Program.

A. Policies.

1. Shoreline uses that are water-dependent, water-related or water-enjoyment should be given preference (RCW 90.58.020). Such uses should be located, designed, and maintained in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions and/or processes.

2. Non-water-oriented uses may be permitted, provided that existing water-dependent uses and water-related uses are not displaced and the future supply of sites for water-dependent or water-related uses is not compromised, or, when the non-water-oriented use is part of a mixed-use proposal or facility that supports water-oriented uses.

3. Adequate space should be reserved on shorelines to meet the current and projected demand for water-dependent uses.

4. Encourage close cooperation and coordination between both public and private shoreline interests including private property owners, the City, the Metropolitan Park District and the Port of Tacoma in the overall management and/or development of shorelines land use.

5. Shoreline uses should not deprive other uses of reasonable access to navigable waters. Public recreation activities such as fishing, swimming, boating, wading, and water-related recreation should be preserved and enhanced.

6. Mixed-use proposals or facilities that result in significant public benefit are encouraged in shoreline locations designated High Intensity and Downtown Waterfront.

7. Evaluate sea level rise data and consider sea level rise risks and implications in the development of regulations, plans, and programs.

B. Regulations.

1. Restoration of ecological functions and processes shall be permitted on all shorelines and shall be located, designed and implemented in accordance with applicable policies and regulations of this Program.

2. In order to protect the City’s shoreline land resource for preferred uses, shoreline uses and developments shall be located, designed, and managed so that other appropriate uses are neither subjected to substantial or unnecessary adverse impacts, nor deprived of reasonable, lawful use of navigable waters, publicly owned shorelines, or private property.

3. Shoreline uses and developments shall be designed and located to minimize the need for future shoreline stabilization.

4. Water-enjoyment uses shall be designed to be oriented towards the shoreline such that the general public has the opportunity to enjoy the aesthetics of a shoreline location and have physical and/or visual access to the shoreline.

5. Water-dependent uses shall be given preference over water-related and water-enjoyment uses. Prior to approval of water-dependent uses, the Director shall review a proposal for design, layout and operation of the use and shall make specific findings that the use qualifies as a water-dependent use.

6. Water-related uses may not be approved if they displace existing water dependent uses. Prior to approval of a water-related use, the Director shall review a proposal for design, layout and operation of the use and shall make specific findings that the use qualifies as a water-related use.

7. Water-enjoyment uses may be not be approved if they displace existing water-dependent or water-related uses or if they occupy space designated for water dependent or water-related use identified in a substantial development permit or other approval. Prior to approval of water-enjoyment uses, the Director shall review a proposal for design, layout and operation of the use and shall make specific findings that the use qualifies as a water-enjoyment use.

8. Non-water oriented uses may be permitted only when one of the following conditions is met:

a. The use is part of a mixed-use proposal or facility that includes water-oriented uses and provides a significant public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives such as providing public access and ecological restoration; or

b. Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site and the use provides a significant public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives such as providing public access and ecological restoration.

c. The use is within the shoreline jurisdiction but physically separated from the shoreline by a separate property, public right-of-way (excluding public access features), or existing use.

9. The following standards apply to non-water-oriented uses permitted, in accordance with Subsection 8.a. and b. above, in the shoreline:

a. When a non-water-oriented use is proposed in the shoreline, public access shall be provided between the subject development and the adjacent shoreline concurrently and shall be consistent with an adopted public access plan. In cases where said public access cannot be provided due to seasonal constraints, including fish windows, the timing with other planned / ongoing soil remediation or implementation of a habitat restoration project, said public access shall be secured with a financial surety totaling 150% of the cost of the required access or some other acceptable surety as may be specified by the Director.

b. When a mixed-use proposal or facility that contains non-water-oriented uses is proposed in the shoreline, restoration of shoreline functions shall be provided consistent with an adopted Restoration Plan and shall meet the mitigation requirements in TSMP Section 19.06.040D.3 and 4 and the following:

(1) The remaining buffer area shall be enhanced on site or an equivalent shall be restored off site;

(2) Required restoration shall be completed prior to occupancy of the subject use. In cases where the required mitigation cannot be provided due to seasonal constraints, including fish windows, or the timing with other planned / ongoing soil remediation or implementation of public access projects, said mitigation shall be secured with a financial surety totaling 150% of the required restoration project or some other acceptable surety as may be specified by the Director.

10. Non-water-oriented uses within a mixed-use proposal or facility, as specified in Subsection 8.a. above, shall be established or developed concurrently with a water-oriented use unless specifically excepted.

11. Non-water-oriented uses shall not occupy more than 25% of the portion of the ground floor of a mixed-use structure that fronts on the shoreline, except where specifically authorized in this Program.

12. Only parking on the landward side of the ground floor of a shoreline structure is permitted. Where a development is separated from the shoreline by a separate property, public right-of-way (excluding public access features), or existing use, parking may be allowed anywhere around the building provided that it does not interfere with the normal operation of adjacent or nearby water-oriented uses.

13. Except where otherwise authorized in this Program, residential uses within a shoreline mixed-use structure are not permitted to occupy the ground floor.

14. Non-water-dependent loading and service areas shall not be located between the shoreline and the development.

15. All uses and developments in Shoreline Districts shall comply with the use regulations and developments standards contained in Table 9-2. Refer to TSMP Chapter 19.07 for all applicable provisions related to specific uses and development standards.

(Ord. 28612 Ex. A, 2019-09-24, previously codified as TSMP Section 6.1.)

§ 19.06.020 Site planning.

The Purpose of this chapter is to establish the City’s policies related to the location and dimensions of shoreline uses. This section implements the Act’s and Guidelines’ policies to protect shoreline ecological functions from the adverse effects of shoreline development and use and ensure that proposed uses are developed in a manner that is compatible with a shoreline location, public access and adjacent uses. The section establishes policies and includes regulations and development standards to ensure that shoreline development considers the physical and natural features of the shoreline and assures no net loss of ecological functions.

A. Policies.

1. The design, density and location of all permitted uses and development should consider physical and natural features of the shoreline and should assure no net loss of ecological functions by avoiding and minimizing adverse effects on shoreline ecology.

2. Site plans and structural designs for shoreline development in shoreline areas should acknowledge the water’s proximity and value as an ecological and scenic resource.

3. Development and use should be designed in a manner that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site to maximize vegetation conservation; minimize impervious surfaces and runoff; protect riparian, nearshore and wetland habitats; protect wildlife and habitats; protect archaeological, historic and cultural resources; and preserve aesthetic values. This may be accomplished by minimizing the project footprint and other appropriate design approaches.

4. Low impact and sustainable development practices such as rain gardens and pervious surfacing methods including but not limited to, porous paving blocks, porous concrete and other similar materials, should be incorporated in developments where site conditions allow to maintain shoreline ecological functions and processes. Topographic modification, vegetation clearing, use of impervious surfaces and alteration of natural drainage or other features should be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate approved uses and development. An engineering geologist should be consulted prior to using infiltration practices on shore bluffs.

5. Accessory development or use that does not require a shoreline location should be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction unless such development is necessary to serve approved uses.

6. When sited within shorelines jurisdiction, uses and/or developments such as parking, service buildings or areas, access roads, utilities, signs and storage of materials should be located inland away from the land/water interface and landward of water-oriented developments and/or other approved uses.

7. Development should be located, designed, and managed so that impacts on shoreline or upland uses are minimized through setbacks, buffers, and control of proximity impacts such as noise or light and glare.

8. Development should be located, designed, and managed both to minimize potential impacts from sea level rise and to promote resilience in the face of those impacts, by such actions as protecting wetland and shoreline natural functions, incorporating green infrastructure, retaining mature vegetation, and considering soft-shore armoring wherever possible.

9. Assess the risks and potential impacts on both City government operations and on the community due to climate change and sea level rise, with special regard for social equity.

10. Promote community resilience through the development of climate change adaptation strategies. Strategies should be used by both the public and private sectors to help minimize the potential impacts of climate change on new and existing development and operations, including programs that encourage retrofitting of existing development and infrastructure to adapt to the effects of climate change.

B. Regulations.

1. All shoreline uses and developments shall provide setbacks from adjacent property lines or the landward edge of marine shoreline buffers in accordance with the standards contained in this Program and Table 9-2.

2. Side and front setbacks shall be of adequate width to attenuate proximity impacts such as noise, light and glare, scale, and aesthetic impacts. Fencing or landscape areas may be required to provide a visual screen. Refer to Chapter 19.09 for all applicable provisions related to district-specific setback regulations.

3. The setback from the landward edge of the marine shoreline buffer shall be no less than 10 feet unless otherwise specified in Table 9-2.

4. Unless otherwise stated elsewhere in this Program, modifications to front and side setbacks within shoreline districts may be authorized by the Director under the following circumstances:

a. The adjacent land use is of such a character as to render a setback unreasonable or unnecessary (e.g., industrial development);

b. Increased physical or visual access by the public to the shorelines and adjacent waters is reasonable and provides enhanced public benefit;

c. Better and/or more environmentally sensitive site and structure design will achieve greater protection of or lessen impacts upon ecological functions with a lesser setback;

d. Where a previously established setback line can be ascertained on adjacent properties, structures may be permitted similar setback as if a line were extended across the subject property from nearest points of the adjacent structures;

e. For side setback/view corridors: two or more contiguous properties are being developed under an overall development plan where view corridors will be provided which meet the intent and purposes of this Program and the Act;

f. A significant portion of the site, greater than that required, is being set aside for public access, public open space, or public access elements; or

g. Excessive removal of vegetation would be necessary to meet the required setback.

5. Reductions of front yard setbacks may be allowed to accommodate required critical areas and/or avoid impacts to critical areas and/or their buffers in the shoreline.

6. In authorizing a lesser setback, the Director shall determine that the following criteria have been met:

a. One or more of the circumstances set forth in TSMP Section 19.06.020B.4 are present or will occur;

b. The reduction or elimination of the setback is consistent with the intended character of the shoreline district as well as the purpose and Management Policies of the Shoreline Environment Designation and will not adversely affect the rights of neighboring property owners and will secure for neighboring properties substantially the same protection that the regulation, if enforced literally, would have provided;

c. Vehicular sight distance and pedestrian safety will not be adversely affected; and

d. Undue view blockage or impairment of existing or proposed pedestrian access to the shorelines and adjacent waters will not result.

7. In authorizing modifications to required setbacks, the Director may impose conditions on the permit as necessary to ensure compliance with this Program.

8. Design of structures shall conform to natural contours and minimize disturbance to soils and native vegetation.

9. Stormwater infiltration systems shall be employed to mimic the natural infiltration and ground water interflow processes where appropriate.

10. Fences, walls and similar structures shall only be permitted as normal appurtenances to single-family developments, water-dependent uses, for protecting critical areas, and where there is a safety or security issue. Fencing, walls and similar structures shall be designed in a manner that does not significantly interfere with public views of the shoreline.

11. New development, including newly created parcels, shall be designed and located so as to prevent the need for future shoreline stabilization.

12. Accessory uses that do not require a shoreline location shall be sited away from the shoreline and upland of the primary use.

13. Unless integral to a permitted water-oriented use, accessory uses shall observe the marine shoreline and critical area regulations in TSMP Section 19.06.040.

14. Development shall be located, designed, and managed so that impacts on public use of the shoreline are minimized.

15. Interior and exterior lighting shall be designed and operated to avoid illuminating nearby properties, public areas, or waters; prevent glare on adjacent properties, public areas or roadways to avoid infringing on the use and enjoyment of such areas, and to prevent hazards. Methods of controlling spillover light include, but are not limited to, limits on height of structure, limits on light levels of fixtures, light shields, setbacks, buffer areas and screening.

(Ord. 28612 Ex. A, 2019-09-24, previously codified as TSMP Section 6.2.)

§ 19.06.030 Archaeological, cultural and historic resources.

The following policies and regulations apply to archaeological and historic resources that are either recorded with the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and/or the City or have been inadvertently uncovered during a site investigation or construction. Archaeological sites located both in and outside shoreline jurisdiction are subject to RCW 27.44 (Indian graves and records) and RCW 27.53 (Archaeological sites and records). Development or uses that could impact these sites must comply with the State’s guidelines on archaeological excavation and removal (WAC 25-48) as well as the provisions of this Program. Archaeological and historic resources are limited and irreplaceable. Therefore the purpose of these policies and regulations is to prevent the destruction of or damage to any site having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational value as identified by the appropriate authorities, including affected Indian tribes.

A. Policies.

1. The City should work with tribal, state, federal and local governments as appropriate to identify and maintain an inventory of all known significant local historic, cultural and archaeological sites in observance of applicable state and federal laws protecting such information from general public disclosure. As appropriate, such sites should be protected, preserved and/or restored for study, education and/or public enjoyment to the maximum possible extent.

2. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, the City should require documentation and data recovery consistent with the requirements of this chapter. Adverse impacts should be mitigated according to the requirements of this chapter.

3. If development is proposed adjacent to an identified historic, cultural or archaeological site, then the proposed development should be designed and operated so as to be compatible with continued protection of the historic, cultural or archaeological site.

4. Owners of property containing identified historic, cultural or archaeological sites should make development plans known well in advance of application, so that appropriate agencies have ample time to assess the site and make arrangements to preserve historical, cultural and archaeological values as applicable.

5. Private and public owners of historic sites should be encouraged to provide public access and educational opportunities in a manner consistent with long term protection of both historic values and shoreline ecological functions.

6. Cooperation among involved private and public parties is encouraged to achieve the Archaeological, Historical and Cultural element goals and objectives of this Program.

B. Regulations.

1. General.

a. Archaeological sites located in shoreline jurisdiction are subject to RCW 27.44 (Indian Graves and Records) and RCW 27.53 (Archaeological Sites and Records).

b. Development or uses that may impact such sites shall comply with WAC 25-48 as well as the requirements within this Program, where applicable.

c. Development that is proposed in areas documented to contain archaeological resources shall have a site inspection or evaluation by a professional archaeologist in coordination with affected Indian tribes.

2. Unanticipated discovery of historic, cultural or archaeological resource.

a. Consistent with TSMP Section 19.02.040, all applications for a shoreline permit shall prepare a plan for the possible unanticipated discovery of historic, cultural or archaeological resource(s), including a point of contact, procedure for stop-work notification, and for notification of appropriate agencies.

b. Whenever historic, cultural or archaeological sites or artifacts are discovered in the process of development on shorelines, work on that portion of the development site shall be stopped immediately, the site secured and the find reported as soon as possible to the Director. Upon notification of such find, the property owner shall notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Puyallup Tribe, and the Director shall conduct a site investigation to determine the significance of the discovery. Based upon the findings of the site investigation and consultation with the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the Puyallup Tribe, and the proponents unanticipated discovery plan prepared consistent with TSMP Section 19.02.040, the Director may require that an immediate site assessment be conducted or may allow stopped work to resume.

c. If a site assessment is required, the area of inadvertent discovery shall be stabilized, contained or otherwise protected until the site assessment and/or CRMP is completed. The site assessment shall be prepared to determine the significance of the discovery and the extent of damage to the resource and shall be distributed to the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the Puyallup Tribe.

d. Upon receipt of a positive determination of a site’s significance, the Director may invoke the provisions of TSMP Section 19.02.040F for a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP), if such action is reasonable and necessary to implement.

(Ord. 28612 Ex. A, 2019-09-24, previously codified as TSMP Section 6.3.)

§ 19.06.040 Critical areas and marine shoreline protection.

A. Intent. The intent of this chapter is to provide policies and regulations that protect critical areas found within the shoreline jurisdiction as well as marine shorelines. These policies and regulations apply to all uses, developments and activities that may occur within the shoreline jurisdiction regardless of the Shoreline Master Program environment designation. They are to be implemented in conjunction with the specific use and activity policies and regulations found in this Master Program.

The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) mandates the preservation of the ecological functions of the shoreline by preventing impacts that would harm the fragile shorelines of the state. When impacts cannot be avoided, impacts must be mitigated to assure no-net-loss of ecological function necessary to sustain shoreline resources. The SMA also mandates that local master programs include goals, policies and actions for the restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions to achieve overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time.

The environment protection policies and regulations of this Master Program address general environmental impacts and critical areas. General environmental impacts include effects upon the elements of the environment listed in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 197-11-600 and WAC 197-11-666). This chapter is not intended to limit the application of SEPA.

B. Organization. This section first presents General Policies and Regulations including critical area buffer modifications, general mitigation requirements, and sureties. Second, it provides standards for marine shoreline buffers, which protect ecosystem-wide processes and functions and are based upon a review of the existing shoreline ecological functions as well as land use patterns and level of alteration. These standards additionally act as shoreline setbacks, establishing buffer reductions based upon the use orientation, ensuring that valuable and scarce shoreline frontage is reserved for priority uses. Third, this chapter presents policies and regulations for specifically defined “critical areas” including: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, Wetlands, Streams and Riparian Habitats, Geologically Hazardous Areas, and Aquifer Recharge Areas. When using this chapter, a permit applicant should review the general policies and regulations first, which establishes standards applicable to all of the specific critical areas. Then, review the specific type of critical area that is applicable to the permit. For instance, the General Regulations establish standards for buffer modifications and for mitigation, but each section thereafter will have additional detail for buffer reductions and mitigation that are specific to each type of critical area. Figure 6-1 provides a graphic illustration of the types of buffers present in the shoreline and the TSMP location of relevant regulations. Finally, TSMP Chapter 19.02 Administration outlines the permit submittal requirements necessary for critical areas review.

Figure 6-1. Multiple Types of Critical Areas and Buffers within SMA Jurisdiction.

(SMA Jurisdiction includes all areas within 200 feet of the OHWM plus the full extent of Associated Wetlands.)

1. Marine Shoreline Buffer Standards – TSMP Section 19.06.04E.2 and 3.

2. Wetland Buffer Standards within the SMA Jurisdiction – TSMP Section 19.06.040G.2 through 6.

3. Stream Buffer Standards within the SMA Jurisdiction – TSMP Section 19.06.04H.2 through 6.

C. General policies.

1. Maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems through the protection of ground and surface waters, marine shorelines, wetlands, and fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to conserve biodiversity of plant and animal species.

2. Prevent cumulative adverse impacts to water quality, streams, FWHCAs, geologic hazard areas, shoreline functions and processes, and wetlands over time.

3. Give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries.

4. Shoreline use and development should be carried out in a manner that achieves no net loss of ecological functions; in assessing the potential for net loss of ecological functions or processes, project specific and cumulative impacts should be considered.

5. The City should encourage innovative restoration strategies to provide for comprehensive and coordinated approaches to mitigating cumulative impacts and restoration rather than piecemeal mitigation.

6. Required mitigation should be in-kind and on-site, when feasible and practicable, and sufficient to maintain the functions and processes of the modified critical area or buffer.

7. Protect members of the public and public resources and facilities from injury, loss of life, or property damage due to landslides and steep slope failures, erosion, seismic events, volcanic eruptions, flooding or similar events.

8. Protect natural processes and functions of Tacoma’s environmental assets (wetlands, streams, lakes, and marine shorelines) in anticipation of climate change impacts, including sea level rise.

D. General regulations.

1. General regulations.

a. Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts so that no net loss of existing ecological functions occurs; in assessing the potential for net loss of ecological functions or processes, project specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered.

b. Any shoreline development proposal that includes modification in or adjacent to a critical area or buffer is subject to the Review Process in TSMP Section 19.02.040B.

2. Critical area and buffer modification.

a. Modification of a critical area or buffer is prohibited except when:

(1) Modification is necessary to accommodate an approved water-dependent or public access use, including trails and/or pedestrian/bicycle paths; provided, that such development is operated, located, designed and constructed to minimize and, where possible, avoid disturbance to shoreline functions and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible; or

(2) Modification is necessary to accommodate a water-related or water-enjoyment use or a water-oriented component of a mixed-use development provided that the proposed development is operated, located, designed and constructed to minimize and, where possible, avoid disturbance to native vegetation and shoreline and critical area functions to the maximum extent feasible; or

(3) Modification is associated with a mitigation, restoration, or enhancement action that has been approved by the City and which complies with all of the provisions of this Program; or

(4) Modification is approved pursuant to the variance provisions of this Program (TSMP Section 19.02.030E) or nonconforming provisions (TSMP Section 19.02.050).

(5) Modifications affecting Marine Waters of the State are limited to those uses listed in Table 9.2 and the provisions in TSMP Section 19.09.150 for the zoning classification S-13.

3. General mitigation requirements and mitigation sequencing.

a. If modification to a critical area or buffer is unavoidable, the alteration shall be mitigated so as to result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and/or critical area functions or processes.

b. Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized sequence and required order:

(1) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action;

(2) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts;

(3) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment;

(4) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of action;

(5) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and the mitigation project and taking appropriate corrective measures; and,

(6) Monitoring the impact and compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures.

c. Type and location of mitigation.

(1) Prior to presenting a compensatory mitigation plan, an applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that each step of the mitigation sequence outlined above in Section 19.06.040D.3.b has been considered to the greatest degree feasible through project redesign or relocation, consideration of alternatives, use of technology, or other design options.

(2) Preference shall be given to mitigation projects that are located within the City of Tacoma. Prior to mitigating for impacts outside City of Tacoma jurisdiction, applicants must demonstrate that the preferences herein cannot be met within City boundaries.

(3) Natural, Shoreline Residential and Urban Conservancy Environments:

(a) Compensatory mitigation for ecological functions shall be either in-kind and on-site, or in-kind and within the same reach, subbasin, or drift cell, except when all of the following apply:

i. There are no reasonable on-site or in subbasin opportunities (e.g. on-site options would require elimination of high functioning upland habitat), or on-site and in subbasin opportunities do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the natural capacity of the site to compensate for impacts. Considerations should include: anticipated marine shoreline/wetland/stream mitigation ratios, buffer conditions and proposed widths, available water to maintain anticipated hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands, or streams when restored, proposed flood storage capacity, potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity); and

ii. Off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved critical area functions than the impacted critical area.

(4) High-intensity and downtown waterfront environments:

(a) The preference for compensatory mitigation is for innovative approaches that would enable the concentration of mitigation into larger habitat sites in areas that will provide greater critical area or shoreline function.

(b) The Director may approve innovative mitigation projects including but not limited to activities such as advance mitigation, mitigation banking and preferred environmental alternatives. Innovative mitigation proposals must offer an equivalent or better level of protection of critical area functions and values than would be provided by a strict application of on-site and in-kind mitigation. The Director shall consider the following for approval of an innovative mitigation proposal:

i. Creation or enhancement of a larger system of natural areas and open space is preferable to the preservation of many individual habitat areas;

ii. Consistency with Goals and Objectives of the Shoreline Restoration Plan and the Goals and Objectives of this Program;

iii. The applicant demonstrates that long-term management and protection of the habitat area will be provided;

iv. There is clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the proposed mitigation site;

v. Restoration of marine shoreline functions or critical areas of a different type is justified based on regional needs or functions and processes;

vi. Voluntary restoration projects initiated between 2006 and the adoption of this program when they comply with Subsection 19.06.040D.4, Mitigation Plan requirements. If this option is used, the relief provisions set forth in RCW 90.58.580 do not apply;

vii. The replacement ratios are not reduced or eliminated, unless the reduction results in a preferred environmental alternative; and

viii. Public entity cooperative preservation agreements such as conservation easements.

(5) Aquatic environments:

(a) Compensatory mitigation should be consistent with the preference and requirements of the adjacent upland environment designation.

(b) Compensatory mitigation shall give preference to restoring habitat for anadromous salmonids and other priority aquatic species.

d. Fee-in-lieu.

(1) In cases where mitigation pursuant to this section (TSMP Section 19.06.040) is not possible, or where the maximum possible onsite mitigation will not wholly mitigate for anticipated impacts, or where an alternative location, identified in an adopted restoration plan, would provide greater ecological function, the Director may approve a payment of a fee-in-lieu of mitigation. The fee shall be reserved for use in high value restoration actions identified through the Shoreline Restoration Plan. Approval of the in-lieu fee option is subject to the development and adoption of a formal City in-lieu fee program and mitigation site or the City’s formal participation in an approved in-lieu fee program, and consistent with the criteria in (2) and (3) below.

(2) To aid in the implementation of off-site mitigation, the City may develop a formal program which prioritizes wetland and/or other critical areas for use as mitigation and/or allows payment in lieu of providing mitigation on a development site. This program shall be developed and approved through a public process and be consistent with state and federal rules. The program should address:

(a) The identification of sites within the City that are suitable for use as off-site mitigation. Site suitability shall take into account critical area functions, potential for degradation, and potential for urban growth and service expansion; and

(b) The use of fees for mitigation on available sites that have been identified as suitable and prioritized for restoration and/or enhancement.

(3) Off-site mitigation, including expenditures associated with an adopted in-lieu fee program, shall be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Shoreline Restoration Plan.

e. Timing of compensatory mitigation. Compensation projects should be completed prior to activities that will disturb the on-site critical area. If not completed prior to disturbance, compensatory mitigation shall be completed immediately following the disturbance and prior to final occupancy. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora.

f. The Director may authorize a one-time temporary delay in completing construction or installation of the compensatory mitigation when the applicant provides a written explanation from a qualified professional as to the rationale for the delay (i.e. seasonal planting requirements, fisheries window).

4. Mitigation plan.

a. A mitigation plan shall be prepared consistent with best available science. The intent of these provisions is to require a level of technical study and analysis sufficient to protect the shoreline and critical areas and/or protect developments and occupants from critical areas involving hazards. The analysis shall be commensurate with the value or sensitivity of a particular shoreline or critical area and relative to the scale and potential impacts of the proposed activity.

b. The mitigation plan shall provide for construction, maintenance, monitoring, and contingencies as required by conditions of approval and consistent with the requirements of this Program.

c. The mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional; provided, that the Director may waive the requirement to hire a qualified professional to prepare a mitigation plan when the required mitigation involves standard planting or enhancement practices. The waiver shall not be granted for mitigation practices involving critical area creation, rehabilitation and/or restoration.

d. A Compensatory mitigation plan shall be provided for all permanent impacts and will conform to the general mitigation requirements listed in TSMP Section 19.06.040D.3 and any specific requirements identified in this chapter for the critical area. The plan shall include the following:

(1) Mitigation sequencing. The applicant shall demonstrate that an alternative design could not avoid or reduce impacts and shall provide a description of the specific steps taken to minimize impacts;

(2) Assessment of impacts including the amount, existing condition and anticipated functional loss. Include probable cumulative impacts;

(3) The amount and type of mitigation. Include goals, objectives, and clearly defined and measurable performance standards. Include contingency plans that define the specific course of action if mitigation fails;

(4) A description of the existing conditions and anticipated future conditions for the proposed mitigation area(s) including future successional community types for years 1, 5, 10 and 25, future wildlife habitat potential, water quality and hydrologic conditions. Compare this to the future conditions if no mitigation actions are undertaken;

(5) A description of the shoreline ecological functions or critical areas functions and values that the proposed mitigation area(s) shall provide, and/or a description of the level of hazard mitigation provided;

(6) A description and scaled drawings of the activities proposed to reduce risks associated with geologic hazards and/or flooding, and/or to mitigate for impacts to shoreline buffers or critical area functions and values. This shall include all clearing, grading/excavation, drainage alterations, planting, invasive weed management, installation of habitat structures, irrigation, and other site treatments associated with the development activities;

(7) Specifications of the mitigation design and installation including construction techniques, equipment, timing, sequence, and best management practices to reduce temporary impacts;

(8) Plan sheets showing the edge of the shoreline marine buffer, critical area and/or critical area buffer. The affected area shall be clearly staked, flagged, and/or fenced prior to and during any site clearing and construction to ensure protection for the critical area and buffer during construction;

(9) A plant schedule including number, spacing, species, size and type, source of plant material, watering schedule and measures to protect plants from destruction;

(10) Monitoring methods and schedule for a minimum of five years;

(11) A maintenance schedule to include ongoing maintenance and responsibility for removal of non-native, invasive vegetation and debris after monitoring is complete;

(12) A hydrologic report including any mitigating measures for alterations of the hydroperiod. The City may require additional modelling, pre-and post-development field studies and/or monitoring to establish water levels, hydroperiods, and water quality. Water quality shall be required for pollution generating surfaces using all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment;

(13) When mitigation includes creation or restoration of critical areas, surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions including existing and proposed hydrologic regimes shall be provided. Describe the anticipated hydrogeomorphic class and illustrate how data for existing hydrologic conditions were utilized to form the estimates of future hydrologic conditions;

(14) Existing topography must be ground-proofed at two foot contour intervals in the zone of any proposed creation or rehabilitation actions. Provide cross-sections of existing wetland and/or streams that are proposed to be impacted and cross-section(s) (estimated one-foot intervals) for the proposed areas of creation and/or rehabilitation;

(15) An evaluation of potential adverse impacts on adjacent property owners resulting from the proposed mitigation and measures to address such impacts;

(16) A description of other permits and approvals being sought, including the need for permits from state and/or federal agencies; and

(17) Additional information as required by the subsequent articles of this Program.

5. Sureties.

a. The City will accept performance and monitoring and maintenance sureties in the form of bonds or other sureties in a form accepted in writing by the City. Sureties shall be posted prior to issuance of any shoreline permit.

b. Performance surety. Except for public agencies, applicants receiving a permit involving compensation for mitigation are required to post a cash performance bond or other acceptable security to guarantee compliance with this chapter prior to beginning any site work. The surety shall guarantee that work and materials used in construction are free from defects. All sureties shall be approved by the City Attorney. The surety cannot be terminated or cancelled without written approval. The Director shall release the surety after documented proof that all structures and improvements have been shown to meet the requirements of this chapter.

c. Monitoring and maintenance surety. Except for public agencies, an applicant shall be required to post a cash maintenance bond or other acceptable security guaranteeing that structures and improvements required by this chapter will perform satisfactorily for a minimum of five (5) years after they have been constructed and approved. The value of the surety shall be based on the average or median of three contract bids that establish all costs of compensation, including costs relative to performance, monitoring, maintenance, and provision for contingency plans. The amount of the surety shall be set at 150 percent of the average expected cost of the compensation project. All surety shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney. Without written release, the surety cannot be cancelled or terminated. The Director shall release the surety after determination that the performance standards established for measuring the effectiveness and success of the project have been met.

E. Marine shorelines. Nearly all shoreline areas, even substantially developed or degraded areas, retain important ecological functions. For example, an intensely developed harbor area may also serve as a fish migration corridor and feeding area critical to species survival. Also, ecosystems are interconnected. For example, the life cycle of anadromous fish depends upon the viability of freshwater, marine, and terrestrial shoreline ecosystems, and many wildlife species associated with the shoreline depend on the health of both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Therefore, the marine shoreline buffer standards for protecting ecological functions generally apply to all shoreline areas, not just those that remain relatively unaltered. Modifications to and activities in marine waters or a marine shoreline buffer are subject to the review process in TSMP Section 19.02.040B and the mitigation requirements of TSMP Section 19.06.040D.3 through 4.

Managing shorelines for protection of their natural resources depends on sustaining the functions provided by:

•	Ecosystem-wide processes such as those associated with the flow and movement of water, sediment and organic materials; the presence and movement of fish and wildlife and the maintenance of water quality.
•	Individual components and localized processes such as those associated with shoreline vegetation, soils, water movement through the soil and across the land surface and the composition and configuration of the beds and banks of water bodies.

The loss or degradation of the functions associated with ecosystem-wide processes, individual components and localized processes can significantly impact shoreline natural resources and may also adversely impact human health and safety.

In addition, shoreline areas, being a limited ecological and economic resource, are the setting for competing uses and ecological protection and restoration activities. Therefore, marine buffer standards also implement the use priorities of the WAC by:

•	Reserving appropriate areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions to control pollution and prevent damage to the natural environment and public health.
•	Reserving shoreline areas for water-dependent and associated water related uses.

1. Classification.

a. Marine shorelines include all marine “shorelines of the state”, including commencement Bay and the Tacoma Narrows, as defined in RCW 90.58.030 within the City of Tacoma.

2. Marine shoreline buffers.

a. A buffer area shall be maintained on all marine shorelines for all non-water-dependent and public access uses adjacent to the marine shoreline to protect and maintain the integrity, functions and processes of the shoreline and to minimize risks to human health and safety. The buffer shall be measured horizontally from the edge of the ordinary high water mark landward.

b. Buffers shall consist of an undisturbed area reserved for the protection of existing native vegetation or areas reserved for priority uses (water-dependent uses and public access), including restoration established to protect the integrity, functions and processes of the shoreline. Required buffer widths shall reflect the sensitivity of the shoreline functions and the type and intensity of human activity proposed to be conducted nearby.

c. Buffer widths shall be established according to Table 6-1. Buffer widths may be increased under the following circumstances:

(1) The Director determines that the minimum width is insufficient to prevent loss of shoreline functions.

(2) The Director determines that the proposed shoreline modification would result in an adverse impact to critical saltwater habitats including kelp beds, eelgrass beds, or spawning and holding areas for forage fish.

(3) If the existing buffer is un-vegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with non-native species that do not provide necessary protection, then the buffer must either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer width must be increased. In either case this must be proportional to the proposed development.

Table 6-1. Standard Marine Buffers
Marine Habitat Area	Buffer Width (feet)
S-1a, S1b	50
S-2	115
S-3, S-4	200
S-5, S-6, S-6/7, S-7	115
S-8, S-10	50
S-11	115
S-12	200
S-15	50

3. Marine shoreline buffer reductions.

a. All uses and development within a reduced buffer remain subject to mitigation sequencing and any unmitigated impacts resulting from a buffer reduction are required to be compensated for consistent with TSMP Section 19.06.040D.1 through 5 to achieve no net loss of ecological functions.

b. In all shoreline designations, water-dependent and public access uses and development may reduce the standard buffer such that direct water access is provided.

c. ‘Natural’ Designated Shorelines: Buffer reductions shall not be permitted for non-water-dependent and public access uses and development except through a shoreline variance.

d. ‘Urban-Conservancy’ and ‘Shoreline Residential’ Designated Shorelines: The buffer shall not be reduced to any less than ¾ of the standard buffer width for water-related and water-enjoyment uses and development, including water-oriented portions of mixed-use development. Further reductions shall only be allowed through a shoreline variance.

e. ‘High-Intensity’ and ‘Downtown Waterfront’ Designated Shorelines: Buffer reductions for water-related and water-enjoyment uses, including water-oriented portions of mixed-use development, shall not exceed ½ the standard buffer width. Further reductions shall only be allowed through a shoreline variance.

f. The remaining buffer on-site shall be enhanced or restored to provide improved function and protection.

g. Reductions of the standard buffer for any stand-alone non-water-oriented use or development shall not be allowed except through a shoreline variance.

h. Low impact uses and activities consistent with the marine buffer functions may be permitted within a buffer that has not been reduced depending on the sensitivity of the adjacent aquatic area and shoreline and intensity of the activity or use. These may include stairs, walkways, or viewing platforms necessary to access the shoreline, or stormwater management facilities used to sustain existing hydrologic functions provided that it complies with all provisions of the Program, conforms to the existing topography and, to the extent feasible, minimizes impervious surfaces.

i. Where a marine buffer geographically coincides with another critical area, the provisions for increasing buffers, buffer averaging, and buffer reductions for all overlapping critical areas and buffers shall apply as described within this chapter and only when there is no impact to shoreline functions associated with the marine shoreline.

j. Marine buffer averaging may be allowed when the averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the critical areas functions and the buffer is increased adjacent to the high-functioning areas of habitat or more sensitive portion of the shoreline and decreased in the lower-functions or less sensitive portion.

(1) There are no feasible alternatives to site design that could be accomplished without buffer averaging;

(2) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; and,

(3) The width of the buffer at its narrowest point is never less than that allowed per the buffer reduction allowances above.

4. Marine shoreline mitigation requirements.

a. All marine shoreline buffer mitigation shall comply with applicable mitigation requirements specified in TSMP Sections 19.06.040D.3 and 4 and 19.06.040E.4 and 5 including, but not limited to, mitigation plan requirements, monitoring and bonding.

b. Where a designated marine shoreline geographically coincides with a FWHCA, stream or wetland, mitigation will comply with applicable mitigation requirements for those resources as described within this Program.

5. Marine shoreline mitigation ratios.

a. The following mitigation ratios are required for impacts to the marine shoreline buffer. The first number specifies the area of replacement shoreline buffer area, and second specifies the area of altered shoreline buffer area.

(1) 1:1 for areas on the parcel or on a parcel that abuts the ordinary high watermark within one quarter (1/4) mile along the shoreline from where the vegetation removal, placement of impervious surface or other loss of habitat occurred.

(2) 3:1 for off-site mitigation that occurs more than one quarter (1/4) mile along the shoreline from where the vegetation removal, placement of impervious surface or other loss of habitat occurred. Mitigation must be consistent with the Shoreline Restoration Plan.

(3) If mitigation is performed off-site, a conservation easement or other legal document must be provided to the City to ensure that the party responsible for the maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation has access and the right to perform these activities.

F. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs). This section provides policies and regulations that apply to Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas including critical saltwater habitats as defined by WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii).

Critical saltwater habitats include kelp beds, eelgrass beds, spawning and holding areas for forage fish including herring, smelt and sand lance; recreational shellfish beds; mudflats, intertidal habitats with vascular plants; and areas with which priority species have a primary association.

These areas are further classified as Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and defined as “critical areas” in RCW 36.70A.030. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas include, but are not limited to, areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a “primary association”; kelp and eelgrass beds; herring, smelt, and other forage fish spawning areas; and commercial and recreational shellfish areas (see WAC 365-190-130(2)). Areas of primary association are further defined in WAC 173-26-221(2)(iii) as those areas which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that a species will maintain its population and reproduce. Additional examples of areas where priority species have a “primary association” include, but are not limited to, the following:

•	Shallow water/low gradient habitats along shorelines
•	Migratory corridors that allow juvenile salmon to move within and between habitats (e.g., beaches, as well as eelgrass, kelp, etc.).

Many of these are also identified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as habitats of special concern under the Hydraulic Code in WAC 220-660-320. Habitats of concern include, but are not limited to, juvenile salmon migrations corridors; rockfish settlement and nursery area; lingcod nesting, settlement, and nursery areas; and feeder bluffs and shoreforms that support geomorphic processes such as sediment delivery.

In addition, the City gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish, such as juvenile salmon (RCW 36.70A.172), some of which are classified as “Threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. Diversity of shoreline habitats is essential for providing adequate functions for juvenile salmon.

1. FWHCA classification.

a. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) shall include:

(1) Lands and waters containing priority habitats and species;

(2) Biodiversity areas or corridors:

(a) In classifying an area as a Biodiversity Area or Corridor, the city will assess the functions and values of the existing habitat in the context of adjacent properties and the collective ecosystem services. An area which is already developed with legally established, pre-existing uses which serve to eliminate or greatly reduce the propensity of wildlife to use the area as habitat or a corridor will not be classified as a Biodiversity Area or Corridor. The following will be considered:

i. The presence of rare or uncommon plant species and associations designated by the City or identified by federal and state agencies such as the Department of Natural Resources Heritage Program.

ii. The presence of a vertically diverse assemblage of native vegetation containing multiply canopy layers and/or areas that are horizontally diverse with a mosaic of habitats and microhabitats.

iii. The Biodiversity Area/Corridor shall be a minimum size of two acres.

iv. The needs and requirements of species known or likely to occur must be considered as well as the ability of the habitat to provide wildlife access or movement.

v. The following developments or uses may be considered as an elimination or significant reduction in the ability of an area to serve as a corridor for wildlife use. The permanence and extent of the use or development shall be considered.

•	Multilane paved road(s) and their maintained rights-of-way;
•	Permanent wildlife-impassible fence(s) and other permanent barriers that prevent wildlife movement;
•	Areas where legally established structures and impervious surfaces are present for more than 65% of the area;

vi. The following are examples of uses that may not reduce or eliminate the use of the area by wildlife or as a corridor;

•	Gravel road(s) and driveways;
•	Trails used for passive recreation;
•	Wildlife-passible fence(s); and,
•	Unmaintained rights-of-way.

(3) All public and private tidelands or bedlands suitable for shellfish harvest, including any shellfish protection districts established pursuant to RCW 90.72. The Washington Department of Health’s classification system shall be used to classify commercial shellfish areas;

(4) Critical saltwater habitats including kelp and eelgrass beds and herring, sand lance, smelt spawning, and other forage fish spawning areas. Kelp and eelgrass beds may be classified and identified by the Washington Department of Natural Resources Aquatics Division and the Washington Department of Ecology. Locations are compiled in the Washington Coastal Atlas published by the Washington Department of Ecology. Herring, sand lance, and surf smelt spawning times and locations are outlined in WAC 220-660-330, Hydraulic Code Rules;

(5) Natural ponds or lakes under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide critical fish or wildlife habitat;

(6) Lakes, ponds, streams and rivers planted with game fish, including those planted under the auspices of a federal, state, local, or tribal program and waters which support priority fish species as identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife;

(7) Areas with which State and Federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association;

(8) Habitats and species of local importance that have been identified as sensitive to habitat manipulation. Areas identified must represent either high-quality native habitat or habitat that has a high potential to recover and is of limited availability, highly vulnerable to alteration, or provides landscape connectivity that contributes to the integrity of the surrounding landscape. In designating habitat and species of local importance, the following characteristics will be considered:

(a) Local population of native species that are in danger of extirpation or vulnerable and in decline.

(b) The species or habitat has recreation, tribal, or other special value.

(c) Long-term persistence of the species is dependent on protection, maintenance, or restoration of nominated habitat.

(d) Protection by other county, state, or federal policies and laws is not adequate to prevent degradation of the species or habitat.

(e) Without protection, there is a likelihood that the species or habitat will be diminished over the long term.

(9) Area critical for habitat connectivity, including Open Space Corridors designated in the City’s Comprehensive plan; and,

(10) State natural preserves and natural resource conservation areas.

2. FWHCA standards.

a. Whenever activities are proposed within or adjacent to a habitat conservation area with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, such area shall be protected through the application of protection measures in accordance with a critical area report and habitat management plan prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the City.

b. If the Director determines that a proposal is likely to adversely impact a FWHCA, s/he may require additional protective measures such as a buffer area.

c. Any activity proposed in a designated FWHCA shall be consistent with the species located there and all applicable state and federal regulations regarding that species. In determining allowable activities for priority habitats and species that are known or that become known, the provisions of the Washington State Hydraulic Code and Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) Management Recommendations for Washington Priority Habitats and Species shall be reviewed.

d. Where a designated FWHCA geographically coincides with a marine shoreline, stream or wetland, the appropriate wetland or stream buffer and associated buffer requirements shall apply as described in this Program.

e. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected pursuant to the Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 232-12-292). The City shall verify the location of eagle management areas for each proposed activity. Approval of the activity shall not occur prior to approval of the habitat management plan by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

f. All activities, uses and alterations proposed to be located in water bodies used by anadromous fish or in areas that affect such water bodies shall give special consideration to the preservation and enhancement of anadromous fish habitat.

g. No structures of any kind shall be placed in or constructed over critical saltwater habitats unless they result in no net loss of ecological function, are associated with a water-dependent or public access use, comply with the applicable requirements within this Program and meet all of the following conditions:

(1) The project, including any required mitigation, will result in no net loss of ecological functions associated with critical saltwater habitat;

(2) Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or location is not feasible or would result in unreasonable and disproportionate cost to accomplish the same general purpose;

(3) The project is consistent with the state's interest in resource protection and species recovery;

(4) The public's need for such an action or structure is clearly demonstrated and the proposal is consistent with protection of the public trust, as embodied in RCW 90.58.020;

(5) Shorelands that are adjacent to critical saltwater habitats shall be regulated per the requirements within this Program; and,

(6) A qualified professional shall demonstrate compliance with the above criteria in addition to the required elements of a critical area report as specified in this Chapter.

h. All uses and development must meet the remaining standards of this chapter including TSMP Section 19.06.040D.1 through 5.

i. Biodiversity Areas and Corridors Standards.

(1) In managing Biodiversity Areas and Corridors, the intent is to maintain rare and uncommon plant species and associations and large patches of native vegetation that provide habitat and connecting corridors for animal movement as well as general ecological services. Preservation of Biodiversity Areas and Corridors is necessary to minimize the impacts of development to wildlife and conserve the City’s most diverse areas. The following standards apply:

(a) Preserve existing native vegetation on the site to the maximum feasible extent, prioritizing the most valuable and sensitive environmental assets by developing the least impactful area;

(b) Maintain biodiversity functions to prevent habitat degradation and fragmentation and preserve habitat for priority and common urban species, as supported by the Best Available Science; and,

(c) The applicant shall avoid all actions that degrade the functions and values of a Biodiversity Area and Corridor. When impacts cannot be avoided, they should be minimized and mitigated by limiting overall vegetation clearance, maintaining corridors, protecting the most sensitive environmental features, and clustering development that does occur.

3. FWHCA general mitigation requirements.

a. All FWHCA mitigation shall comply with applicable mitigation requirements specified in TSMP Section 19.06.040D including, but not limited to, mitigation plan requirements, monitoring and bonding.

b. Where a designated FWHCA geographically coincides with a marine shoreline, stream or wetland, mitigation will comply with applicable mitigation requirements for those resources as described within this Program.

c. Mitigation sites shall be located to preserve or achieve contiguous wildlife habitat corridors, in accordance with a mitigation plan that is part of an approved critical area report, to minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas, so long as mitigation of aquatic habitat is located within the same aquatic ecosystem as the area disturbed.

d. Mitigation shall achieve equivalent or greater biological and hydrological functions and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts upstream or downstream of the development proposal site. Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement on a per function basis.

e. Biodiversity Area and Corridor Mitigation.

(1) Mitigation must compensate for the adverse impacts and achieve equivalent or higher ecological functions including, vegetation diversity and habitat complexity and connectivity.

(2) Enhancement or Restoration requires the following ratios:

Onsite Mitigation	Offsite Mitigation
1.5:1 Enhancement or Restoration	3:1 Enhancement or Restoration

(3) The protection covenant or conservation easement recorded with Pierce County Assessor’s Office shall include all mitigation areas including those located off-site.

(4) The following shall be incorporated to minimize disturbance:

(a) Minimize light disturbance by directing lights away from critical areas;

(b) Place activities that generate noise furthest from critical areas;

(c) Limit disturbance from humans and pets with “impenetrable” natural vegetation between the development and critical areas;

(d) Design infrastructure to minimize impacts through such steps as designing narrower streets or integrating Low Impact Development (LID) approaches; and,

(e) Seasonal restriction of construction activities.

4. Biodiversity areas and corridors modifications.

a. The following shall apply for proposed modifications within or affecting Biodiversity Areas and Corridors.

(1) In determining which areas are least sensitive to development impacts, the following criteria shall apply:

(a) A minimum of 65% of the Biodiversity Area and Corridor area shall be left in an undisturbed natural vegetated state. The undisturbed area set aside shall contain all other Priority Habitats, Priority Species, and Critical Areas and Buffers that may be present, per applicable standards.

i. Legally created existing parcels 5,000 square feet in size or smaller must maintain an minimum of 40% of the Biodiversity Area and Corridor in an undisturbed natural vegetated state.

(2) A contiguous Biodiversity Corridor with a width of 300-feet shall be retained connecting onsite and offsite Priority Habitats and Critical Areas including shorelines, as well as significant trees per the definition below. The minimum 300 feet shall be a contiguous area that enters and exits the property.

(a) Where a legally created existing parcel cannot accommodate the 300 foot width corridor due to parcel size or configuration, then the maximum feasible width shall be provided in conjunction with maintaining the designated minimum undisturbed gross site area for the size of parcel.

(b) Habitat corridor connections may be required to be wider when additional width is supported by the Best Available Science to support the function and values of species or habitat present.

(3) Retain exceptional trees and rare or uncommon plant species or habitat types as identified by the City or by state or federal agencies.

(a) Significant tree groves. “Significant tree groves” means a group of 8 or more trees 12-inches diameter or greater that form a continuous canopy. Trees that are less than 12-inch in diameter that are part of a grove’s continuous canopy are also considered to be exceptional and cannot be removed if their removal may damage the health of the grove. Street trees shall not be included in determining whether a group of trees is a grove.

(b) Retain exceptional trees. “Exceptional tree” means a tree or group of trees that because of its unique historical, ecological, or aesthetic value constitutes an important community resource, and is determined as such by the Director according to standards and procedures promulgated by the Department of Planning and Development. Conifers, Oregon white oak, and Madrone are considered exceptional trees.

(4) Development must be clustered and located in the least sensitive areas and must use Low Impact Development practices where feasible.

(5) All uses and developments must meet the remaining standards of this chapter including TSMP Section 19.06.040D.1 through 5.

b. Projects that cannot meet the minimum standards above must demonstrate that the inability is due to site constraints such as parcel size or other physical conditions and is not a self-created hardship.

c. In planning the development of the site, consideration shall also be given to ongoing and future management needs such as vegetation maintenance, generally favoring setting aside a large, connected, contiguous areas as feasible.

d. Buffer Averaging or reduction for wetlands and streams can be utilized to average or reduce portions of buffers to accommodate development.

(1) The standards for preservation of 65% of the gross site area and minimum 300 foot corridor width still apply.

e. Corridor width averaging. The width of the corridor may be averaged to allow for reasonable use of the property when the following are met:

(1) The averaged corridor width will not result in degradation of the Biodiversity Corridor or its ability to facilitate wildlife movement;

(2) The corridor width is increased adjacent to the high-functioning or more sensitive areas and decreased adjacent to lower functioning or less sensitive portion;

(3) The corridor at its narrowest point is never less than ¾ of the required width; and

(4) The total area of the corridor is equal to the area required without averaging.

f. When the project cannot meet the minimum standards of this section or the project proponent can demonstrate that a different method will achieve equivalent or better protections for the critical area, it will be allowed per the standards in TSMP Section 19.06.040D.3.c that allow for innovative mitigation.

g. Protection covenant such as a conservation easement shall be recorded with Pierce County Assessor’s Office for critical areas that are identified.

h. If mitigation is performed off-site, a conservation easement or other legal document must be provided to the City to ensure that the party responsible for the maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation has access and the right to perform these activities.

G. Wetlands. Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. A wetland directly impacts water quality and stormwater control by trapping and filtering surface and ground water. Wetlands also provide valuable habitat for fish and wildlife. Because of the difficulty in replacing these rare and valuable areas, these regulations control development adjacent to and within wetlands, and limit the amount of wetlands, which may be altered. The purpose of these regulations is to protect the public from harm by preserving the functions of wetlands as recharge for ground water, flood storage, floodwater conveyance, habitat for fish and wildlife, sediment control, pollution control, surface water supply, aquifer recharge and recreation.

1. Wetland classification.

a. Wetlands shall be classified Category I, II, III, and IV, in accordance with the criteria from the 2014 Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington, Washington Department of Ecology publication No. 14-06-029, published October 2014, or as amended.

b. Category I wetlands are those that 1) represent a unique or rare wetland type; or 2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; or 3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or 4) provide a high level of functions. Category I wetlands include the following types of wetlands: Estuarine wetlands, Natural Heritage wetlands, Bogs, Mature and Old-growth Forested wetlands; wetlands that perform many functions very well and that score 23-27 or more points.

c. Category II wetlands are those that are difficult to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. These wetlands occur more commonly than Category I wetlands, but still need a relatively high level of protection. Category II wetlands include the following types of wetlands: Estuarine wetlands, and wetlands that perform functions well and score between 20-22 points.

d. Category III wetlands are those that perform functions moderately well and score between 16-19 points. These wetlands have generally been disturbed in some way and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II.

e. Category IV wetlands are those that have the lowest levels of functions, between 9 and 15 points, and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that may be replaced, and in some cases may be improved.

f. In addition, wetlands that require special protection and are not included in the general rating system shall be rated according to the guidelines for the specific characteristic being evaluated. The special characteristics that should be taken into consideration are as follows:

(1) The wetland has been documented as a habitat for any Federally -listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species. In this case, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database.

(2) The wetland has been documented as a habitat for State-listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species. In this case “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state database.

(3) The wetland contains individuals of Priority Species listed by the WDFW for the State.

(4) The wetland has been identified as a Wetland of Local Significance.

2. Wetland buffers.

a. A buffer area shall be provided for all uses and activities adjacent to a wetland area to protect the integrity, function, and value of the wetland. The buffer shall be measured horizontally from the delineated edge of the wetland.

b. Wetland buffer widths shall be established according to the following tables (Tables 6-2 through 6-3):

Table 6-2. Wetland Buffer Widths
Wetland Category	Buffer Width (feet)
Category I	200
Category II	100
Category III	75
Category IV	50

Table 6-3. Lakes of Local Significance*
Site	Buffers (feet)
Wapato Lake and associated wetlands	200, but not to exceed the centerline of Alaska Street.

3. Wetland buffer reductions.

a. A wetland buffer may be reduced only for a water-oriented use, per TSMP Section 19.06.040D.2 and in accordance with the provisions of this Section, when mitigation sequencing has been applied to the greatest extent practicable. The buffer shall not be reduced to any less than ¾ of the standard buffer width. The remaining buffer on-site shall be enhanced or restored to provide improved wetland function. Any other proposed wetland buffer reduction shall require a shoreline variance.

b. Low impact uses and activities consistent with the wetland buffer function may be permitted within a buffer that has not been reduced depending upon the sensitivity of wetland and intensity of activity or use. These may include pedestrian trails, viewing platforms, utility easements and storm water management facilities such as bioswales that are used to sustain existing hydrologic functions of the wetland.

c. Measures identified in Table 6-4 shall be used to minimize impacts to the wetland to the greatest extent practicable.

Table 6-4. Examples to Minimize Disturbance*
Disturbance element	Minimum measures to minimize impacts	Activities that may cause the disturbance
Lights	Direct lights away from wetland	Parking Lots, Warehouses, Manufacturing, High Density Residential
Noise	Place activity that generates noise away from the wetland	Manufacturing, High Density Residential
Toxic runoff	Route all new untreated runoff away from wetland, Covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetland	Parking Lots, Roads, Manufacturing, residential Areas, Application of Agricultural Pesticides, Landscaping
Change in water regime	Infiltrate or treat, detain and disperse into buffer new runoff from surface	Any impermeable surface, lawns, tilling
Pets and Human disturbance	Fence around buffer, Plant buffer with “impenetrable” natural vegetation appropriate for region	Residential areas
Dust	Best Management Practices for dust	Tilled fields
*Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Wetlands in Washington State; Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands, Buffer Alternative 3

d. As an incentive, when the buffer area between a wetland and a regulated activity is reduced or averaged, the applicant may dedicate the wetland and buffer to the City, in lieu of providing compensatory mitigation, depending upon the intensity of use and the wetland category. The Director shall determine whether the dedication is of benefit to the City for the protection of natural resources.

4. Buffer averaging.

a. The widths of buffers may be averaged if this will improve the protection of wetland functions, or if it is the only way to allow for use of the parcel. Averaging may not be used in conjunction with the provisions for reductions in buffers listed above.

b. Averaging to improve wetland protection may be approved when all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its habitat functions, such as a wetland with a forested component adjacent to a degraded emergent component or a dual-rated wetland with a Category I area adjacent to a lower rated area;

(2) The buffer is increased adjacent to the high-functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower-functioning or less sensitive portion;

(3) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; and,

(4) The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than ¾ of the standard width.

c. Averaging to allow a reasonable use of a legal lot of record may be permitted when all of the following conditions are met:

(1) There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished without buffer averaging;

(2) The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland’s functions as demonstrated by a report from a qualified wetland expert;

(3) The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; and

(4) The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than ¾ of the standard width.

5. Buffer increases.

a. The widths of the buffers may be required to be increased if the following conditions are found on the subject site:

(1) If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with non-native species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer must either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer must be widened to the maximum buffer for the land use intensity to ensure that adequate functions in the buffer are provided.

(2) If the buffer for a wetland is based on the score for water quality, rather than habitat, then the buffer should be increased by 50% if the slope is greater than 30% (a 3-foot rise for every 10 feet of horizontal distance).

(3) If the wetland provides habitat for a particularly sensitive species (such as threatened or endangered species), the buffer must be increased to provide adequate protection for the species based on its particular life history needs as required by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.

6. Wetland standards.

a. General standards. No regulated activity or use shall be permitted within a wetland without prior approval and without meeting the provisions of this Program. All development proposals that are anticipated to impact a wetland are subject to the review process in TSMP Section 19.02.040B. Any permitted wetland modification shall demonstrate the following:

(1) The applicant has taken appropriate action to first, avoid adverse impacts, then minimize impacts and finally, compensate or mitigate for unavoidable impacts;

(2) The result of the proposed activity is no net loss of wetland functions;

(3) The existence of plant or wildlife species appearing on the federal or state endangered or threatened species list will not be jeopardized;

(4) The proposal will not lead to significant degradation of groundwater or surface water quality; and

(5) The proposal complies with the remaining standards of this chapter including TSMP Section 19.06.040D.1 through 6.

7. Wetland mitigation requirements.

a. Methods to achieve compensation for wetland functions shall be approached in the following order of preference:

(1) Restoration (re-establishment and rehabilitation) of wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands.

(2) Creation (Establishment) of wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative cover consisting primarily of non-native introduced species. This should only be attempted when there is an adequate source of water and it can be shown that the surface and subsurface hydrologic regime is conducive for the wetland community that is being designed.

(3) Enhancement of significantly degraded wetlands in combination with restoration or creation. Such enhancement should be part of a mitigation package that includes replacing the impacted area and meeting appropriate ratio requirements.

b. Wetland mitigation banks.

(1) Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved for use as mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when:

(a) The bank is certified under WAC 173-700 or as otherwise amended;

(b) The Director determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate mitigation for the authorized impacts; and

(c) The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the bank’s certification.

(2) Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be consistent with replacement ratios specified in the bank’s certification.

(3) Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the bank’s certification. In some cases, bank service areas may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage basin for specific wetland functions.

8. Mitigation ratios.

a. The ratios contained within Table 6-5 shall apply to all Creation, Re-establishment, Rehabilitation, and Enhancement compensatory mitigation.

b. The Director may increase the ratios under the following circumstances:

(1) Uncertainty exists as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation;

(2) A significant period of time will elapse between impact and replication of wetland functions;

(3) Proposed mitigation will result in a lower category wetland or reduced function relative to the wetland being impacted; or

(4) The impact was an unauthorized impact.

Table 6-5. Mitigation ratios for projects in Western Washington that do not alter the hydro-geomorphic setting of the site***
Category and Type of Wetland	Re-establishment or Creation	Rehabilitation	1:1 Re-establishment or Creation (R/C) and Enhancement (E)	Enhancement only
All Category IV	1.5:1	3:1	1:1 R/C and 2:1 E	6:1
All Category III	2:1	4:1	1:1 R/C and 2:1 E	8:1
Category II Estuarine	Case-by-case	4:1 rehabilitation of an estuarine wetland	Case-by-case	Case-by-case
Category II Interdunal	2:1 Compensation has to be interdunal wetland	4:1 compensation has to be interdunal	1:1 R/C and 2:1 E	8:1
All other Category II	3:1	8:1	1:1 R/C and 4:1 E	12:1
Category I Forested	6:1	12:1	1:1 R/C and 10:1 E	24:1
Category I based on score for functions	4:1	8:1	1:1 R/C and 6:1 E	16:1
Category I Natural Heritage site	Not considered possible	6:1	Case-by-case	Case-by-case
Category I Bog	Not considered possible	6:1	Case-by-case	Case-by-case
Category I Estuarine	Case-by-case	6:1	Case-by-case	Case-by-case

*Natural heritage site, coastal lagoons, and bogs are considered irreplaceable wetlands, and therefore no amount of compensation would replace these ecosystems. Avoidance is the best option. In the rare cases when impacts cannot be avoided, replacement ratios will be assigned on a case-by-case basis. However, these ratios will be significantly higher than the other ratios for Category I wetland.

**Rehabilitation ratios area based on the assumption that actions judged to be most effective for that site are being implemented.

***Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Wetlands in Washington State; Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands, Buffer Alternative 3

9. Compensatory mitigation plan requirements.

a. When a project involves wetland or buffer impacts, a compensatory mitigation report shall be prepared consistent with the requirement in TSMP Section 19.06.040D.4 of this Program.

H. Streams and riparian habitats. This section provides policies and regulations that apply to critical freshwater habitats as defined by WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iv). The regulations here-in apply only to those critical freshwater habitats defined as streams using the classification system below. Other critical freshwater habitats include wetlands, floodplains, and channel migration zones and are regulated separately under this Master Program.

1. Stream classification.

a. Streams shall be generally classified in accordance with the Washington State Water Typing System set forth in WAC 222-16-030 to describe Type “S,” “F,” “Np” and “Ns” streams. Additional criteria typing for “F1”, and “F2” and “Ns1” and “Ns2” streams are included within this section.

b. General descriptions of the water typing system are as follows:

(1) Type “S” Water means all streams or rivers, within their bankfull width, inventoried as “shorelines of the state” or “shorelines of statewide significance” under this Program.

(2) Type “F” Water means segments of natural waters other than Type S Waters, which are within the bankfull widths of defined channels and periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands, or within lakes, ponds, or impoundments having a surface area of 0.5 acre or greater at seasonal low water and which in any case contain fish habitat or as further described within WAC 222-16-030. Type “F1” Water means segments of natural waters containing salmonid fishes. Type “F2” Water means segments of natural water containing fish that are not salmonids.

(3) Type “Np” Water means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of defined channels that are perennial nonfish habitat streams. Perennial streams are waters that do not go dry any time of a year of normal rainfall or as further described within WAC 222 16 030.

(4) Type “Ns” Water means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull widths of the defined channels that are not Type S, F, or Np Water. These are seasonal, nonfish habitat streams in which surface flow is not present for at least some portion of a year of normal rainfall and are not located downstream from any stream reach that is a Type Np Water. “Ns1” Waters must be physically connected by an above ground channel system to Type, F, or Np Waters. “Ns2” Waters may not be physically connected by an above ground channel system to Type, F, or Np Waters.

2. Stream buffers.

a. A buffer area shall be provided for all uses and activities adjacent to a stream to protect the integrity and function of the stream. The buffer shall be measured horizontally from the edge of the ordinary high water mark.

b. Stream buffer widths shall be established according to Table 6-6, which is based on stream classification. Stream buffers for “Streams of local significance” are shown in Table 6-7.

Table 6-6. Stream Types
Stream Type	Buffer (feet)
Type S or Streams of local significance	150
Type F1 (Salmonids)	150
Type F2 (Non-Salmonids)	100
Type Np (No fish)	100
Type Ns1 (Connected to S, F, or Np)	75
Type Ns2 (Not connected to S, F, or Np)	25

Table 6-7. Streams of local significance
Name	Buffer (feet)
Puyallup River	150
Hylebos Creek	150
Puget Creek	150
Wapato Creek	150
Swan Creek	150

3. Stream buffer increase.

a. The required buffer widths shall be increased as follows:

(1) When the Director determines that the recommended width is insufficient to prevent habitat degradation and to protect the structure and functions of the habitat area;

(2) When the frequently flooded area exceeds the recommended buffer width, the buffer area may extend to the outer edge of the frequently flooded area, where appropriate;

(3) When a channel migration zone is present, the stream buffer area width shall be measured from the outer edge of the channel migration zone;

(4) When the stream buffer is in an area of high blowdown potential, the stream buffer area width shall be expanded an additional fifty feet on the windward side; or

(5) When the stream buffer is within an erosion or landslide area, or buffer, the stream buffer area width shall be the recommended distance, or the erosion or landslide hazard area or buffer, whichever is greater.

4. Stream buffer reduction.

a. A stream buffer may be reduced only for a water-oriented use, per TSMP Section 19.06.040D.2 and in accordance with the provisions of this Section, when mitigation sequencing has been applied to the greatest extent practicable. The buffer shall not be reduced to any less than ¾ of the standard buffer width. The remaining buffer on-site shall be enhanced or restored to provide improved stream and riparian function. Any other proposed stream buffer reduction shall require a shoreline variance.

b. Low impact uses and activities consistent with the stream buffer function may be permitted within a buffer that has not been reduced depending upon the sensitivity of stream riparian area and intensity of activity or use. These may include pedestrian trails, viewing platforms, utility easements and storm water management facilities such as grass-lined swales that are used to sustain existing hydrologic functions of the critical area.

c. As an incentive, when the buffer area between a stream and a regulated activity is reduced or averaged, the applicant may dedicate the buffer to the City, in lieu of providing compensatory mitigation, depending upon the intensity of use and the stream type. The Director shall determine whether the dedication is of benefit to the City for the protection of natural resources.

5. Stream buffer averaging.

a. The Director may allow the recommended stream buffer width to be averaged in accordance with a stream habitat analysis report only if:

(1) The stream buffer areas that are reduced through buffer averaging will not reduce stream or habitat functions, including those of nonfish habitat;

(2) The stream buffer areas that are reduced will not degrade the habitat, including habitat for anadromous fish;

(3) The total area contained in the stream buffer of each stream on the development proposal site is not decreased;

(4) The recommended stream buffer width is not reduced by more than twenty-five (25%) percent in any one location;

(5) The stream buffer areas that are reduced will not be located within another critical area or associated buffer;

(6) When averaging the stream buffer, the proposal will provide additional habitat protection by including more highly functioning areas and reducing the buffer only in the low functioning areas; and

(7) When reducing the stream buffer, and the buffer is sparsely vegetated or vegetated with invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the remaining buffer shall be planted to create the appropriate plant community.

6. Stream standards.

a. Type F1, F2, Np, and Ns1, and Ns2 streams may be relocated or placed in culverts provided it can be demonstrated that:

(1) There is no other feasible alternative route with less impact on the environment;

(2) Existing location of the stream would prevent a reasonable economic use of the property;

(3) No significant habitat area will be destroyed;

(4) The crossing minimizes interruption of downstream movement of wood and gravel;

(5) The new channel or culvert is designed and installed to allow passage of fish inhabiting or using the stream, and complies with WDFW requirements;

(6) The channel or culvert complies with the current adopted City of Tacoma Storm Water Manual;

(7) The applicant will, at all times, keep the channel or culvert free of debris and sediment to allow free passage of water and fish;

(8) Roads in riparian habitat areas or buffers shall not run parallel to the water body;

(9) Crossing, where necessary, shall only occur as near to perpendicular with the water body as possible;

(10) Road bridges are designed according to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage, 2003, and the National Marine Fisheries Service Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossing, 2000; and

(11) Proposals for a steam crossing are subject to the review process in TSMP Section 19.02.040B.

b. All uses and development are subject to the remaining standards of this chapter including TSMP Section 19.06.040D.1 through 5.

7. Public access within a stream buffer.

a. Where possible, trails and associated viewing platforms shall not be made of continuous impervious materials. Natural trails with pervious surfaces such as, but not limited, to bark chip are encouraged.

b. Trails shall be located on or near the outer edge of the riparian area or buffer, where possible, except for limited viewing platforms and crossings.

8. Stream mitigation requirements.

a. Where a riparian wetland exists, all proposed alterations in the buffer of a stream shall be in accordance with the standards for the applicable wetland category.

b. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided at a 3:1 ratio for each impacted function and shall be provided as close as possible to the ordinary high water mark.

c. In the event stream corridor alterations or relocations, as specified above, are permitted, the applicant shall submit an alteration or relocation plan prepared in association with a qualified professional with expertise in this area. In addition to the general mitigation plan standards, the plan shall address the following information:

(1) Creation of natural meander patterns and gentle side slope formations;

(2) Creation of narrow sub channel, where feasible, against the south or west bank;

(3) Provisions for the use of native vegetation;

(4) Creation, restoration or enhancement of fish spawning and nesting areas;

(5) The proposed reuse of the prior stream channel;

(6) Provision of a qualified consultant, approved by the City, to supervise work to completion and to provide a written report to the Director stating the new channel complies with the provisions of this chapter; and

(7) When streambank stabilization is necessary, bioengineering or soft armoring techniques are required, where possible.

d. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has authority over all projects in State Waters which impact fish. Construction in State Waters is governed by Chapter 75.20 RCW, Construction Projects in State Waters.

I. Geologically hazardous areas. Geologically hazardous areas are critical areas susceptible to severe erosion, landslide activity, or other geologic events. In the City of Tacoma shoreline, high marine bluffs, like those along the Tacoma Narrows, are the most visible type of geologically hazardous area, although seismic, tsunami and erosion hazards have also been mapped.

The more severe hazard areas may not be suitable for placing structures or locating intense activities or uses due to the inherent threat to public health and safety. Vegetation removal during construction and development on or above the slope alters surface runoff and ground water infiltration patterns that can lead to increased slope instability. Erosion, excavation or wave action at the toe or base of the slope can also lead to increased slope instability.

Some erosion of shorelines and marine bluffs is natural. Erosion from “feeder bluffs” is the primary source of sand and gravel found on beaches including accretion beaches (gravel bars, sand pits and barrier beaches). Armoring of coastal areas, also called hardening, limit the natural supply of sediment and can eventually starve beaches down drift of the bluff, resulting in lowered beach profiles and the potential for increased erosion. Changes in the beach substrate resulting from reduced sediment deposition may result in negative habitat impacts along the shoreline.

Erosion and accretion are natural processes that provide ecological functions and thereby contribute to sustaining the natural resource and ecology of the shoreline. Sea level rise may increase the rates of erosion at the base of steep slopes causing an increase in the susceptibility of geologically hazard areas to severe erosion or future landslide.

1. Designation.

a. Designation of geologically hazardous areas. Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, landslide, earthquake, or other geological events. Areas susceptible to one or more of the following types of geo-hazards shall be designated as a geologically hazardous area:

(1) Erosion hazard;

(2) Landslide hazard;

(3) Seismic hazard;

(4) Mine hazard;

(5) Volcanic hazard; and

(6) Tsunami hazard.

2. Classification.

a. Erosion hazard areas. Erosion hazard areas generally consist of areas where the combination of slope and soil type makes the area susceptible to erosion by water flow, either by precipitation or by water runoff. Concentrated stormwater runoff is a major cause of erosion and soil loss. Erosion hazard critical areas include the following two sub-classifications:

(1) Shoreline erosion hazard areas: Lands located directly adjacent to freshwater or marine waters that, through the geological assessment process, are identified as regressing, retreating or potentially unstable as a result of undercutting by wave action or bluff erosion. The limits of active shoreline erosion hazard areas shall extend landward to include that land area that is calculated, based on the rate of regression, to be subject to erosion processes within the next 10-year time period. These areas include the following:

(a) Existing item in Section 19.06.040I.2.a(2)(b);

(b) Areas with active bluff retreat that exhibit sloughing or calving of bluff sediments, resulting in a vertical or steep bluff face with little or no vegetation; and

(c) Areas with active land retreat as a result of wave action.

(2) Soil erosion hazard areas: Lands not located directly adjacent to freshwater or marine waters that, through the geological assessment process, are identified as susceptible to erosion. Soil erosion hazard critical areas include the following:

(a) Areas with high probability of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion or coastal erosion, or channel migration.

(b) Any area characterized by slopes greater than 15 percent; and the following types of geologic units as defined by the latest geologic USGS maps: m (modified land), Af (artificial fill), Qal (alluvium), Qw (wetland deposits), Qb (beach deposits), Qtf (tide-flat deposits), Qls (landslide deposits), Qmw (mass-wastage deposits), Qf (fan deposits), Qvr and Qvs series of geologic material types (Vashon recessional outwash and Steilacoom Gravel), and Qvi (Ice-contact deposits).

(c) Areas classified as having severe or very severe erosion potential by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.

b. Landslide hazard areas. Landslide hazard areas are areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope, slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors. Landslide hazard areas are identified as any area meeting the following:

(1) Any slope area with the combination of the following three characteristics:

(a) Slopes steeper than 15 percent and a vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet.

(b) Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock; and

(c) Springs or groundwater seepage.

(2) Any area which has exhibited movement during the Holocene epoch (from 10,000 years ago to present) or that are underlain or covered by mass wastage debris of that epoch.

(3) Any area potentially unstable due to rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion or undercutting by wave action.

(4) Any area located on an alluvial fan presently subject to, or potentially subject to, inundation by debris flows or catastrophic flooding.

(5) Any area where the slope is greater than the angle of repose of the soil; that is, the slope relies on cohesion for stability.

(6) Any shoreline designated or mapped as Class U (Unstable), Uos (Unstable old slides), Urs (Unstable recent slides), and Class I (Intermediate) by the Washington Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas.

(7) Slopes that are parallel or subparallel to planes of weakness (such as bedding planes, joint systems, and fault planes) in subsurface materials;

(8) Slopes having gradients steeper than 80 percent subject to rockfall during seismic shaking.

(9) Any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of 10 feet or more except areas composed of bedrock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief.

(10) Any area within the City mapped by the most up to date Pierce County landslide inventory prepared by Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and LIDAR imagery.

(11) Landslide Hazard sub-classifications: Landslide hazard areas shall be classified into categories which reflect each landslide hazard areas past landslide activity and the potential for future landslide activity based on an analysis of slope instability. Landslide hazard areas shall be designated as follows:

(a) Active landslide areas. A composite of the active landslides and/or unstable areas, including that portion of the top of slope and slope face subject to failure and sliding as well as toe of slope areas subject to impact from down slope run-out, identified and mapped during a geological assessment of a site. An active landslide hazard area exhibits one or more of the following:

i. Areas of historical landslide movement on a site which have occurred in the past century including areas identified on the Washington Department of Ecology Washington State Coastal Atlas Map as Urs (unstable recent slide).

ii. Any landslide or areas susceptible to landslides as identified in the most up to date Pierce County landslide inventory by Washington State DNR or as updated.

iii. Unstable areas that exhibit geological and geomorphologic evidence of past slope instability or landsliding or possess geological indicators (stratigraphy, ground water conditions, etc.), that have been determined through a geotechnical report to be presently failing or may be subject to future landslide activity. The impact of the proposed development activities must be considered in defining the extent of the active areas.

iv. Interim areas are located between areas identified through a geotechnical report as an active landslide hazard area. Interim areas will be considered part of the active landslide hazard area if the required top of slope or toe of slope landslide hazard area buffer encompasses the area.

(b) Inactive landslide areas. Areas that have been identified as potential landslide hazard areas, but, through the geological assessment process per Section 19.06.040I.12, meet one of the following conditions:

i. No indicators exist that indicate the potential for future landslide activity to occur.

ii. A slope stability analysis has indicated that there is no apparent landslide potential.

iii. Adequate engineering or structural measures have been provided in a geotechnical report that mitigates the potential for a future landslide to occur as a result of current or past development activity. The engineering or structural measures must provide a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. Analysis of dynamic (seismic) conditions shall be based on a minimum horizontal acceleration as established by the current version of the International Building Code, or as recommended by the geotechnical engineer based on site specific conditions that require alternative values. The engineering or structural measures must be completed, inspected and accepted for the area to be deemed stable. Construction sequencing recommendations must be provided by the geotechnical professional when a proposed development will be constructed concurrently with the engineering or structural measures.

iv. A geotechnical report has been prepared and the results of that report indicate that an area is not a landslide hazard area.

c. Seismic hazard areas. Seismic hazard areas shall include areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of seismic induced settlement, shaking, lateral spreading, surface faulting, slope failure, or soil liquefaction. These conditions occur in areas underlain by soils of low cohesion or density usually in association with a shallow groundwater table.

d. Mine hazard areas. Mine hazard areas are those areas underlain by or affected by mine workings such as adits, gangways, tunnels, drifts, or airshafts, and those areas of probable sink holes, gas releases, or subsidence due to mine workings. Underground mines do not presently exist within City limits.[1]

[1] Note: An underground structure, consisting of a partially completed underground railroad tunnel, exists within City limits, as defined in the mine hazard areas map. The tunnel was constructed in 1909 and discontinued that same year due to excessive groundwater flows within the tunnel. The dimensions of the tunnel are presently unknown, and it was reportedly backfilled with wood, sand, and gravel in 1915.

e. Volcanic hazard areas. Volcanic hazard areas are areas subject to pyroclastic flows, lava flows, debris avalanche, and inundation by debris flows, lahars, mudflows, or related flooding resulting from volcanic activity. The most likely types of volcanic hazard within the City are mudflows, lahars, or flooding relating to volcanic activity. The boundaries of the volcanic hazard areas within the City are shown in the volcanic hazard map.

f. Tsunami hazard areas and seiche waves. Tsunami hazard areas and seiche waves include coastal areas and large lake shoreline areas susceptible to flooding and inundation as the result of excessive wave action derived from seismic, atmospheric, or other geologic events. Currently, no specific boundaries have been established in the City limits for these types of hazard areas.

3. Standard buffers.

a. Determining erosion hazard area and landslide hazard area buffer widths:

(1) The buffer width shall be measured on a horizontal plane from a perpendicular line established at the edge of the erosion or landslide hazard area limits (from the top and toe of slope).

(2) An undisturbed buffer of existing vegetation shall be required for a hazard area to protect existing native vegetation. The required buffer width is either the greater amount of the following two distances, or the minimum distance recommended by the geotechnical professional measured from the edge of the hazard area. In the case of a buffer reduced below these two distances, the standards of the buffer modification section shall apply:

(a) 50 feet from all edges of the erosion hazard area limits;

(b) A distance of one-third the height of the slope if the regulated activity is at the top of the slope and a distance of one-half the height if the regulated activity is at the bottom of the slope; or

b. Buffer modification:

(1) Modifications to the shoreline erosion and/or landslide hazard area buffer consistent with TSMP Section 19.06.040I.5 as applicable may be considered at the approval by the Director if the modification is found to meet TSMP Section 19.06.040I.11.

(2) A minimum 10-foot buffer shall be maintained and the proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. Analysis of dynamic conditions shall be based on a minimum horizontal acceleration as established by the current version of the International Building Code.

(3) All uses and development must meet the standards in TSMP Section 19.06.040I.6.

c. Structure setback:

(1) The minimum setback for structures from geologic hazard areas and their buffers will be determined based on a site specific geotechnical study.

4. Small project waiver.

a. The Director may approve new accessory structures which are not designed for human occupancy, such as storage or utility space, or additions to existing principal structures in a landslide hazard or erosion hazard buffer without submittal of a geotechnical report if no construction occurs over or within any other critical area or buffer, and if the applicant demonstrates that the proposal meets the following criteria:

(1) The new accessory structure or addition to an existing principal structure is on a lot that has been in existence as a legal building site prior to October 31, 1992;

(2) The development is consistent with TSMP Section 19.02.050B (Non-conforming Structures);

(3) The new accessory structure is less than 1,000 square feet of floor area for existing residences;

(4) Addition to existing residences, including decks have a maximum 250 square feet footprint of building, deck or roof area and are not closer to the top or toe of the slope than the existing residence;

(5) The installation of fences where they do not impede emergency access;

(6) Removal of noxious or invasive weeds, provided such areas are protected from erosion with either native vegetation or other approved erosion protection;

(7) It is not practicable to build the accessory structure or addition to an existing principal structure for the intended purpose outside of the landslide or erosion hazard area buffer;

(8) The location of the accessory structure or addition to an existing principal structure minimizes the impact on the steep slope erosion hazard area and/or buffer; and

(9) In landslide hazard areas the Director may require a soils report prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer or geologist licensed by the State of Washington demonstrates that it is safe to construct the new accessory structure or the addition to an existing structure.

b. Director's decision:

(1) The Director shall require the use of fencing with a durable and visible protective barrier during the construction to protect the remainder of the hazard area and buffer.

(2) The Director shall require additional measures to protect the remainder of the hazard area and buffer from the impacts of approving new accessory structures or additions to existing principal structures.

5. General regulations.

a. The following regulations apply to all geologically hazardous areas:

(1) New development, modification to existing structures, or the creation of new lots that would cause foreseeable risk from geological conditions to people or improvements during the life of the development shall be prohibited.

(2) New development, modification to existing structures, or the creation of new lots that would require structural stabilization over the life of the development shall be prohibited, except where:

(a) Stabilization is necessary to protect a permitted use; and

(b) No alternative location is available; and

(c) No net loss of ecological functions will result; and

(d) Stabilization measures shall conform to all provisions included in Chapter 19.08 of this Program.

(3) All developments shall be required to comply with the building code requirements of the TMC.

(4) All proposed modifications to any geological hazard area or buffer shall remain subject to mitigation sequencing and any unmitigated impacts resulting from a modification are required to be compensated for consistent with TSMP Section 19.06.040D.1 through 5.

(5) Mitigation sequencing shall not apply where staff has determined through a site-specific evaluation that there is not a significant geologic hazard risk and no other critical area exists.

(6) Any alteration shall not adversely impact other critical areas.

(7) Stabilization structures or measures to protect existing primary residential structures may be permitted where no alternatives, including relocation or reconstruction of existing structures, are found to be feasible, and less expensive than the proposed stabilization measure provided they are designed and constructed consistent with the provisions of Chapter 19.08 of this Program.

(8) Any development, encroachment, filling, clearing, or grading, timber harvest, building structures, impervious surfaces, and vegetation removal within geologically hazardous areas and associated buffers shall be prohibited except as specified in TSMP Section 19.06.040I.6 to 11).

6. Erosion and landslide hazards – Standards.

a. In addition to the general regulations set forth in subsection 5. above, development and activities within an erosion or landslide hazard critical area or their associated buffers shall incorporate the following additional standards in design of the proposal as applicable. The requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require regular and periodic maintenance to maintain their level of function.

(1) Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope, and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography; Terracing of the land, however, shall be kept to a minimum to preserve natural topography where possible.

(2) Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its natural landforms and vegetation;

(3) The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on neighboring properties;

(4) The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is preferred over graded artificial slopes where graded slopes would result in increased disturbance as compared to use of retaining walls;

(5) Development shall be designed to minimize impervious surfaces within the critical area and critical area buffer;

(6) Where change in grade outside the building footprint is necessary the site retention system should be stepped and regrading should be designed to minimize topographic modification. On slopes in excess of 40 percent, grading for yard area may be disallowed where inconsistent with these criteria;

(7) Building foundation walls shall be utilized as retaining walls rather than rockeries or retaining structures built separately and away from the building wherever feasible. Freestanding retaining structures that are designed to the same life and performance criteria as the adjacent structure;

(8) On slopes in excess of 40 percent, use of pole-type construction which conforms to the existing topography is required where feasible. If pole-type construction is not technically feasible, the structure must be tiered to conform to the existing topography and to minimize topographic modification;

(9) On slopes in excess of 40 percent, piled deck support structures are required where technically feasible for parking or garages over fill-based construction types; and

(10) Areas of new permanent disturbance and all areas of temporary disturbance shall be mitigated and/or restored pursuant to a mitigation and restoration plan meeting the requirements of this Program.

b. The development shall not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation onsite or to adjacent properties beyond pre-development conditions. Note that point discharges onto adjacent properties is not permitted without approved easements. Dispersed flows meeting pre-developed flows will be permitted provided other development standards can be met.

c. Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage. All development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage and should incorporate understructure parking and multi-level structures within the existing height limit.

d. Roads, walkways, and parking areas should be designed parallel to topographic contours with consideration given to maintaining consolidated areas of natural topography and vegetation.

e. Removal of vegetation shall be minimized and only that which is needed to accommodate a permitted structure. Any replanting that occurs shall consist of trees, shrubs, and ground cover that is compatible with the existing surrounding vegetation, meets the objectives of erosion prevention and site stabilization, and does not require permanent irrigation for long-term survival.

f. The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or need for increased geo-buffers on neighboring properties.

g. Structures and improvements shall be clustered where possible. Driveways and utility corridors shall be minimized through the use of common access drives and corridors where feasible. Access shall be in the least sensitive area of the site.

h. Shoreline erosion hazards – Standards.

(1) Shoreline erosion protection measures. Shoreline Erosion Protection measures located within or adjacent to freshwater or marine shorelines shall be allowed subject to the following:

(a) The proposed shoreline protection shall comply with the standards set forth in TSMP Section 19.06.040F (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas);

(b) A geological assessment shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions set forth in TSMP Section 19.06.040I.12;

(c) The use of shoreline erosion protection measures shall not cause a significant adverse impact on adjacent properties;

(d) The use of the shoreline erosion protection measure will not cause a significant adverse impact on critical fish and wildlife species and their associated habitat;

(e) If relocation of development is not feasible, the use of soft armoring techniques (soil bioengineering erosion control measures as identified in the State Department of Ecology and the Department of Fish and Wildlife guidance) is the preferred method for shoreline protection;

(f) Hard armoring shoreline erosion control measures may be allowed only when a geotechnical report as set forth in TSMP Section 19.06.040I.12 has been completed and indicates the following;

i. The use of beach nourishment alone or in combination with soft armoring techniques is not adequate to protect the property from shoreline erosion processes; and

(g) Hard armoring shoreline protection measures shall not be allowed for protection of proposed structures when it is determined that the proposed structures can be located landward of the 120-year regression area.

(2) Stormwater conveyance. Surface drainage into an active shoreline erosion hazard area should be avoided. If there are no other alternatives for discharge, then drainage must be collected upland of the top of the active shoreline erosion hazard area and directed downhill in a high density polyethylene stormwater pipe with fuse welded joints that includes an energy dissipating device at the base of the active shoreline erosion area. The pipe shall be located on the surface of the ground and be properly anchored so that it will continue to function under shoreline erosion conditions. The number of these pipes should be minimized along the slope frontage.

(3) Utility lines. Utility line will be permitted when no other conveyance alternative is available. The line shall be located above ground and properly anchored and/or designed so that it will continue to function under shoreline erosion conditions.

(4) Roads, bridges and trails. Roads, bridges, and trails shall be allowed when all of the following conditions have been met:

(a) Mitigation measures are provided that ensure the roadway prism and/or bridge structure will not be susceptible to damage from active erosion; and

(b) The road is not a sole access for a development.

i. Active landslide hazards – Standards.

(1) Any new development, encroachment, filling, clearing or grading, impervious surfaces, and vegetation removal is prohibited within an Active Landslide Hazard Area and buffers except as specified in the following specific instances:

(a) Stormwater conveyance. Stormwater conveyance shall be allowed when it is conveyed through a high-density polyethylene stormwater pipe with fused joints and when no other stormwater conveyance alternative is available. The pipes shall be located on the surface of the ground and be properly anchored so that it will continue to function in the event of an underlying slide.

(b) Utility lines. Utility lines will be permitted when no other conveyance alternative is available. The line shall be located above ground and properly anchored and/or designed so that it will continue to function in the event of an underlying slide. Utility lines may be permitted when it can be show that no other route alternative is available.

(c) Trails. Trails shall be allowed when all of the following conditions have been met:

i. The removal or disturbance of vegetation, clearing or grading shall be prohibited during the wet season (November 1 through May 1);

ii. The proposed trail shall not decrease the existing factor of safety within the active landslide hazard area, or any required buffer;

iii. The proposed trail cannot be located outside of the active landslide hazard area or its associated buffer due to topographic or site constraints;

iv. The proposed trail is for non-vehicular use only, and is no wider than 4 feet;

v. Trails shall not be sited within active landslide hazards or their associated buffers when there is such a high risk of landslide activity that use of the trail would be hazardous;

vi. Trails shall be designed and constructed using an engineered drainage system or other methods to prevent the trail from channeling water.

(2) No small projects waivers as described in TSMP Section 19.06.040I.4 are allowed in active landslide hazard areas and their buffers.

7. Seismic hazard areas – Standards.

a. A geotechnical report consistent with the requirements of TSMP Section 19.06.040I.12, shall be prepared for structures and improvements in a seismic hazard area. All developments shall be required to comply with the requirements of the most recently adopted edition of the International Building Code. The following types of projects may not require a geotechnical report:

(1) Construction of new buildings with less than 1,000 square feet footprint of floor or roof area, whichever is greater, and which are not designed for human occupancy, such as storage or utility spaces, and are not residential structures or spaces used as places of employment or public assembly.

(2) Additions to existing residences, including decks that have a maximum 250 square feet footprint of building, deck or roof area, whichever is greater.

(3) Installation of fences where they do not impede emergency access.

b. The exceptions above may not apply to areas that are also landslide hazard areas.

8. Volcanic hazard areas – Standards.

a. New developments in volcanic hazard areas shall be required to submit an evacuation and emergency management plan, with the exception of the following:

(1) Construction of new buildings with less than 1,000 square feet of floor area or roof area, whichever is greater, and which are not designed for human occupancy, such as storage or utility spaces, and are not residential structures or spaces used as places of employment or public assembly;

(2) Additions to existing residences, including decks that have a maximum 250 square feet footprint of building, deck or roof area, whichever is greater; and

(3) Installation of fences where they do not impede emergency egress.

9. Mine hazard areas - Standards.

a. Essential facilities, as defined by the currently adopted version of International Building Code, are not permitted in the area of the former railroad tunnel. Other development within 50 feet of the mapped location of the former railroad tunnel shall be required to perform a hazard analysis that includes the information specified in Section 19.06.040I.12.

10. Tsunami hazard areas – Standards.

a. Development in tsunami and seiche hazard areas shall comply with the zoning and Building Code requirements of the TMC. There are no other specific development standards for tsunami hazard or seiche hazard areas.

11. Approval of geologic hazard modification. Modifications to geologic hazard critical areas and their associated buffers shall only be approved if the Director determines that the modification:

a. Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties over conditions that would exist if the provision of this part were not modified;

b. Will not adversely impact other critical areas;

c. Shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. Analysis of dynamic conditions shall be based on a minimum horizontal acceleration as established by the current version of the International Building Code.

d. Has been evaluated to meet life safety standards under anticipated conditions by a qualified geotechnical engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington;

e. The applicant provides a geotechnical report prepared by a qualified professional demonstrating that modification of the critical area or critical area buffer will have no adverse impacts on stability of any adjacent slopes, and will not impact stability of any existing structures. Geotechnical reporting standards shall comply with the requirements of TSMP Section 19.06.040I.12.

f. Any modification complies with recommendations of the geotechnical report with respect to best management practices, construction techniques or other recommendations;

g. The proposed modification to the geologic hazard area or its associated buffer with any associated mitigation does not significantly impact habitat associated with species of local importance, or such habitat that could reasonably be expected to exist during the anticipated life of the development proposal if the area were regulated under this part.

12. Geologic hazard assessment and geotechnical report requirements.

a. The following are general requirements for a geologic hazard assessment and geotechnical report. Depending on the scope and scale of the project, additional information may be required. It is the responsibility of the qualified geotechnical professional to address all factors, which in their opinion, are relevant to the site.

(1) Project information and report purpose.

(a) Site address;

(b) Vicinity map; and

(c) Purpose (e.g. feasibility, permit application, final design).

(2) Site and project description.

(a) Site plan showing existing and proposed structures and site improvements, property lines, and existing contour lines based upon the best available data;

(b) Site plan shall show crest (top) and toe of slope, limit of recommended buffer, and recommended setback limits as determined by a geotechnical engineer;

(c) Surface conditions, including adjacent properties, structures, and rights-of-way;

(d) Description of existing and/or proposed sewer drainage facilities (sanitary and stormwater) on or adjacent to site when these facilities affect or are affected by the proposed work;

(e) Description of proposed structural and site improvements;

(f) Floor and foundation grades; and

(g) Anticipated excavation depths.

(3) Geology and geologic hazards.

(a) Review of available literature, geologic maps;

(b) Preliminary geologic hazard assessment (e.g. landslide-prone areas, peat settlement prone areas, liquefaction hazard areas); and

(c) Landslide history, including review of GeoMap NW, DNR landslide inventory maps or City files.

(4) Field explorations and laboratory testing.

(a) Exploration logs;

(b) Field and laboratory testing results.

(5) Subsurface description.

(a) Subsurface conditions;

(b) Geologic profile and site development cross-sections; and

(c) Groundwater evaluation and levels.

(6) Analyses.

(a) Include soil properties, layering, and geometry;

(b) Describe assumptions, analysis methods, results and interpretation.

(7) Conclusions and recommendations.

(a) Conceptual siting of structures and general recommendations;

(b) Earthquake engineering;

(c) Slope stability assessment including (1) existing conditions, construction phase, and post-construction phase and (2) areas affected beyond the site as appropriate;

(d) Foundation support recommendations (e.g. type, allowable bearing pressures, deep foundation capacities, settlement estimates);

(e) Temporary excavation and/or shoring recommendations, impacts on adjacent properties including utilities and ROW;

(f) Lateral earth pressure and resistance recommendations;

(g) Grading and earthwork including site preparation, compaction requirements, fill specifications, sequencing of earthwork operations, wet weather considerations;

(h) Temporary and permanent surface and subsurface drainage requirements, temporary and permanent dewatering, off site effects;

(i) Temporary and permanent erosion control; and

(j) Other recommendations as needed.

(8) Plan review and minimum risk standards.

(a) In landslide-prone critical areas, the following will be required with all permit applications:

i. A statement that the most recent plans and specifications submitted to the City have been reviewed and conform to the recommendations of the analysis and report and, provided that those conditions and recommendations are satisfied during the construction and use, the areas disturbed by construction or activity will be stabilized and remain stable and will not increase the potential for soil movement; and the risk of damage to the proposed development and from the development to adjacent properties from soil instability will be minimal.

(b) In other areas designated by the Director as having high risk potential, the following shall be submitted:

ii. A statement that the most recent plans and specifications submitted to the City have been reviewed and conform to the recommendations of the analysis and report, and provided that the conditions and recommendations are satisfied, the construction and development or activity will not increase the potential for soil movement; and the risk of damage to the proposed development and from the development to adjacent properties from soil instability will be minimal.

b. Additional reporting requirements in erosion or landslide hazard areas. The following are additional submittal requirements to those listed in Section a. above for a site located within an erosion or landslide hazard area.

(1) An evaluation of the erosion potential on the site during and after construction shall be submitted. It shall include recommendations for mitigation including retention of vegetation buffers and revegetation. The geotechnical engineer shall provide a statement identifying buffer areas at the top or toe of a slope based on geotechnical site constraints and the impacts of proposed construction methods on the stability of the slope, consistent with the minimum buffer requirements of this Program.

(2) The geotechnical engineer shall submit a statement in the soils report that the geotechnical elements of seismic design have been evaluated in accordance with the criteria and ground motions prescribed by the current version of the International Building Code for new structures or ASCE-31/41 for existing buildings. Slope stability analyses for erosion or landslide hazard areas shall be evaluated in accordance with the most current version of the International Building Code. The plan set for the project shall be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer for consistency with these design criteria.

(3) The geotechnical engineer shall make a recommendation as to which portion of the site is the most stable and the preferred location of the structure. The limits of the area of grading activity shall be identified in the recommendations.

(4) In general, no excavation will be permitted in erosion or landslide hazard areas during the typically wet winter months. When dirt disturbing activities, such as excavation or grading, is proposed, including the maintenance of open temporary slopes during the wet season as defined in TMC Chapter 2.19 or the City’s Stormwater Management Manual, technical analysis shall be provided to assure that no environmental harm or safety issues would result. The technical analysis shall be submitted for approval by the Director and shall, at a minimum, consist of plans showing mitigation techniques and a letter from the geotechnical engineer.

13. Third party review. In addition to the information provided pursuant to the requirements of this Program, the Director may require third-party review if the professional opinions of an applicant’s representative and the Department’s reviewers cannot be reconciled. Third-party review requires the applicant’s geotechnical and/or additional technical studies to be reviewed by an independent third party, selected by the Director and paid for by the applicant. The third-party review shall be conducted by a qualified professional geotechnical engineer.

J. Flood hazard areas. Portions of Tacoma’s shoreline are subject to periodic flooding that may result from factors including, but not limited to, unusual amount of rainfall over a short period of time, high tides, and wind driven waves. Tsunamis also pose a less frequent, but potentially more hazardous, type of flooding event.

1. Classification.

a. Classifications of flood hazard areas shall be consistent with the most recent official map of the Federal Insurance Administration that delineates areas of special flood hazards and includes the risk premium zones applicable to the City or as determined by the FIA, also known as “flood insurance rate map” or “FIRM.”

b. Where the flood insurance map and studies do not provide adequate information, the City, through its Public Works Department, shall consider and interpret information produced by the Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Department of Housing and Urban Development, or any other qualified person or agency to determine the location of Flood Hazard Areas and Coastal High Hazard Areas.

2. Flood hazard area standards.

a. All development proposals shall comply with TMC § 2.12.040 through 2.12.050, Flood Hazard and Coastal High Hazard Areas, and TMC Chapter 12.08 Surface Water Management Manual for general and specific flood hazard protection.

b. Development shall not reduce the base flood water storage ability.

c. Construction, grading, or other regulated activities which would reduce the flood water storage ability must be mitigated by creating compensatory storage on-or off-site.

(1) Compensatory storage provided off-site for the purposes of mitigating habitat shall comply with all applicable wetland, stream and fish and wildlife habitat conservation area requirements.

(2) Compensatory storage provided off-site for purposes of providing flood water storage capacity shall be of similar elevation in the same floodplain as the development.

(3) Compensatory storage is not required in Coastal A and V Zone flood hazard areas or in flood hazard areas with a mapped floodway but containing no functional salmonid habitat on the site.

(4) For sites with functional connection to salmonid bearing waters that provide a fish accessible pathway during flooding, compensatory storage areas shall be graded and vegetated to allow fish refugia during flood events and their return to the main channel as floodwater recedes without creating flood stranding risks.

d. Development in floodplains shall not significantly or cumulatively increase flood hazard or be inconsistent with a comprehensive flood hazard management plan adopted pursuant to RCW 86.12, provided the plan has been adopted after 1994 and approved by the department. New development or new uses in shoreline jurisdiction, including the subdivision of land, should not be established when it would be reasonably foreseeable that the development or use would require structural flood hazard reduction measures within the channel migration zone or floodway. The following uses and activities may be appropriate and or necessary within the channel migration zone or floodway:

(1) Actions or projects that protect or restore the ecosystem-wide processes or ecological functions.

(2) Bridges, utility lines, and other public utility and transportation structures where no other feasible alternative exists or the alternative would result in unreasonable and disproportionate cost. Where such structures are permitted, mitigation shall address impacted functions and processes in the affected section of watershed or drift cell.

(3) Repair and maintenance of an existing legal use, provided that such actions do not cause significant ecological impacts or increase flood hazards to other uses.

(4) Modifications or additions to an existing non-agricultural legal use, provided that channel migration is not further limited and that the new development includes appropriate protection of ecological functions.

(5) Development in incorporated municipalities and designated urban growth areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A, where existing structures prevent active channel movement and flooding.

(6) Measures to reduce shoreline erosion, provided that it is demonstrated that the erosion rate exceeds that which would normally occur in a natural condition, that the measure does not interfere with fluvial hydrological and geomorphological processes normally acting in natural conditions, and that the measure includes appropriate mitigation of impacts to ecological functions associated with the river or stream.

e. The owner of any property upon which new development occurs is required to record a Notice on Title if the property contains land within the 100-year floodplain and/or the Critical Area Buffer, before a permit may be issued.

f. Base flood data and flood hazard notes shall be shown on the face of any recorded plat or site plan, including, but not limited to, base flood elevations, flood protection elevation, boundary of floodplain, and zero rise floodway.

g. Allow new structural flood hazard reduction measures in shoreline jurisdiction only when it can be demonstrated by a scientific and engineering analysis that they are necessary to protect existing development, that nonstructural measures are not feasible, that impacts ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully mitigated so as to assure no net loss, and that appropriate vegetation conservation actions are undertaken consistent with WAC 173-26-221(5).

h. Structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be consistent with an adopted comprehensive flood hazard management plan approved by the department that evaluates cumulative impacts to the watershed system.

i. New structural flood hazard reduction measures shall be placed landward of the associated wetlands, and designated vegetation conservation areas, except for actions that increase ecological functions, such as wetland restoration, or as noted below. Provided that such flood hazard reduction projects be authorized if it is determined that no other alternative to reduce flood hazard to existing development is feasible. The need for, and analysis of feasible alternatives to, structural improvements shall be documented through a geotechnical analysis.

j. Require that new structural public flood hazard reduction measures, such as dikes and levees, dedicate and improve public access pathways unless public access improvements would cause unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public, inherent and unavoidable security problems, unacceptable and un-mitigable significant ecological impacts, unavoidable conflict with the proposed use, or a cost that is disproportionate and unreasonable to the total long-term cost of the development.

k. Require that the removal of gravel for flood management purposes be consistent with an adopted flood hazard reduction plan and with this chapter and permitted only after a biological and geomorphological study shows that extraction has a long-term benefit to flood hazard reduction, does not result in a net loss of ecological functions, and is part of a comprehensive flood management solution.

l. Actions that would result in an adverse effect to or net loss in habitat for Federally-listed threatened and endangered species shall not be allowed.

K. Aquifer recharge areas.

1. Classification.

a. Classification of recharge areas shall be based upon the susceptibility of the aquifer to degradation and contamination. High susceptibility is indicative of land uses which produce contaminants that may degrade groundwater and low susceptibility is indicative of land uses which will not. The following criteria should be considered in designating areas with critical recharging effects:

(1) Availability of adequate information on the location and extent of the aquifer;

(2) Vulnerability of the aquifer to contamination that would create a significant public health hazard. When determining vulnerability, depth of groundwater, macro and micro permeability of soils, soil types, presence of a potential source of contamination and other relevant factors should be considered; and

(3) The extent to which the aquifer is an essential source of drinking water.

2. Aquifer recharge area standards.

a. Aquifer Recharge Area Standards for development in aquifer recharge areas shall be in accordance with the standards in Chapter 13.06.070D, South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District, of the TMC and other local, state, and federal regulations.

(Ord. 28612 Ex. A, 2019-09-24, previously codified as TSMP Section 6.4.)

§ 19.06.050 Public access.

A. Introduction. Shoreline public access is the physical ability of the general public to reach and touch the water's edge or the ability to have a view of the water and the shoreline from upland locations. There are a variety of types of public access, including docks and piers, boat launches, pathways and trails, promenades, street ends, picnic areas, beach walks, viewpoints and others.

An important goal of the Shoreline Management Act is to protect and enhance public access to the state’s shorelines. Specifically, the SMA states:

RCW 90.58.020: “[T]he public’s ability 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.”

“Alterations of the natural conditions of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for …development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state.”

Public access and use of the shoreline is supported, in part, by the Public Trust Doctrine. The essence of the doctrine is that the waters of the state are a public resource owned by and available to all citizens equally for the purposes of navigation, conducting commerce, fishing, recreation and similar uses, and that this trust is not invalidated by private ownership of the underlying land. The doctrine limits public and private use of tidelands and other shorelands to protect the public's right to use the waters of the state. The Public Trust Doctrine does not allow the public to trespass over privately owned uplands to access the tidelands. It does, however, protect public use of navigable waterbodies.

B. Background.

This Public Access Chapter is preceded by several planning efforts to maintain and enhance public access to the shoreline in Tacoma. These efforts include the Ruston Way Plan, Shoreline Trails Plan, and the Thea Foss Waterway Design and Development Plan. Specific area-wide access standards that were developed in conjunction with past sub-area plans have been carried forward under the District Specific Standards, TSMP Section 19.06.050B.4. The public access policies and strategies included in this Master Program build on those established in past planning documents and gives consideration to other recreation, mobility and open space goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Public access projects identified in these plans have been integrated into a single, comprehensive Public Access Alternatives Plan. This plan will complement the policies and regulations of this Chapter by providing guidance for off-site mitigation and public expenditures towards public access and recreation within the shoreline.

When public access is required, the permit applicant should review the preferences and available alternatives and consider these in their permit application. Access preferences and alternatives may depend on a number of factors including the type of use and the district in which it is located. When off-site public access mitigation is appropriate, the permit applicant should review the Public Access Alternatives Plan for guidance and to identify priority projects. Permit applications that are not required to provide public access under the General Policies and Regulations, are not subject to the policies and regulations that follow. The following flow chart (Figure 6-2) depicts how the public access evaluation will occur within the permit process.

Figure 6-2. Public Access Requirements Flow Chart

C. Policies.

1. General policies.

a. Developments, uses, and activities should be designed and operated to avoid or minimize blocking, reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's visual or physical access to the water and the shorelines.

b. Public access should be a primary use in its own right or a secondary use that is created or enhanced as development or redevelopment occurs, provided that private property rights and public safety are protected. Public access elements may include, but should not be limited to the following:

(1) Bicycle paths along or adjacent to the shoreline;

(2) Shoreline parks;

(3) Beach areas;

(4) Piers, wharves, docks, and floats;

(5) Transient moorage; and,

(6) Trails, promenades, or other pedestrian ways along or adjacent to the shoreline edge.

c. New development should avoid or minimize conflict with existing public access or planned public access projects and provide mitigation if impacts cannot be avoided.

d. Impacts to public access from new development should be mitigated through the provision of on-site visual and physical public access, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security, or impact to the shoreline.

e. Development projects on public property or proposed by public entities should be required to incorporate public access features except where access is incompatible with safety, security, or environmental protection.

f. Public access provisions should be consistent with all relevant constitutional and other limitations that apply to regulations that are placed on private property, including the nexus and proportionality requirements.

g. Public access requirements on privately owned lands should be commensurate with the scale of the development and should be reasonable, effective and fair to all affected parties including but not limited to the landowner and the public.

h. Public access should not compromise, in any significant manner, the rights of navigation and space necessary for water-dependent uses.

i. Where public views and water-dependent uses conflict, the water-dependent use should prevail.

j. Public access provided by street-ends, utility corridors, and public rights-of-way should be addressed in public access plans and should be preserved, maintained and improved.

2. Access preferences and alternatives.

a. Preference should be given generally to provision of on-site public access. Off-site public access is appropriate where it would provide more meaningful public access, prevent or minimize safety or security conflicts, or where off-site public access is consistent with an approved public access plan.

b. Public access improvements should be generally consistent with the Public Access Alternatives Plan, the Open Space Habitat and Recreation Plan, the Mobility Master Plan, and any other adopted public access plan if the project area is covered by these plans. However, an alternative proposed by the Applicant may be approved if it is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies in this Program.

c. When off-site public access is required, including contributions to an established public access fund, priority will be given to projects that complete a continuous public walkway extending from the eastside of the Foss Waterway to the Point Defiance promenade, or other projects listed in the City’s Public Access Alternatives Plan that enhance public access and recreation within this shoreline area.

d. Public and private property owners should use a variety of techniques, including acquisition, leases, easements and design and development innovations, in order to achieve the public access goals and to provide diverse public access opportunities.

e. Where public access cannot be provided on-site, the City should consider innovative measures to allow permit applicants to provide public access off-site, including contributing to a public access fund to develop planned shoreline access projects.

f. Water-enjoyment and non-water-oriented uses that front on the shoreline should provide continuous public access along the water’s edge.

g. Developments within shoreline jurisdiction that do not have shoreline frontage should provide public access by providing trails or access corridors through or from their sites or by providing view improvements, including viewing platforms.

h. Where new development occurs in a location where access along or to the shoreline already exists, the new development should either contribute additional recreation or access facilities to enhance the existing access, or consider view improvements.

i. An applicant may construct public access improvements before site development as a part of an overall site master plan, which may be phased. The applicant would receive credit for those improvements at time of development.

j. Public agencies are encouraged to develop their own public access plans, consistent with the policies and regulations of this Chapter, provided they meet the requirements specified in WAC 173-26-221(4)(c).

3. Design.

a. Public access should be designed and located in such a way that does not result in a net loss of ecological functions.

b. Public access should be provided as close as possible to the water’s edge without significantly adversely affecting a sensitive environment or resulting in significant safety hazards. Improvements should allow physical contact with the water where feasible.

c. Public spaces should be designed to be recognizable as ‘public’ areas and to promote a unified access system, including the design and location of site details and amenities, and to provide a safe and welcoming experience for the public.

d. Public spaces should be designed for the greatest number and diversity of people and for a variety of interests.

e. Public spaces should be designed and located to connect to other public areas, street-ends and other pedestrian or public thoroughfares.

f. New public access should be sited and appropriately designed to avoid causing detrimental impacts to the operations of existing water-dependent and water-related uses.

D. Regulations.

1. General regulations.

a. Where feasible, new development, uses and activities shall be designed and operated to avoid and minimize blocking, reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's physical access to the water and shorelines.

b. Public access provided by street ends, public utilities, and public rights-of-way shall not be diminished without full mitigation for those impacts.

c. Existing public access shall not be eliminated unless the Applicant shows that there is no feasible alternative and replaces the public access with access of comparable functions and value at another location, consistent with TSMP Section 19.06.050D.3.b.

d. Publicly financed or subsidized shoreline erosion control measures shall not restrict appropriate public access to the shoreline except where such access is determined to be infeasible because of incompatible uses, safety, or security.

e. Public access easements and shoreline permit conditions shall be recorded on the deed of title and/or on the face of a plat or short plat as a condition of approval. Said recording with the County Auditor's Office shall occur at the time of shoreline permit approval. Future actions by the applicant and/or successors in interest or other parties shall not diminish the usefulness or value of the public access provided, unless a new shoreline permit is secured.

f. Required public access improvements shall be fully developed and available for public use at the time of occupancy of the use or activity unless there are mitigating circumstances and an agreement setting forth an alternative schedule acceptable to the Director is in place.

2. When public access is required.

a. Public access shall be required to the extent allowed by law in the review of all shoreline substantial development permits and conditional use permits in the following circumstances:

(1) The use or development is a public project.

(2) The project is a water-enjoyment or non-water-oriented use or development.

(3) The project is a private water-dependent or water-related use or development and one of the following conditions exists:

(a) The project increases or creates demand for public access;

(b) The project impacts or interferes with existing access by blocking access or discouraging use of existing access;

(c) The project impacts or interferes with public use of waters subject to the Public Trust Doctrine.

b. The City bears the burden of demonstrating that a proposed use or development meets any of the preceding conditions.

c. If public access is required pursuant to TSMP Section 19.06.050D.2.a(3), the City shall impose permit conditions requiring public access that is roughly proportional to the impacts caused by the proposed use or development. The City bears the burden of demonstrating that any public access required pursuant to TSMP Section 19.06.050D.2.a(3) is roughly proportional to the impacts caused by the proposed use or development.

d. When public access is required pursuant to TSMP Section 19.06.050D.2.a(3), the Director shall make specific findings that the use or development satisfies any of the conditions in TSMP Section 19.06.050D.2.a(3) and that the permit conditions requiring public access are roughly proportional to the impacts caused by the proposed use or development.

e. Public access to the shoreline shall not be required of the following:

(1) Activities qualifying for a shoreline exemption, per TSMP Section 19.02.030; or

(2) New single family residential development of four (4) or fewer units.

3. Access preferences and alternatives.

a. When required, onsite, physical access is preferred consistent with the standards of this Chapter and consistent with the planned public access system identified in the Public Access Alternatives Plan.

b. Required public access shall be commensurate with the scale and intensity of the proposed use or development.

c. Public agencies may rely on their own master plans that incorporate public access planning in-lieu of providing public access on a permit by permit basis for development identified in the master plan, provided that the agency’s public access planning satisfies the following requirements:

(1) The City of Tacoma must first approve and adopt the master plan including City review for consistency with the requirements of this Program and WAC 173-27-221(4);

(2) The planned public access shall be commensurate with the agency’s projected development plans for a time period to be established as part of the agency’s master plan;

(3) The agency’s adoption of its plan must provide public participation consistent with RCW 90.58.130 and WAC 173-26-201(3)(b)(i); and

(4) The plan shall include a timeline for implementation, a maintenance plan, and a schedule for reporting and monitoring to ensure ongoing compliance with the requirements of this Program.

d. New water-enjoyment or non-water-oriented uses and development that front on the shoreline and are required to provide public access subject to TSMP Section 19.06.050D.2.a shall provide continuous public access between the use and the water's edge. Improvements should be consistent with the district-specific standards in TSMP Section 19.06.050D.4, where applicable.

e. New uses and developments within the shoreline that do not have shoreline frontage but are required to provide access according to Section 19.06.050D.2.a shall consider view improvements, trail linkages or access corridors through or from their sites and connecting to an adjacent public access way.

f. The Director may approve alternatives to on-site, physical access to the shoreline if the applicant can demonstrate with substantial and credible evidence that one or more of the following conditions exist:

(1) Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist which cannot be prevented by any practical means;

(2) The configuration of existing parcels and structures, block potential access areas in such a way that cannot be reasonably remedied by the proposed development;

(3) Public access will jeopardize inherent security requirements of the proposed development or use and the impacts on security cannot be satisfied through the application of alternative design features or other solutions;

(4) The cost of providing on-site access, easement, or an alternative amenity is unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term cost of the proposed development;

(5) Environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated, such as damage to spawning areas or nesting areas, will result from the public access; or

(6) Public access is infeasible due to incompatible adjacent uses where the incompatibility cannot be mitigated.

g. Prior to approving alternatives to on-site physical access due to one or more of the conditions listed in TSMP Section 19.06.050D.3.f the Director should first consider on-site access alternatives such as limiting hours to daylight use, or alternative site configurations or incorporating design elements, such as fences, terraces, hedges, and/or other landscaping to separate uses and activities cannot be accommodated.

h. Projects which meet the criteria in TSMP Section 19.06.050D.3.f must construct off-site public access improvements of comparable function and value to the public access that would otherwise be required on-site or contribute funds of equivalent value to a locally established public access fund that will be used for developing or enhancing system capacity.

i. Required public access may include the preservation of shoreline views consistent with Section 19.06.070, the establishment of public access easements to and along the shoreline, enhancement of an adjacent street-end or park or other public access features commensurate with the degree of impact caused by the development.

j. Where a project is located within an area covered by an adopted public access plan, including the Open Space Habitat and Recreation Plan, the Public Access Alternatives Plan, Mobility Master Plan, or any other adopted public access plan, public access improvements shall be generally consistent with the adopted plan. However, the City may approve an alternative proposed by the Applicant that meets the goals, objectives, and policies in this Program.

k. A project applicant may participate in “advance mitigation” by providing public access improvements prior to the time a project is constructed.

l. In the "S-10" Port Industrial Area Shoreline District, when new uses or development are required to provide public access, the access may be provided on-site or off-site or via a public access fund contribution and shall not be subject to the on-site preference or waiver criteria in 6.5.2(C)(1) and (6).

m. For the “S-7” Schuster Parkway, “S-6/7” Schuster Parkway Transition, and “S-6” Ruston Way Shoreline Districts, the City shall initiate a public process to evaluate the desirability and feasibility of trail improvements between the Foss Waterway and Ruston Way and develop a design concept for the envisioned public access. Multiple trail alignments have been identified in the Public Access Alternatives Plan that should be evaluated, including an overwater or waterside trail, a reconfiguration of Schuster Parkway and the existing sidewalk, and the Bayside Trail. In addition, the City shall seek Federal, State, and regional funding for the implementation of the preferred public access alternative.

4. District-specific standards.

a. As a result of past sub-area planning efforts, including the Ruston Way Plan (1981) and the Thea Foss Waterway Design and Development Plan (1992), the following shoreline districts have specific area-wide public access standards as a condition for new use and development.

b. If the required access identified for the shoreline districts in this section is determined to be disproportionate to the scale or intensity of the use or development, the Director shall consider alternative on-site access, including a reduced minimum average width, or different types of access, such as a viewing platform or direct water access prior to allowing off-site mitigation.

c. “S-15” Point Ruston/Slag Peninsula Shoreline District and “S-6” Ruston Way Shoreline Districts

(1) All new development that fronts on the shoreline shall provide a continuous public access walkway along the entire site’s shoreline adjacent to the OHWM, improved to a minimum average width of 15 feet and ADA accessible. A public access/view corridor from the street right-of-way to the public walkway shall be provided for each development and shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and ADA accessible. The required pedestrian circulation link shall be located within the required side yard/view corridor and be counted toward said side yard/view corridor requirement. Provision shall be made to provide access from the parking lot to the main building entrance.

d. “S-8” Thea Foss Waterway Shoreline District.

(1) On the west side of the Thea Foss Waterway, new development shall provide a continuous, unobstructed, publicly accessible esplanade or boardwalk fronting on the shoreline edge where the minimum improved surface shall be 20 feet wide. Connections between Dock Street and the esplanade or boardwalk shall be provided through designated public access/view corridors, and possibly additional public access corridors.

(2) On the east side of the Thea Foss Waterway, new development located to the south of, and including, the East 11th Street right of way, shall provide a continuous, unobstructed, publicly accessible walkway or boardwalk fronting on the shoreline edge where the improved surface shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide. Connections between the walkway and East D Street shall be provided through public access/view corridors as required in TSMP Section 19.06.050D.

(3) A public access/view corridor from the street right-of-way to the public esplanade, walkway or boardwalk shall be provided for each development, and shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and ADA accessible. The required pedestrian circulation link shall be located within the required side yard/view corridor and be counted toward said side yard/view corridor requirement. Provision shall be made to provide access from the parking lot to the main building entrance.

(4) On both the west and east sides of the Thea Foss Waterway, site amenities, such as benches, lights, and landscaping, as well as surfacing materials shall be included as part of the esplanade, walkway or boardwalk construction consistent with the Thea applicable waterfront design guidelines.

(5) On the western side of the Thea Foss Waterway, new permanent buildings are not permitted in any designated waterfront esplanade, boardwalk, or public access/view corridor unless otherwise specified, except that pedestrian bridges connecting development site buildings, weather protection features, public art or structures provided primarily as public access or a public amenity such as viewing towers, decks, and public restrooms may be located in or over these areas.

5. Design.

a. When public access is provided it shall be designed and located to achieve no net loss of existing shoreline ecological functions.

b. New public access shall be sited and appropriately designed to avoid causing detrimental impacts to the operations of existing water-dependent and water-related uses.

c. Public access shall be provided on the waterward side of the proposed development or use or, where safety or security considerations prevent access in close proximity to the water, the access shall be provided as close to the shoreline edge as is practicable.

d. Water-enjoyment uses and non-water-oriented uses that front on the shoreline shall provide a continuous public access walkway between the use and the shoreline edge.

e. Public access improvements shall be designed to minimize impacts to critical areas, ecological functions, and ecosystem-wide processes. A biological assessment or a habitat management plan consistent with TSMP Section 19.06.040 may be required for public access developments in shoreline jurisdiction. The City may require that critical areas and/or marine buffers be increased based upon the results of that assessment. Full mitigation of impacts shall be required.

f. In instances where public access is proposed in conjunction with a restoration or environmental mitigation project that includes work within a critical area or its buffer, the public access element may be provided within a critical area or its buffer provided it is the minimum necessary to provide an access function appropriate to the site and is consistent with applicable requirements in this Program. The design and location of said access feature shall not compromise the ability of the restoration project’s ability to achieve its intended objectives.

g. Public access sites shall be connected directly to adjacent public streets and trails.

h. The standard state approved logo or other signs that indicate the public's right of access and hours of access shall be constructed, installed, and maintained by the applicant. Signs may control or restrict public access as a condition of permit approval.

i. All public access sites city wide shall provide site furnishings appropriate for the intended use of the access site, the estimated demand, site context and hours of use.

j. Public access improvements shall include provisions for disabled and physically impaired persons where reasonably feasible.

(Ord. 28612 Ex. A, 2019-09-24, previously codified as TSMP Section 6.5.)

§ 19.06.060 Vegetation conservation.

A. Vegetation conservation includes activities to protect and restore vegetation along or near marine and freshwater shorelines that contribute to the ecological functions of shoreline areas. Vegetation conservation provisions include the prevention or restriction of plant clearing and earth grading, vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds and nonnative species.

Unless otherwise stated, vegetation conservation does not include those activities covered under the Washington State Forest Practices Act, except for conversion to other uses and those other forest practice activities over which local governments have authority. Vegetation conservation provisions apply even to those shoreline uses and developments that are exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit. Vegetation conservation standards do not apply retroactively to existing uses and structures.

B. Policies.

1. Where new developments and/or uses are proposed, native shoreline vegetation should be conserved and/or enhanced to maintain shoreline ecological functions and/or processes and mitigate the direct, indirect and/or cumulative impacts of shoreline development, wherever feasible. It is recognized that all vegetation is beneficial to the shoreline; however, native vegetation is preferable and is the term used in this section. Important functions of shoreline vegetation include, but are not limited to:

a. Providing shade necessary to maintain water temperatures required by salmonid, forage fish, and other aquatic biota;

b. Regulating microclimate in riparian and nearshore areas;

c. Providing organic inputs necessary for aquatic life, including providing food in the form of various insects and other benthic macro invertebrates;

d. Stabilizing banks, minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and reducing the occurrence/severity of landslides;

e. Reducing fine sediment input into the aquatic environment by minimizing erosion, aiding infiltration, and retaining runoff;

f. Improving water quality through filtration and vegetative uptake of nutrients and pollutants;

g. Providing a source of large woody debris to moderate flows, create hydraulic roughness, form pools, and increase aquatic diversity for salmonid and other species;

h. Providing habitat for wildlife, including connectivity for travel and migration corridors.

2. Limit removal of native vegetation to the minimum necessary to accommodate shoreline development.

3. Restrict native vegetation removal within shoreline jurisdiction in order to maintain the functions and values of the shoreline environment, including protection of habitat and shoreline bluffs.

4. Use best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion.

5. Voluntary restoration plans and projects should incorporate native vegetation management plans that are similar to the standards as specified in TSMP Section 19.06.060C.3. below.

6. Maintaining well-vegetated shorelines is preferred over clearing vegetation to create views or provide lawns. Limited and selective clearing for views and lawns consistent with the requirements specified in TSMP Section 19.06.040F.4, Biodiversity Areas and Corridors Modifications, may be permitted when slope stability and ecological functions are not compromised. Trimming and pruning consistent with the requirements specified in TSMP Section 19.06.040F.4 are generally preferred over removal of native vegetation.

7. Property owners are strongly encouraged to avoid use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.

8. Shoreline landowners are encouraged to preserve and enhance native woody vegetation and native groundcovers to stabilize soils and provide habitat.

C. Regulations.

1. Proponents of all new shoreline uses or developments shall demonstrate that site designs and layouts are consistent with the policies of this section to ensure shoreline functions, values, and processes are maintained and preserved. A shoreline permit or written statement of exemption shall not mandate, nor guarantee, unobstructed horizontal or lateral visibility of the water, shoreline or any specific feature near or far.

2. Proponents of all new shoreline uses or developments shall maintain existing native shoreline vegetation to the maximum extent practicable.

3. Administrative review is required for all proposals to modify native shoreline vegetation when a clearing permit under TMC Chapter 2.19 is not required. This review will include any proposal to clear native vegetation, trim or prune trees, remove trees, or remove hazard trees. Administrative review will require the preparation and approval of a vegetation management plan as described below.

4. Removal of native vegetation within shoreline jurisdiction shall only be permitted upon approval of a detailed vegetation management plan prepared by a qualified professional that also meets the requirements specified in TSMP Section 19.06.040F.4. The vegetation management plan shall include:

a. A map illustrating the distribution of existing plant communities in the area proposed for clearing and/or grading. The map must be accompanied by a description of the vegetative condition of the site, including plant species, plant density, any natural or man made disturbances, overhanging vegetation, the functions served by the existing plant community (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat values, slope stabilization) and the presence and distribution of noxious weeds.

b. A description of the shade conditions created by existing vegetation. This description shall include an inventory of overhanging vegetation as well as a determination of how much shade is created by standing trees, during midday at midsummer.

c. A detailed landscape map indicating which areas will be preserved and which will be cleared, including tree removal.

d. Drawings illustrating the proposed landscape scheme, including the species, distribution, and density of plants. Any pathways or non-vegetated portions shall be noted.

5. The following standards shall apply for removal and replacement of existing native vegetation and the removal of noxious weeds:

a. Proponents shall replace vegetation in such a way as to ensure that post-development functions are at least equal to the pre-development functions as identified in the vegetation management plan and to prevent site erosion. In Biodiversity Areas and Corridors, proponents shall replace vegetation according to the requirements provided in TSMP Section 19.06.040F.

b. Proponents shall use native species approved by the Director that are of a similar diversity, density, and type to that occurring in the general vicinity of the site prior to any shoreline alteration. The vegetation shall be nurtured and maintained to ensure establishment of a healthy and sustainable native plant community over time;

c. A minimum of 4 inches of wood chip mulch, or equivalent, distributed over the entire planting area;

d. The applicant may be required to install and implement an irrigation system to insure survival of vegetation planted. For remote areas lacking access to a water-system, an alternative method (e.g., hand watering) may be approved;

e. Replacement shall occur as close to the ordinary high water mark as practicable and shall include overhanging vegetation where feasible;

f. A description of the maintenance and monitoring strategies to ensure the replacement vegetation meets the standards contained herein; and,

g. For a period of three (3) years after initial planting, the applicant shall replace any unhealthy or dead vegetation planted as part of the vegetation management plan.

6. Trimming of trees is allowed without a vegetation management plan, provided:

a. This provision is not interpreted to allow clearing of vegetation;

b. Trimming does not include topping, stripping or imbalances; trimming or pruning must use proper methods as described in ANSI A300 standards to ensure tree health;

c. Trimming does not directly impact the nearshore functions including fish and wildlife habitat;

d. Trimming is not within a critical area or their buffers;

e. Trimming will not adversely impact a priority species; and

f. Trimming in landslide and erosion hazard areas does not impact soil stability.

7. Removal of native vegetation within the critical areas and/or their buffers shall provide a vegetation management plan consistent with the provisions of this chapter and shall additionally comply with the applicable critical area standards of TSMP Section 19.06.040.

8. Hazard trees that are within a critical area and/or its buffer, that pose a threat to public safety or an imminent risk of damage to private property may be removed provided that a report from a certified arborist (or related professional) is submitted to the City for review and approval. The report must include removal techniques, procedures for protecting the surrounding area and/or critical area and its buffer, and replacement of native trees. Where possible, cut portions of hazard trees are to be left on site as a habitat element such as a standing snag tree or downed woody debris.

9. The City may require a performance bond as a condition of shoreline exemption or shoreline permit approval, to ensure compliance with this Master Program.

10. If the timing of required installation occurs between April 1st and October 1st of any given year, said installation may be postponed until after October 1st of the same year, provided a written request for postponement is submitted by the proponent, the financial surety has been secured by the City and the Director has issued a letter of approval for said postponement of native vegetation installment.

11. Materials required in TSMP Section 19.06.060C.3 and 4, above, shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of any development permits on the site. Installation of all required vegetation and submittal of the maintenance and monitoring report shall be completed prior to occupancy for the subject use. As-installed reports shall be submitted to the Director at the end of each year for the five-year maintenance and monitoring period to assure compliance.

(Ord. 28612 Ex. A, 2019-09-24, previously codified as TSMP Section 6.6.)

§ 19.06.070 Views and aesthetics.

The following provisions provide for preservation and/or protection of scenic vistas, views of the water, and other aesthetic qualities of shorelines for public enjoyment. They include policies and regulations which protect public views of the City’s shorelines and waters; encourage shoreline uses to orient toward the City’s shoreline resources and ensure that landscaping of the uplands are consistent with the City’s vision of its shorelines.

A. View policies.

1. Shoreline use and development activities should be oriented to take the greatest advantage of shoreline views. Buildings should be designed to provide maximum view opportunities from within.

2. Shoreline use and development activities should be designed and operated to minimize obstructions to the public’s visual access to the water and shoreline.

3. As mandated by the Act (RCW 90.58.320), no permit should be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than 35 feet above average grade level on shorelines that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines, except where this Program does not prohibit such development and only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served.

4. Views and the physical form of the waterfront should be preserved by maintaining low structures near the water and at the tops of the bluffs, and by allowing non view blocking vertical development at the base of the bluffs.

5. Encourage the development of viewing areas wherever appropriate and feasible.

B. Aesthetic policies.

1. To the extent feasible and consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally, the public's opportunity to enjoy the aesthetic qualities of shorelines of the state, including views of the water, should be advanced.

2. Shoreline use and development that are adjacent to pedestrian access ways should orient building facades to those pedestrian routes and utilize façade treatments that maximize the enjoyment of shoreline areas.

3. Shoreline use and development should not significantly detract from shoreline scenic and aesthetic qualities that are derived from natural or cultural features, such as shoreforms, vegetative cover and historic sites/structures.

4. New development should emphasize the water as a unique community asset.

5. New development should emphasize the bluffs abutting waterfront areas as natural design features that give definition to the urban form.

6. New uses and developments in shoreline areas should be designed and constructed for a “human scale” and pedestrian orientation.

7. Encourage design details such as form, scale, proportion, color, materials and texture to be compatible within shoreline areas wherever feasible.

8. Provide for uniform and recognizable design and signage elements in public access and recreational areas.

9. Locate paths, benches, and picnic areas to take full advantage of marine views.

10. Consider the use of rooftop surfaces for open space and public recreation purposes.

11. View and public access corridors should be designed and developed to encourage pedestrian uses.

C. Landscaping policies.

1. Continuous planting or other ground surface treatment should be used to physically and visually link the waterfront areas to the City and to each other.

D. Regulations.

1. View regulations.

a. New development shall be located and designed to mitigate adverse impacts to views from public vistas, viewpoints, parks and scenic drives.

b. View corridors, as specified in Table 9-2, shall be provided concurrent with any new use or development.

c. Structures are not permitted in any required view corridor, except that weather protection features, public art, and areas provided primarily for public access, such as viewing towers and pedestrian bridges, may be located in or over these areas.

d. As mandated by the Act (RCW 90.58.320), no permit may be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than 35 feet above average grade level on shorelines that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines, except where this Program does not prohibit such development and only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. Private views of the shoreline, although considered during the review process, are not expressly protected. Property owners concerned with the protection of views from private property are encouraged to obtain view easements, purchase the intervening property, and/or seek other similar private means of minimizing view obstruction.

e. A new or substantially reconstructed building may only exceed the height limitation without a shoreline variance, when all the following criteria are met:

(1) The lowest floor of the building is elevated to meet the Base Flood Elevation standard.

(2) The added height is no greater than the difference between average grade level, as defined in the SMP, and the required base flood elevation.

(3) A view impacts assessment is completed which demonstrates:

(a) The requirements of the Act, including RCW 90.58.320, are satisfied, and

(b) Locally significant public views are protected.

f. Protection and/or enhancement of critical areas and their associated buffers shall be preferred over provisions for visual access, when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two.

g. Water-dependent uses and/or public access uses shall be preferred over provisions for visual access, when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two.

h. View protection does not justify the excessive removal of vegetation to create views or enhance partial existing views. Retaining vegetation and “windowing” or other pruning techniques shall always be preferred options over vegetation removal.

2. Aesthetic regulations.

a. Buildings shall incorporate architectural features that reduce scale such as setbacks, pitched roofs, offsets, angled facets, and recesses.

b. The first floor of structures adjacent to pedestrian public access-ways or street ROW shall be designed to maximize transparency, where appropriate given the type of use and its location in the shoreline.

c. Building surfaces on or adjacent to the water shall employ materials that minimize reflected light.

d. Building and site development shall comply with the transit support standards of TMC § 13.06.090H, the pedestrian and bicycle support standards of TMC § 13.06.090F, and the short term rental standards of TMC § 13.06.080M.

e. Building mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into building architectural features, such as pitched roofs, to the maximum extent possible. Where mechanical equipment cannot be incorporated into architectural features, a visual screen shall be provided consistent with building exterior materials that obstructs views of such equipment.

f. Fences, walls, hedges and other similar appurtenances and accessory structures shall be designed in a manner that does not preclude or significantly interfere with the public’s view of the water, to the extent feasible.

3. Landscaping regulations.

a. Building and site development or redevelopment shall comply with the landscaping and buffering standards of TMC § 13.06.090B and TMC § 13.06.090J.

b. As part of meeting project site area landscaping requirements, the applicant for a proposed new development or redevelopment project upland of the ordinary high water mark, must submit a landscaping plan for approval specifying installation of minimum ten-foot wide planting bed(s) of native riparian vegetation within and along portions of the fifteen-foot wide strip of land lying immediately landward of (a) the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for currently unarmored shorelines, or (b) the landward edge of existing shoreline armoring for currently armored shorelines. Where portions of already-developed sites are proposed to be redeveloped, the planting bed(s) shall only be required along those redeveloping portion(s) of the site actually abutting the shoreline. Riparian vegetation should be encouraged, but not required, elsewhere on the project site for aesthetic continuity with the riparian vegetation within the bed(s) required along the shoreline. These landscaping requirements do not apply to upland parcels which do not have shoreline frontage, those structures which are overwater, and development that does not have legal access to the shoreline area such as utility projects with limited easement areas. The landscaping plan must also meet the following requirements:

(1) Locations and sizes of required shoreline planting beds. The landscaping plan shall specify (a) particular species of native salt tolerant riparian vegetation that are to be planted in ground-level or raised planting beds (see the next section), (b) that each planting bed shall be a minimum of ten feet in width and a minimum of ten feet in length (a minimum of one hundred square feet), and (c) that the total minimum linear footage of planting beds along the project's shoreline shall be fifty percent of the project's shoreline length;

(2) Plant selection. The native riparian plant species shall be specified on the landscaping plan. The suitability of the species must be reviewed and approved by a biologist/riparian plant specialist. The plant names listed on the landscaping plan shall comply with the names generally accepted in the riparian plant nursery trade. The plan shall further specify that (a) all plant materials shall be true to species and variety and legibly tagged, and (b) riparian plant materials shall be nursery grown in the Puget Sound area of Washington except that dug plants may be used upon approval of the biologist/riparian plant specialist;

(3) Plant sizes. The landscaping plan shall specify the sizes of the riparian plants to be installed. The plan may also specify that larger stock may be substituted provided that (a) it has not been cut back to the specified size, and (b) the root ball is proportionate to the size of the plant. Because smaller stock may be acceptable based upon site-specific conditions, the plan may specify that the biologist/riparian plant specialist may make field determinations to substitute smaller stock for the stock size set forth on the plan.

(4) Site preparation. The landscaping plan shall specify that (a) an amended planting soil shall be placed in the planting beds if needed, (b) all existing exotic vegetation must be removed from the planting beds, and (c) the project biologist/riparian plant specialist may make field determinations for the installation of barriers to limit Canada geese intrusion and feeding on installed plants;

(5) Plant monitoring. The landscaping plan shall specify that five year monitoring will be conducted to ensure the long-term survival and stability of the riparian planting beds, with the elements of the monitoring to be (a) annual inspections of the plants, (b) replacement of failed riparian plants, (c) removal of exotic invasive species that may have become established, and (d) photographic documentation of planting success;

(6) Criteria for success. The landscaping plan shall specify that, at the end of the fifth year of the monitoring, the riparian planting beds shall be considered successful if the following performance standards are met: (1) a minimum eighty percent survival rate of the riparian vegetation within the planting beds; and (2) a minimum of fifty percent cover within the planting beds by riparian vegetation four feet tall or taller.

c. Where the strict application of the landscaping standards would pose an irreconcilable conflict with required public access, the required landscaped area may be reduced by 50% or fulfilled off site.

d. Where the strict application of the landscaping standards would pose an irreconcilable conflict with water-dependent uses, the required landscape area shall be installed to the maximum extent feasible.

e. Where vegetation enhancement has been required along the OHWM as mitigation for shoreline impacts, per the mitigation sequencing standards in TSMP Chapter 19.06.040, that enhancement may additionally fulfill the landscaping requirements set forth herein.

4. S-8 Thea Foss Waterway.

a. All new development in the “S-8” Thea Foss Waterway Shoreline District shall also be designed in accordance with the applicable waterfront design guidelines.

b. For all new development that exceeds 35 feet in height, the project proponents shall conduct a view impact analysis. The purposes of the view analysis are to assist in addressing the requirements of the Act, including RCW 90.58.320, and to protect 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.

c. The view analysis required under TSMP Section 19.06.070D.4.b shall include the following:

(1) 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.

(2) The view analysis shall also identify potential impacts to the locally significant public view of Mount Rainier, behind the 11th Street Bridge, as seen from the northern end of the southernmost viewpoint projection in Firefighter’s Park.

d. 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 50 feet in height that will obstruct the locally significant public view of Mount Rainier, as described above.

(Ord. 28612 Ex. A, 2019-09-24, previously codified as TSMP Section 6.7.)

§ 19.06.080 Water quality and quantity.

The following section applies to all development and uses in the City’s shorelines, that affect water quality. The provisions protect against adverse impacts to the public health, to the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and to the waters of the state and their aquatic life. The purpose of these policies and regulations is to prevent impacts to water quality and storm water quantity that would result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, or a significant impact to aesthetic qualities, or recreational opportunities. They are also meant to ensure mutual consistency between shoreline management provisions and other regulations that address water quality and storm water quantity.

A. Policies.

1. Shoreline master programs shall, as stated in RCW 90.58.020, protect against adverse impacts to the public health, to the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and to the waters of the state and their aquatic life, through implementation of the following principles:

a. Prevent impacts to water quality and surface water quantity that would result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, or a significant impact to aesthetic qualities or recreational opportunities.

b. Ensure mutual consistency between shoreline management provisions and other regulations that address water quality and surface water quantity. The regulations that are most protective of ecological functions shall apply.

c. The location, construction, operation and maintenance of all shoreline uses and developments should maintain or enhance the quantity and quality of surface and ground water over the long term.

d. Shoreline use and development should avoid the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides or other similar chemical treatments to prevent contamination of surface and ground water and/or soils, and adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions and values.

e. Existing public surface water management systems and facilities should be retrofitted and improved to incorporate Low Impact Development techniques whenever feasible and as specified in TMC Chapter 12.08.

f. Improving water quality is one of the primary goals within the Shoreline Restoration Plan. The water quality improvement objectives should be considered and implemented into future watershed planning including prioritization and identification of retrofitting opportunities.

g. Effective erosion/sedimentation controls for construction in the shoreline areas should be required.

B. Regulations.

1. Shoreline use and development shall incorporate measures to protect and maintain surface and ground water quantity and quality in accordance with all applicable laws and in such a manner as to ensure no net loss of ecological function.

2. All proposed developments shall include measures to prevent the contamination of surface waters, depletion and contamination of ground water supplies, and the generation of increased surface runoff.

3. All phases of development shall be consistent with TMC Chapter 12.08 and the current Surface Water Management Manual and shall provide an ‘enhanced’ level of surface water management.

4. Best management practices (BMPs) for control of erosion and sedimentation shall be implemented for all development in shorelines through an approved temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plan, or administrative conditions.

5. Low Impact Development (LID) techniques shall be considered and implemented to the greatest extent feasible throughout the various stages of development including site assessment, planning and design, vegetation conservation, retrofitting and built-out management techniques.

6. All materials that may come in contact with water shall be constructed of materials that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants or animals. Materials used for decking or other structural components shall be approved by applicable state agencies for contact with water to avoid discharge of pollutants from wave splash, rain, or runoff. Wood treated with creosote, copper chromium arsenic or pentachlorophenol is prohibited in or above shoreline water bodies.

7. All proposed developments shall include measures for the replanting of the site after construction in such a manner as to ensure no net loss of ecological function.

8. All proposed developments shall provide storm drainage facilities which are separate from sewage disposal systems and which are constructed and maintained to meet all applicable standards for water quality, including TMC Chapter 12.08, Health Department Regulations, and other applicable Federal, State, and local regulations.

9. Chemical pesticides using aerial spraying techniques within the shoreline jurisdiction, including over waterbodies or wetlands, shall be prohibited unless specifically permitted by the Washington Departments of Agriculture or Public Health.

10. Pesticides, organic or mineral-derived fertilizers, or other hazardous substances, if necessary shall be restricted in accordance with the a) state Department of Fish and Wildlife Management Recommendations b) the regulations of the state Department of Ecology as the Environmental Protection Agency’s delegated authority and permitting body for the application of pesticides and herbicides to the waters of Washington State, and c) pesticide labels as per the authority of the state Department of Agriculture.

11. Pesticides shall be used, handled, and disposed of in accordance with provisions of the Washington State Pesticide Application Act (RCW 17.21) and the Washington State Pesticide Control Act (RCW 15.58) to prevent contamination and sanitation problems.

(Ord. 28612 Ex. A, 2019-09-24, previously codified as TSMP Section 6.8.)