by Kirby Lindsay, posted 14 March 2012
The City of Seattle – and, in particular, Senior Land Use Planner Margaret (Maggie) Glowacki of the Department of Planning & Development (DPD) – continues in 2012 to work towards a comprehensive Shoreline Master Plan (SMP.) As reported on Fremocentrist.com in March 2011, the SMP will set guidelines for the use of land, and water, within 200-ft of the Seattle Shoreline District which includes Puget Sound, the Duwamish River, Lake Washington, Green Lake, wetlands, flood plains and, of course, the Ship Canal and Lake Union. The diversity of these areas, and the mixture of uses involving commerce, recreation, environmental, and residential (sometimes all at the same time,) make it an extremely difficult task.
Fremont is a small part of the Shoreline District, but it does have a stake in this process. Our waterfront area consists of an extremely broad variety of uses, crammed into a very small area. The businesses, residents and recreational users that depend upon the Fremont Shoreline will have to live by the rules set down in the SMP when it is formally adopted.
Draft Two
In October 2011, the City released a second draft of the revised SMP regulations, and on March 15th thirteen members of the LUA met again with Glowacki to review their on-going concerns.
Glowacki will make a presentation of the SMP in the next few weeks to the Mayor’s Office, after which the DPD will review the SMP under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist. The SEPA findings will be published, along with another version of the SMP, possibly in mid-April for a 21-day public comment and appeal period. When this is completed, the SMP goes to the Seattle City Council for deliberation and adoption, before sending it for review by the Washington Department of Ecology. Only after all these steps will it be placed into enforcement, perhaps in 2013.
The new regulations will convert many existing uses of Fremont’s waterfront into ‘non-conforming use,’ terminology which alarms many meeting attendees. These business owners, and residents, have lived and worked on the lake for two or more generations, and fear losing the ability to continue on.
Yet, the second draft SMP concedes more to these users than the first. If ‘property’ owners (some of businesses and/or structures actually sit above or on the water – with very little land in their parcel) change the use of their building, or business, the SMP requires they conform to entirely different standards than when they were established. For example, the regulations about public access apply to newly constructed marinas, or those ‘substantially renewed’ – and when questioned thoroughly, Glowacki agreed to further clarify what constitutes ‘substantial renewal’ of an existing marina.
Clarifications Needed
Many attendees asked for clarifications on sometimes vague standards. Glowacki referred questions in the future to the intake staff at DPD, but the owners voiced strong concerns about the ability of intake staff to be sympathetic about grandfathered, non-conforming structures or uses.
Also, facts behind some regulations also came into question. Many of the buildings, marinas, and piers stand on creosote-coated pilings. “The intent,” of the SMP, Glowacki stated, “is to get rid of creosote piles on Lake Union.” While no one disagreed with this ultimate goal, everyone agreed as to the extreme cost of replacing what is basically the foundation of waterfront structures. The question came as to whether the creosote leeches into fresh water. Glowacki referred to data she collected from Department of Natural Resources. LUA members said that only applies to salt water. In fresh water, like Lake Union, no leeching occurs. The two groups agreed to exchange information on this – and Glowacki listened to descriptions of a splicing method currently preferred by owners who replace portions of piles when they rot – and leech.
The Why Of The SMP
Discussion often circled back to the ‘why’ behind certain regulations. The SMP currently forbids offices to be located in the second floor of a building that sits above water – unless they are offices of a water-dependent building. (An office for a tug company is allowed, but an office for a start-up software company isn’t.) However, often leasing office space – to whomever will pay the rent – underwrites the existence of water-dependent businesses using the rest of the property.
So some owners questioned how an office user on the second floor of an existing structure possibly causes a ‘net loss of ecological function.’ Glowacki pointed out that this is only one goal of the Shoreline Plan. Another is a ‘preference for water-orientated shorelines uses.’
Where Idealism Meets Reality
A big concession in draft two came with increased awareness of the 53 parcels on the Seattle shoreline (this includes a majority of the Fremont shoreline) that contain less than 35’ of land. Owners of these properties own, basically, water. The original SMP demanded a 35’ setback – that 35’ of land along the shoreline not to be built except with park-like amenities. While this has been seen as a hardship for many who own waterfront property, it is an impossibility for these 53 parcel owners.
Another discussion, on transient moorage, showed an even greater disparity between the idealistic goals of the SMP, and the realities faced by shoreline property owners and managers. Glowacki explained that the DPD wants to encourage movement of boaters along the Seattle shoreline, and offer transient moorage “for coming and going.”
Marina owners explained to her that maritime law (most of these shoreline properties come under governance by several different Federal and State agencies – and international maritime law) forbids property owners from untying someone else’s boat from their dock. Marina owners would rather offer temporary moorage space, which allows them to demand a boat owner to sign a document that allows the boat to be removed for non-payment of moorage fees. With Transient Moorage, someone can tie up and walk away from their boat – and it can be months before a marina can get permission to remove it.
As with all the concerns raised, Glowacki agreed to review each area of the SMP again. Unfortunately, the second draft still is not finished – and may not be done until just before the Mayor and City Council review it. To learn more about this important, but often overlooked, piece of regulations, and find out about future public review, refer to the DPD website. Stay tuned to hopefully hear more about the future of the Fremont shoreline.
Related Articles
- Define The Waterfront, Again
- by Kirby Lindsay, March 16, 2011
- A Picnic, And Prevention, With The Harbor Patrol
- by Kirby Lindsay, July 8, 2011
©2012 Kirby Lindsay. This column is protected by intellectual property laws, including U.S. copyright laws. Reproduction, adaptation or distribution without permission is prohibited.