[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
ct, -tt log fW66- 7 I Ilip SEATTLE's COMMERCIAL AND- INDUSTRIAL -SHORELINES:. INVENTORY BACKGROUND REPORT SEPTEMBER 1983 HT 168 S6 SEATTLE SHORELIW MASTER PROGRAM S6355 1983 REVISION- PROJECT CITY OF SEATTLE' DEPARTMENT OF tONSTRU.CTION. AND LAND USE. 400 MUNICIP4:60ILDNG- -SEATTLFVA. 98104 (20616255200 r P -Tibrajoy-l 1-1 - "I . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA C'GAI-T-4L SERVICES CENTER 22134 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE HARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 property of CSC Library SEATTLE'S COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SHORELINES: INVENTORY BACKGROUND REPORT SEATTLE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REVISION PROJECT Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use 400 Municipal Building Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 625-5200 August, 1983 The preparation of this report was financially aided through a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology with funds obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and appropriated for Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Department of Construction and Land Use William J. Justen, P.E., Director Margaret Fleek, Director, Land Use Division Contributing Staff: Elsie Hulsizer Lloyd Skinner Koko Kobayashi Daniel Farber Amy Luersen Michael Woodland Denise Lifton Hermia Ip TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter I Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 2 General Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 3 Shilshole Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 4 Elliott Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 5 Central Waterfront . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 6 Duwamish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 7 Ship Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 8 Lake Union and Portage Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 Lake Union Addendum: Waterways in Lake Union . . . . . 8-16 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Appendices of computer printouts of each site available on request. SMP14/3 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Revisions to the Shoreline Master Program The Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.190) requires that "The Department [of Ecology3 and each local government shall periodically review any master program under its jurisdiction and make such adjustments thereto as are necessary." The Seattle Shoreline Master Program (SSMP) was developed with extensive com- munity involvement, adopted by the City Council and approved by the State Department of Ecology; it became effective in 1977. Although a set of "fine- tuning" amendments to the Master Program was recently adopted, the SSMP has not been revised substantially since its adoption. That the Seattle Shoreline Master Program (SSMP) would need revising was recognized by the City even before the original Master Program became effective. That program included a Work Program calling for annual review and update of the regulations. The work program pointed out that "Because Shoreline Management is a new field, a major start-up effort is required to design and test operational procedures, develop monitoring and evaluation systems, build an adequate records system and determine basic measures for trends in shoreline uses." The purpose of this Inventory Background Report is to provide an adequate data base of trends in shoreline uses in order to develop a deliberate and organized approach to revising the SSMP. The question is often asked as to whether the Shoreline Amendments that the Department of Construction and Land Use (DCLU) is working on are a part of the new Land Use Policies being prepared by the Mayor's Land Use and Transportation Project and the new Land Use Code being prepared by DCLU to implement those polices. The answer is that the new SSMP will be part of the new Title 23 Land Use Code but that no plans have been made to replace the existing Shoreline Goals and Policies of Resolution 25173. The Shoreline Goals and Policies were adopted by the City Council in 1976 after considerable public participation. They are recent enough and general enough to be applicable today. Although the Goals and Policies do not need replacing, they do need augmen- tation. Policies written for other portions of the Land Use Code (i.e., Single Family, Multi-Family, Neighborhood Commercial Area Policies) all include imple- mentation guidelines for use in writing the Code itself. DCLU is currently working on a set of Shoreline Implementation Guidelines to fill that gap. The Guidelines will be an intermediate step between the Policies and the Code. Like other implementation guidelines they will eventually become part of the Land Use Code (Shoreline Program) and will be used in discretionary decisions such as shoreline environment redesignations ("rezones"), variances and conditional uses. In addition to the Shoreline Goals and Policies, DCLU will also rely on the State Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology Guidelines for Development of Master Programs (WAC 173-16) for general guidance in writing the Implementation Guidelines and the code. Portions of the Land Use policies for other land use segments of the city will also be used where those policies affect or cover shoreline areas.. DCLU has begun this review by conducting an inventory of Seattle's nonresiden- tial shorelines. Additional work is being done to estimate the future needs of water-dependent commercial, industrial, and recreational uses; to identify the physical requirements such as water depth, water area, and backup land area needed by different shoreline uses; to review the record of shoreline permits requested and granted; and to develop an easier-to-use format for the SSMP. DCLU has also enjoyed the assistance of the Seattle League of Women Voters, which agreed to conduct extensive interviews with 50 water-dependent businesses in Seattle. Still to be completed is an economic analysis of the impacts of possible restrictions on the use of waterfront property for nonwater-dependent uses. DCLU has funds from a Coastal Zone Management grant to hire an appraiser to study the effect of water-dependency restrictions on property values and pro- perty tax revenues. The results of that study are expected in September of this year. DCLU is also exploring obtaining assistance from an economist in the Department of Community Development to compare the local economic contribution of such water-dependent industries as shipyards and seafood processing with nonwater-dependent businesses such as restaurants and retail stores. In the early stages of this work, DCLU staff limited the scope of the project to include only the nonresidential shorelines of the City. These included Portage Bay, Lake Union, the Ship Canal, the Shilshole area, Elliott Bay, the Central Waterfront, and the Duwamish. The predominantly residential shorelines of Lake Washington and Puget Sound were not inventoried. DCLU will not be proposing any reduction in the areas of Seattle's shorelines now zoned for residential uses. The Process for Changing the Shoreline MasterProgram Both state and local guidelines encourage a thoughtful and deliberative review before changes are made to land use regulations. For revisions to the SSMP, it is anticipated that the steps will be in order as follows: land use inventory; � background reports and proposed implementation guidelines; � public meetings to gather responses; � proposed revisions to the SSMP; � another round of public meetings; Mayor's Final Recommendations; a Draft Environmental Impact Statement; public hearing on DEIS; Final EIS; City Council review and action; and review by the Department of Ecology. As the ultimate decisionmakers, the Mayor, City Council and State Department of Ecology (DOE) will use all of the background material prepared for that purpose, as discussed above, as well as comments and suggestions of interested citizens. 1-2 The legislative framework for the decision is found in the State Shoreline Management Act, the DOE Guidelines for the Development of Shoreline Master Programs (WAC 173.16), the Seattle City Council Resolution 25173 (Shoreline Goals and Policies), and Article XV of the State Constitution governing harbor areas. Ideally, shoreline decisions will be made in a comprehensive manner, recognizing that certain businesses and uses can locate only on the shoreline, and that changes in one area of the shoreline will have implications for other@areas as well. Commercial and Industrial Shoreline Inventory The inventory of shoreline sites was performed during the second half of 1982. Each site was visited.by DCLU staff members, who carried'aerial photos, the official City Land Use Maps, and copies of any shoreline permits issued for the site. Inventory personnel estimated dry and submerged land area; water frontage; uses by percent of site; type of shoreline; number of fishing boats, floating homes, and so forth; and other information relevant to land use and shoreline management. All of this information was then entered into a computer along with information on zoning, the shoreline environment, and any shoreline permits issued for developments on the site. A full report on inventory methodology is available from the Department of Construction and Land Use. Also available is a site-by-site listing of inven7 tory data; interested,citizens are welcome and encouraged to review this infor- mation. It is our goal to present the decisionmakers with the most accurate and complete information possible. Therefore, if corrections to this report are necessary as a result of comments from citizens, those corrections will be made .in the background reports relayed to the decisionmakers. Depending upon the extent of corrections, they will be done either in the form of an addendum or as an actual revised background report to be given to the decisionmakers.. Current Shoreline Regulations It is important to understand the context in which revisions to a local master M rogram must be made. Washington State adopted the Shoreline Management Act W 90.58) in 1971. Consistent with other environmental legislation of its day,-the SMA established state policy which is protective of the shoreline as a limited resource. For example, the.SMA states: The public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic quali- ii@s 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. To this end, uses shall be pre- ferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline (RCW 90.58.020). In order to implement its goals of environmental protection and public access to the shoreline, the SMA further specifies that in urban areas.uses should be pre- ferred which require a shoreline location (RCW 90.58.100). The intent of this 1-3 preference is to promote efficient use of the shoreline by directing water- dependent uses toward already developed areas. The administrative guidelines for developing master programs (WAC 173.16.040) also emphasize that in urban areas a preference should be given to "water-dependent" uses: ".Because shore- lines suitable for urban uses are a limited resource, emphasis should be given to development within already developed areas and particularly to water depen- dent industrial and commercial uses requiring frontage on navigable waters." The SMA established a requirement that local governments develop master programs consistent with the new state law. Seattle's response to the Shoreline Management Act was to develop the SSMP, which became effective in 1977. (From 1971 until 1974, Seattle evaluated permit applications for sites within the shoreline zone by using state guidelines. From 1974 until the SSMP became effective, a draft version of the SSMP was used to administer the program.) The SSMP regulates development within 200 feet of the shoreline, and over water. The regulations are currently chapter 24.60 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and one part of the Zoning Code. In addition, approval by the State*Department of Ecology is required before any changes to the Master Program become effective. The purpose of the SSMP is to "implement the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and the goals and policies of Resolution 25173 by regulating development of the shorelines of the City in order to: (a) pre- serve, enhance and increase views of the water and access to the water, (b) encourage water-dependent uses, and (c) provide for maximum public use and enjoyment of the shorelines of the city" (SMC 24.60.005). The SSMP attempts to achieve these purposes by designating seven "environments" along the shoreline. These environments act as overlay zones to supplement the underlying zoning. Each environment identifies uses to be permitted or prohi- bited. A use must be permitted by both the shoreline environment designation and the underlying zone to be allowed. .The seven shoreline environments are: Conservancy-Natural (CN); Conservancy-Management (CM); Urban Residential (UR); Urban Stable (US); Urban Stable-Lake Union (US/LU); Urban Stable-Central Waterfront (US/CW); and Urban Development .(UD). In addition to the regulation of uses permitted, the SSMP establishes require- ments for maximum height and lot coverage. The Master Program also attempts to guarantee visual and physical access to the shoreline by setting "view corridor" requirements and provisions for regulated public access to the shoreline for all public property and for nonwater-dependent private property (with some excep- tions as provided in 24.60.400 - 24.60.410). Format.of the Background Report The chapters which follow present the results of the shoreline inventory, and identify some of the important issues facing the different areas. Chapter 2 presents city-wide general findings. Chapters 3-8 offer an analysis of indivi- dual areas. These are presented in the order they would be encountered by a visiting ship arriving from the Pacific: Shilshole, Elliott Bay, Central Waterfront, Duwamish, Ship Canal, and Lake Union. 1-4 The final section of each area report is devoted to the issues for that area as discerned by DCLU staff during the inventory process, during permit application reviews, from interviews with and questionnaires returned by business and pro- perty owners and from discussions with interest groups such as the Seattle Shorelines Coalition, the Seattle Marine Business Coalition, and the Lake Union Association. Although the issues differ from area-to area, a common theme runs throughout: should the "highest and best use" of an individual parcel of property be the ,,major land use control, or should restrictions be placed on uses to ensure a higher public good as embodied in the purposes of the Shoreline Management Act and the Shoreline Goals and Policies? This is true whether the "highest and best use" is perceived to be a restaurant on Lake Union or a heavy nonwater- dependent industry on the Duwamish. Property owners expect to obtain a reasonable rate of return on their invest- ment. Many see the displacement of a water-dependent use on the shoreline as a natural adjustment in the land market. Unfortunately, the development of nonwater-dependent uses on a site tends to be permanent, and can preclude future development of water-dependent businesses. In places the City may be faced with choosing between short-term economic return and long-term benefits. Seattle is blessed with a tremendous natural asset in its 95 miles of waterfront. The 36.5 miles covered by the DCLU inventory are some of the most intensively developed shorelines in the entire state, and represent an important economic and historic, as well as physical, resource for the city. In the coming months,.the people of Seattle face a challenge, but also an opportunity: to revise our progressive shoreline legislation in ways which address the needs of the future without abandoning the protection of public access and enjoyment embodied in the current Master Program. 1-5 CHAPTER 2: GENERAL FINDINGS 1. INTRODUCTION This chapter of the Background Report will summarize some of the inventory Is general and city-wide findings. It will also offer some comparisons of dif- ferent areas along Seattle's shoreline, and highlight the findings of DCLU's shoreline permit review. Chapters which follow discuss specific shoreline areas. The inventory project was limited to the non-residential shorelines of Seattle and included Portage Bay, Lake Union, the Ship Canal, the Shilshole area, Elliott Bay, the Central Waterfront, and the Duwamish River. Figure 2-1 illustrates the location of these areas. The areas were further broken down into "geocodes" for closer analysis, as shown in Figure 2-2. Small commercial areas on Lake Washington and Puget Sound were not examined. A total of 789 sites were analyzed, including.375 waterfront sites, 311 upland sites, and 103 street ends or waterways. Water frontage for the shorelines surveyed totaled 192,977 linear feet,, or about 36.5 miles. This included 175,.685 feet of frontage on waterfront sites, and another 17,292 feet on street ends or waterways. Excluding those street ends, frontage by area was as follows: TABLE 1 Frontage by Area Average Lineal % of Site Size AREA Frontage Frontage No of Sites Sq. Ft. Portage Bay 8,816 5.0% 50 79,518 Lake Union 25,830 14.7 101 81,638 Ship Canal .26,,045 14.8 53 244i383 Shilshole 8,486 .4.8 38 139,924. Central Waterfront 1,260 4.1 16 191,068 Elliott Bay (ex.C.W) 17,302 9.9 14 1,4339555 Duwamish River 812946 46.3 103 528@196 TOTALS 175,685 100.0% 375 This information is presented graphicall y in Figure 2-3. II'. WATER DEPENDENCY Each site was placed into a "water-dependency" category, based on classifi- cations used in the Shoreline Master Program. "Water-dependent" uses are those which are dependent on the water by the "intrinsic nature" of their operations and cannot exist in any other location. Water-dependent.uses 2-1 Figure Z-1 lo .-SH-ILSH LE SH,IP N L Jill PORTA E AKE NION I IIN I I II IN ELLIOTT ----- -- ... C NTRAL BAY ERFRONT x: SEATTLE STUDY AREAS COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL .SHORELINE INVENTORY 1983 Dept. of Construction and Land Use DU MISH 0 2 3ml N t .0 LU Y- U) @.A 4 04 0 Q) C%l 1-5 U) I AveS LO CD Aurora Ave 15 Ave NW q: Z 0 00 > 0 32 Ave NW Uj w 05W W 0 a CC ow- U@u C\l 02C w 0 000 FIGURE2-3 SHORELJNE SUBAREAS PERCENT OF WATER FRONTAGE DUWAMISH (46.6X) CENTRAL WFT (4. IX) SHIP CANAL (14.8Z) SHILSHOLE AREA (4. 8Z) PORTAGE BAY M) .LAKE UNION (14.7Z) ELLIOTT BAY (9.8X) FIGURE2-4 WATER DEPENDENCY WD-IC: WATER-DEPENDENT INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL PERCENT OF WATER FRONTAGE WD-REC: wATER-DEPENDENT RECREATIONAL WD-BOTH: WATER DEPENDEN7 BOTH INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL FL HM: FLOATING HOME WO-IC (42. 1%) WR: WATER RELATED MULT INCL WD: MJLTI-uSE INCLUDING WATER DEPENDENT AS A SECONDARY USE MRN-R: MARINE RELATED NON WD: NOT WATER DEPENDENT NOR WATER RELATED NO USE: VACANT WO-REC (14.)X) MRN R (.7X) NO USE (2.8X) FL HM (2.9%) WD-BOTH (5.2Z) NON WD (13. 1 WR (8.9%) MULTUSF (10.2%) were divided into "industrial or commercial" (WD-IC) and "recreation" cate- gories (WD-REC). The WD-IC category includes such uses as boat-building, boat service and repair, commercial ship moorage, and commercial float plane docks. Water-dependent recreational uses include pleasure craft marinas and waterfront parks. Some sites included a combination of industrial and recreational uses (for example, moorage for fishing boats and pleasure boats); these were classified as "water dependent, both I-C and REV (WD-BOTH). "Water-related" uses (WR) are those which are not intrinsically dependent on the water but which cannot operate economically without a waterfront loca- tion (for example, uses which transport raw materials by barge). Floating Homes were placed in their own category (FLHM). A new term, "marine-related" (MRN-REL), was used to classify those sites which do not meet the definitions of water-dependent or water-related, but which depend on maritime activity for the sale of their product or service (for example, bait shops, sail lofts, or propeller manufacturing.) Finally, a icategory called "multi-use, including water-dependent as a secon- dary use" (MULTI-INC-WD) was employed. Sites in this category are most fre- quently office buildings with accessory marinas. City-wide results for all waterfront sites except street ends wereas follows:@ TABLE 2 City-Wide Frontage by Water Dependency Category Lineal % of No. of % of Category Frontage Frontage Sites Sites WD-IC 739936 @42% 81 22% WD-REC 24,798 14 51 14 WD-BOTH 99070 5 18 5 WR 15,675 9 25 7 FLHM 5,055 3 51 13 MRN-REL 1,290 1 7 2 MULTI-INC-WD 17,997 10 9 NOT WD-WR 21,397 12 90 24 VACANT 6,483 4 18 5 TOTAL 1759685 100% 375 100% Figure 2-4 illustrates these results graphically. These figures indicate.that 61 percent of the frontage of Seattle's non- residential shorelines is used for water-dependent commercial or recreational activities. While the chapters which follow analyze the indi- vidual areas more closely, a brief review indicates that the Ship Canal and 2-2 the Duwamish River are the two areas with the highest relative percentage of water-dependent industrial or commercial frontage; 58 percent of the 5hip Canal's frontage is devoted to these types of uses, as is 53 percent of the frontage on the Duwamish. Shilshole Marina and Golden Gardens Park dom,inate the Shilshole area, where 48.percent of the frontage is water-depeodent recreational. Pottage Bay yacht clubs, marinas, and parks bring recreational frontage there up to-47 percent. Table 3 illustrates city@wide results by area., TABLE 3 Water Dependency by Area - Percent of Frontage TOT WD Area WD-IC WU-REC WD-BOTH IC and REC N T- o @LQ Pottage Bay 10% 47% 0 57% 5% Lake Union 28 24 13 65 5 Sh.ip Canal 58 18 .3 79 0 Shilshole,Area 0 48 0 48 43 Elliott Bay 28 36 81 01 Central W.F. 8 18 0 26 14 Duwami'sh 53 2 0 55 18 City-wide Averages. 42 14 5 61 1.3 2-3 TABLE 4 inventory Totals: Number of Sites by Use Predominant Secondary Use Uses Uses WF Upland WF Upland Residential 48 105 29 8 Floating Homes 52 12 Seafood Products 5 24 1 General Manufacturing 36 31 15 13 Marine Manufacturing 5 2 2 1 Boat Building .9 1 7 1 Ship Building 10 3 Transportation & Utilities 19 22 21 4 Marine Transportation 17 14 Container Terminals 2 Wholesale Trade 3 7 15 9 Non-marine Retail 5 10 10 13 Marine Retail 19 10 30 Restaurants 12 12 11 3 General Office Space 7 18 10 8 Non-Marine Services 17 46 61 32 Government Services 15 2 3 Educational Services 1 1 7 2 Marine Services 23 6 57 2 Cultural/Entertainment 25 2 13 1 Marinas 32 .51 Commercial Moorage 3 34 Open Storage 6 2 12 .Technical Instruments 1 1 2 Vacant/Underused 18. 29 76 4 Street Ends @80 21 Total Number.of Sites, 307 324 105 III. SHORELINE DISTRICT USES Table 4 presents inventor y results,summarizing the types of uses on shore- line district sites. These use categories are based on a modification of the Standard Land Use Classification system. Each site was assigned a pri- mary use, and, if applicable, as many as three secondary uses. Table 4 indicates that the most common primary uses on waterfront lots were street ends with no use ('80 sites), floating homes (52), residential use (48), general manufacturing (36), and marina's (32). 2-4 Secondary uses on waterfront sites were most frequently listed as non- marine services (61 sites), marine services (57), marinas (51), and marine retail trade (30). Upland sites were also assigned a use category.' Most commonly listed pri- mary uses on upland sites were residential (105 sites), non-marine services (46), general manufacturing (31), and vacant.or under-utilized areas (29). Non-marine services, non-marine retail trade, and general manufacturing were the most frequent secondary uses on upland sites. IV. STREET ENDS AND WATERWAYS The 103 street ends and waterways included in the inventory represent a great opportunity for public access to the water. 'The sites are distri-.. buted among the several areas surveyed as follows: Number of Street Ends Area or Waterways Lake Union 39 Portage Bay 11 Ship Canal 13 Shilshole Area 2 Elliott Bay 6 Central Waterfront 7 Duwamish 25 Seventy-three of the street ends were found to be vacant. Of the remaining 30, 17 were classified as WDREC; 5 were WDIC; 5 were NOT WD-WR; and one each were listed as FLHM, MRN-REL, and MULTI-INC-WD. The WDREC,category includes both street end parks and street ends used partially for moorage of recreational boats. V. PERMIT HISTORY DCLU has prepared an in-depth shoreline permit analysis, which is available under separate cover. That study indicates that since 1971, when the Shoreline Program began, 483 applications have been received for "substantial development" within the Shoreline District area covered by the inventory. These applications were received from 218 of the 788 sites inventoried. Decisions on the permit applications during these 12 years were made as follows: Granted outright 57% Granted with conditions 31% Den'ied 4% Withdrawn 4% Cancelled 1% In Process 4% 2-5 The.reason for the sm all number of denials appears to be that applicants are required to speak with the City in a pre-application conference prior to filing applications. At the meeting, applications for a use or bulk dimensions differing greatly from the Program are pointed out; thus a change in the proposal is likely to follow to increase the chances of approval. Frequently plans are returned for corrections before a final application is accepted. An examination of applications indicates that th e overwhelming majority of permits were proposing no.change in their degree of water-dependence; per- mits for new water-dependent and water-related uses outnumbered new nonwater-dependent uses by 36 to 18, while no change in water-dependence was indicated in 260 applications processed. These numbers do not correspond to numbers of developments given below since many developments were accomplished with two or more permits. Despite this'preponderance of water-dependent actions, two trends were noted in the permit applications which might cause concern. This first trend is the relative increase in recreational water-dependent developments compared to industrial-commercial developments. Throughout the city 12 sites have applied for totally new recreational developments withonly one recreational development being removed whereas 11 sites have applied for totally new industrial-commercial developments with 11 other industrial- commercial developments being removed. The greatest number of totally new recreational developments occured in Lake Union (6) which also experienced the 'greatest loss,of number of industrial-commercial uses (4). The second trend of concernis the number of applications (12) to change into the category multi-Use including a minor water-dependent use. Many of the new recreational developments discussed in the'paragraph above were developed as part of a multi-use development. Five applications (four in .Lake Union and one in the Ship Canal) were to replace an existing water- dependent industrial commercial use with a totally new multi-use develop- ment including recreational moorage. Three applications (on the Central Waterfront, Lake Union, and the Ship Canal) were to add a nonwater- dependent component to an existi ng water-dependent site. One application (on the Ship Canal) was to replace a nonwater-dependent industrial use with a restaurant, and one was to develop a residential/retail complex on a vacant lot on Lake Union. There was also an appl.ication (on Lake Union) to add recreational moorage to a nonwater-dependent office complex. Of the 12 multi-use sites, 8 involved restaurants and 8 (some were the same) were on Lake Union. Interested citizens are encouraged to review the complete Shoreline Permit Analysis report for more detailed information. VI. SUBMERGED TO DRY LAND RATIO AND SITE SIZES The ratio between submerged and dry lands can have a significant influence on the usability of waterfront lots for different maritime businesses. Some industries such as container shipping firms need large areas of dry 2-6 land for storage of material received or waiting to be shipped but only enough submerged lands to moor one or two vessels. Other industries s.uch as marinas need large areas of submerged lands for boat moorage but very little dry land (for parking), while still others such as shipyards need large amounts of both dry and submerged lands. Table 5 illustrates the city-wide average sizes of dry and submerged land according to the 1982 inventory's water-dependency categories. The reader- will notice that more than two -thirds of the "average" water-dependent industrial or commercial site is dry land, whereas only about one-third of a typical recreational water-dependent site is dry land.. Although the average site size varies in different areas of the city, these ratios remain surprisingly consistent. (In int erpreting Table 5, ft may be helpful to know that there-are 4.3,560 square feet in one acre.) TABLE 5 City-Wide Dry and Submerged Average Site Size, By WD Category (Size in Sq. Ft.) Dry as % Category 2U Size Subm ed Total Total WD-IC 463,442 220,836 684,278 68% WD-REC 72,972 153,797 236,574 31 WD-BOTH 1723,356 1443-155 316,511 54 WR 307,061 116,418 423,447 73 FLHM 5,409 16,512 21,922 25 MRN-REL 133,254 27,371 40,625 33 MULTI-INC-WD 1429074 85,765 227,840 62 NOT WD-WR 109,792 32$041 141,834 77 VACANT 84,333 52,506 136,839 62 VII. UPLAND LOTS Upland lots are lots within the shoreline district (within-200 feet of the shoreline) but separated from the water by a railroad track, a street, or other government-owned right-of-way preventing access to the.water. 2-7 Because upland lots lack access to the water, they cannot be used for water-dependent uses. In some cases, they can be used for non-water- dependent accessory uses to a water-dependent use, such as storage, parking, office, or other service uses. They can also be used for marine- related uses such as manufacturing or retailing of marine supplies. Throughout the inventory area there were 24 marine-related upland lots identified; 7 were in the Shilshole area, 1 in the Central Waterfront, 11 in the Ship Canal, and 5 in Lake Union. The number and extent of upland lots in an area depends on platting and on street and railroad right-of-way placement. Where streets generally run perpendicular to the shoreline or are more than 200 feet back from the water, there are no upland lots to consider in shoreline planning. Where streets generally run parallel and close to the shoreline, a large part of the 200-foot shoreline district may,be composed of upland lots. Table 6 illustrates the location of upland lots in the seven study areas: TABLE 6 Number of Upland Lots by Area Area Upland Lots Waterfront Lots Shilshole 18 38 Elliott Bay 23 14 Central Waterfront 29 16 Duwamish 44 103 Ship Canal 61 53 Lake Union 123 101 Portage Bay 12 50 The Duwamish area, where East and West Marginal Way are platted at a con- siderable distance from the shore, has the lowest percentage of upland lots. Areas such as Lake Union and the Ship Canal along the Fremont Cut where streets run close to the shoreline have relatively high proportions of upl.and lots. In general, upland lots tend to be smaller than waterfront lots so that the land area of upland lots in comparison to waterfront lots is much less than Table 6 might indicate. VIII. ADJACENT LANDS The State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 requires local jurisdictions to review regulations relating to lands adjacent to the Shoreline District so as to achieve consistency between regulations (RCW 90.58.340). In its paper "Adjacent Land Guidance" the State Department of Ecology states that "Logical boundaries for planning purposes are ... natural features such as 2-8 the tops of bluffs, vegetation limits associated with shore processes, or manmade features such as railroads an.d.h..ighways.11 Adjacent lands are reviewed in the pages wHch follow as part of the separate area discussions. IX. ISSUES In addition to the issues identified for each of Seattle's shoreline areas, there are a number of issues affecting Seattle's shorelines as a whole. A comprehensive analysis of the issues and possible solutions will be pre- sented at a later date with the Implementation Guidelines. The following list of questions is presented now as a summary of the issues: A. State vs. Regi nal vs. Local Pjanjai@n � What are the benefits or disadvantages to Seattle of planning from a state-wide and regional perspective as required by the State Shoreline Management Act? � Can we adequately determine what the state-wide and regional needs of navigation and commerce are? � What is Seattle's share of those needs? B. Competition Between Uses Should the marketplace be the sole control of the outcome of com- petition between water-dependent and nonwater-dependent uses or should some system of prohibiting nonwater-dependent uses from some or all of Seattle's non-residential shorelines be developed? Should all water-dependent uses, whether recreational or industrial be given equal preference on all of our shorelines? C. Environmental Protection vs. Water-De endency vs. Public Access How can Seattle best meet all three goals of the Shoreline Management Act on its shorelines? Are there areas of the Shorelines that are particularly suited to meet one of these three goals but not the others? How should this be determined? D. Economics . What is the economic impact or benefit to property owners from limiting the permitted uses on waterfront lots to water-dependent uses? . What is the economic impact or benefit to Seattle's economy as a whole from limiting the permitted uses on waterfront lots to water-dependent uses? 2-9 What mix of uses should be permitted on waterfront lots to ensure economic and efficient use of waterfront land by water-dependent businesses? Should only water-dependent uses be permitted or are there certain complementary nonwater-dependent uses that should also be permitted? Is the necessary mixture of water-dependent and nonwater-dependent uses different for industrial and recreational uses? Is there a "critical mass" of maritime businesses needed to main- tain a healthy marine economy and to prevent flight of marine businesses to other cities? How can that critical mass be determined? E. Incompatible Uses What uses are incompatible with water-dependent industry? With water-dependent recreation? How should incompatible uses be controlled? F. Port of Seattle How can the Port and the City better work together to plan for our industrial shorelines? G. Public Access How much public access is needed? Is quantity or quality of public access more important? Should developers be able to choose between providing for public access on their own property or contributing towards public access on public property? H. Water and.@ediment QuELlitX Are the current regulations in the SSMP adequate to deal with the growing concerns about toxic chemicals in water and sediments? I. Regulations in the Shoreline District 1. The overlay zone and dual regulations . How can conflicts between shore,lines and underlying zoning be minimized? . Which regulations (use, bulk, parking, design, signs, etc.) should be in shorelines and which in the underlying zoning? 2-10 2. Shoreline Environments 'vs. Zones Should each shoreline environment correspond directly to a single zone or should each environment overlap:several zones? Are there areas'of the city that are incorrectly zoned from a shoreline prospective? Should the shoreline amendment package to be presented to the City Council include changes in the underlying zoning as well as shorelines? 3. Bulk Regulations � Are there particular bulk regulations which tend to discourage water-dependent uses? If so, should they be changed in areas Iwhere water-dependent uses predominate? � Should there be different bulk regulations for water- dependent and nonwater-dependent uses? � Are there areas of the shoreline where views are so critical that they should be protected even at the expense of water- dependent uses? � How should the choice between water-dependency and views be made? 4. Upland and Waterfront Lots . What role do upland lots play in the maritime economy? . How should regulations for upland lots differ from regula- tions for waterfront lots? 5. Submerged Lands Is zoning needed at all on submerged lands or is the SSMP sufficient? 2-11 CHAPTER 3: SI-111-SllOLL AREA INTRODUCTION A. The Area 'The Shilshole Area as discussed in this report includes the north shore of the tidal portion of Salmon Bay west of the locks, and the Puget Sound Shoreline north to Golden Gardens Park, including the Port of Seattle's Shilshole Bay Marina. Figure 3-1 illustrates the boundaries of the Shilshole Area, which was assigned gedcode 25.in the inventory. Two major events-have changed the area from its natural state: the construction of the locks in 1917, and the construction of the marina breakwater in 1963. The locks changed the drainage pattern of the Lake Washington basin; Salmon Bay which once received drainage only from Lake Union now also receives drainage from the Cedar River and Lake Washington. The locks have also brought si:gnificant vessel traffic to the area by opening up Lake Union and Lake Washington to saltwater traffic. The marina breakwater changed open beach into protected moorage. The predominant activity for the Shilshole area is recreational boating. The Shilshole Bay Marina is the largest marina in Seattle and is a focus for sailboat racing. Also., Shilshole and Salmon bays are a major migratory rou.te for salmonid fishes enroUte to Lake Washington and, therefore, are favorite fishing spots for sports fishermen. The Shilshole area is also a major navigation route for commercial vessels going to and from the Ship Canal, Lake Union, and Lake Wash- ington. Pier A of the Shilshole Marina is used for transient moorage of commercial vessels, particularly fishboats, and commercial fishbuyers sometimes anchor in the bight inside the breakwater. Two mooring buoys maintained by the Corps of Engineers provide temporary barge moorage. B. Planning Efforts The Shilshole Area was originally de signated a Manufacturing District in the 1923 zoning ordinance. However, since 1947 it has been a mix- ture of manufacturing, commercial and residential.. Th6 Shilshole Marina site has changed from Manufacturing to Residential then back to commercial. This area is included in the Neighborhood and Commercial Area Policies ,currently being reviewed by the City.Council. The draft of the poli- cies shows an area from the Locks to 34th Avenue NW as Neighborhood Commercial 3 (NC3), an area from 34th Avenue NW to Shilshole Marina as Commercial 1 (Cl) and the Shilshole Marina site as Commercial 2 (C2). All areas would have a 40-foot height limit. 3-1 4 SF 9600 Y: X, Z d C SF sooo G . ..... . ... . 500n DLL riF -,I R@ -_@l r 'SHILSHOLE AREA 4@ ^^MMERCIAL AND INDUSTMAL CG so SHORELINE INVENTORY 1,983 Dept. of Construction and Land'Use SF 600- 5F 5= SF Soo. V, SF5001 CG 0 400 800 1200 2000ft. F-SF w -------SHORELINE DISTRICT SF SFm ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATIONS: cc' Conservancy Natural CN CM Conservancy Management 5F U R Urban Residential us Urban Stable US/CW Urban Stable/Central Waterfront SF ww US/LU Urban Stable/Lake Union UD Urban Development SF %w SF I SF fic IG CC PC 4L_3 L3 BN oD IG IG CG jr _4" %F !@xx) V The NC3 zone is for areas providing a wide range of commercial goods and services for a City-wide clientele. @The C1 zone is for areas with a predominant pattern of sales and services. The Commercial 2 zone would be for areas with predominantly non-retail functions--light manu- facturing, warehousing, storage, and wholesaling. 11. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The Shilshole Area is all tidal with a mean tide of 8 feet and range of 11.7 feet. The Shilshole Area can be divided into four subareas, each with their distinctive characteristics: A. Salmon Bay. This is a well-protected area between Puget Sound and the Locks. It receives freshwater discharge from the locks and therefore can be expected to have reduced saliniti.es. Except for the properties immediately adjacent to the locks, the area retains its natural sloping intertidal beaches with residential bulkheads constructed close to the high tide mark. The distance from the navigational channel to the high tide mark varies from near zero at the locks to 150 yards. Development along this stretch includes single family and multi-family residences (some over water), a bait store, and a small commercial moorage. B. Salmon Bay to Shilshole Marina. This area is more open to Puget Sound but is still protected from the worst weather by West Point to the south. It is characterized by waterfront lots of as much as 200 feet distance from street to shore and by shallow, intertidal areas offshore. Development includes two overwater restaurants at the south end where little dry land exists, one restaurant on land, two con- dominium developments, and a number of marine related stores and busi- neses. C. The Shilshole Bay Marina. The marina has been dredged, the shoreline bulkheaded, and a riprap breakwater constructed offshore to provide wave protection. The marina is the dominant land use in the area. Operated by the Port of Seattle, the marina provides wet and dry moorage for approximately 1,550 boats, launching ramps for small boats, a haulout and boat repair yard. An administration building for the marina includes the marina office, sailing clubs, retail shops, and rstaurants. A public boat launching ramp operated by the Seattle Parks Department is immediately north of the marina. D. Golden Gardens Park The Park provides a nearly natural beach open to Puget Sound. 3-2 III. REGULATIONS IN THE SHORELINE DISTRICT A. The Seattle Shoreline Master Program Those portions of Puget Sound lying seaward from the line of extreme low tide, are "shorelines of state-wide significance," as designated by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58). These shoreli- nes are major resources from which all the people in the state derive benefit. Due to this designation, local master programs must give preference to uses which favor public and long-range goals. The order of preference for uses, as established by the Act (WAC 173.16.040(s)) are those uses which: 1. Recognize and protect state-wide interest over local interest. 2. Pres-erve the natural character of the shoreline. 3. Result in long-term over short-term benefit. 4. Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines. 5. Increase public access to pubicly owned areas of the shorelines. 6. Increase the recreational opportunities for the public on the . 5horelines. The shoreline designation for the entire Shilshole Area is Urban Stable (US). The purpose of the US environment (24.60.345 SMC) is "to provide areas for controlled development and redevelopment, encouraging a variety and mixture of compatible uses while also main- tatning the existing character, scale and intensity of uses. The US environment permits housing, offices, retail shops, restaurants, open and covered wet moorage, marine construction and repair, marine service stations, yacht clubs, seaplane facilities, cargo handling and water-dependent manufacturing, log storage, sand, gravel and concrete mix plants (as a special use), and fraternal clubs. Hotels, principal use parking, nonwater-dependent warehousing and nonwater-dependent manufacturing are prohibited. Bulk regulations in the shoreline district in the Shilshole Area require a view corridor of 35% on waterfront lots, and permit lot coverage of 35% and height of 35 feet on both waterfront and upland lots. The fine-tuning admendments awaiting adoption by the State Department of Ecology permit 100% lot coverage and principal use parking and nonwater-dependent manufacturing on some upland lots. B. Zoninq The underlying zoning in the Shilshole Area is exclusively General Commercial (CG) on waterfront lots and a mixture of CG, Single Family 5000 and Lowrise Residential 2 and 3 on upland lots. Between the locks and NW 65th St. the zone boundary between waterfront CG and upland SF 5000 is not Seaview Ave. but a branch of the Burlington Northern right-of-way which is on the waterfront side of Seaview south of NW 60th St. and on the landward side north of NW 3-3 60th St. Because of this railroad right-of-way, some of the waterfront lots do not have legal street access and the commercial uses are not permitted to lease adjacent railroad land for required accessory parking. The LUTP has proposed to change this zoning con- figuration as part of the new neighborhood commercial area code. C. Interaction of Shorelines and Zoning The Urban Stable shoreline environment is compatible with the CG Zoning; most of the uses permitted by one are also permitted by the other. The CG zone provides some protection against incompatible uses by requiring housing to be a conditional use. D. Pierhead Lines, Harbor Lines, Federal Channel Lines, Waterway Lines A state harbor area, defined as the area between inner and outer har- bor lines, lies offshore of the Shilshole Marina and Golden Gardens Park. According to Article XV of the State Constitution, harbor areas must be reserved forever for conveniences of navigation and commerce such as wharves and landings. Because of its location seaward of the marina and park, use of the harbor area for its intended purpose is doubtful. In fact, the "conveniences of navigation," the marina, fuel facility, and launching ramp are all located shoreward of the inner harbor area. A state waterway, the Salmon Bay Waterway, leads from the outer har- bor line near the entrance of Salmon Bay through the Bay and into the locks and Ship Canal. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also main- tains a federal navigation channel in this area whose boundaries are generally waterward of the state waterway line. IV. ADJACENT LANDS The adjacent lands to the Shilshole Area include the Sunset Hill residen- tial neighborhood and greenbelt in the northern part and small Neighborhood Business and Multi-Family residential areas near the locks. V. SUBMERGED TO DRY LAND RATIOS The Shilshole area has a total of 1,292,150 sq ft of dry land and 4,024,966 sq ft of submerged land on its waterfront lot. The percent of total waterfront land which is dry is thus only 24.3 percent. This low percentage is typical of areas devoted primarily to water-dependent recreational uses throughout the City. VI. UPLAND LOTS The number and area of upland sites in the Shilshole area is determined by the distance between the high tide line and Seaview Ave. NW which varies 3-4 frjo*m zero near 60th NW to over 200 feet near the locks and Shil'shble Marina. Upland and waterfront sites are distributed as follows: Number of upla'nd'sites 18 Area of upland si-tes 165,995' sq. ft. Number of waterfront sites 38 Area of waterfront s,ites 5,317,116 sq. ft. VII. TRAFFIC Average daily traffic totals for the area are shown in Figuft The Port of Seattle reported in the Draft EIS for Expansion of Moorage at Shilshole Bay Marina that the majority of traffic on Seaview Avenue is marina traffic. VIII., PUBLIC ACCESS The Shilshole Area provides a number of opportunities for the public to see and enjoy the water. At the north end is the Golden Gardens Park with both a natural beach and a public boat launching ramp. There is a separate fishing pier just north of the marina and public fishing is also permitted from pier A at the south end of the marina. The public may'also walk along the sidewalk on the seawall of the marina and view the boats from park benches placed along the walk. Regulated public access has also been required in conjunction with shore- line permits for Stuart's Restaurant, the condominium immediately north of it, the Elk's Club, and one condominium building on Salmon Bay6 IX. RESULTS OF THE SHORELINE INVENTORY Tables 1 and 3 show the water-dependent classifications of waterfront lots in the Shilshole Area. There are no sites in water-dependent industrial- commercial use. Two sites., comprising 48% of the lineal frontage of waterfront, are classified as water-dependent recreational. Forty-throe percent of the water frontage is either nonwater-dependent, nonwater- related, or vacant. The use classifications (Table 2) also show the area to be marine recreation and residentially oriented, with residential uses being the most common use on waterfront (25) and upland (7) lots. The area has five lots with restaurants and 8 lots with marine-related retail. Although only two sites were classified as marinas, one (Shilshole) is the dominant use in the area. 3-5 TABLE 1 Water-Dependency by Lineal Feet of sites) in the Shilshole Area Water Water Dependency Frontage Percentage .LLa�r _jFee@j_ of Sites of FroaLU@. of Sites WD-IC 0 (0) (0) WD-REC 4070 (2) 48.0% (5.3%) WR 0 (0) 0 (0) FLHM 0 (0) 0. (0) WD-BOTH 0 (0) 0 (0) MRN-REL 140 (2) 1.6% (5.2%) MULTI-INC-WD 300 3.5% (2.6%) NOT WD-WR 3666 .(30) 43.2% (78.9%) VACANT 310 _L3) 3.6% 2 TOTALS 8486 (38) 100% (100%) TABLE 2 Primary Uses and Secondary in the Shilshole Area Primary Uses Secondary Uses Waterfront Upland W.F. Upland Use. Lots Lots Lots -Lots No Secondary Use 32 15 Residential 25 7 .2 Marine Manufacturing 1 1 Transportation & Utilities 3 2 2 Retail Trade - Non-marine 1 Marine Retail Trade 2 4 1 Restaurants 4 1 Non-marine Services 1 Governmental Services 1 Marine Services 1 Cultural & Entertainment Uses 1 Marinas 2 Commercial Moorage Open Storage 1 Vacant/Underused Areas 2, 2 Total Number of Sites 41 17 43 16 3-6 TABLE 3 Square Footage of Waterfront Sites by Water-Dependency WaLeL:Dek@nd _ of Sites 2rj_Lapd Submera@@Laqd Total WD-REC 2 620,300 3,7859,966 4,406,266 MULTI-INC-WD. 1 36,300 6,000 42,300 MRN-REL 2 8,300 6,900 15,200 NOT WD-WR 30 620,900 205,920 826j820 No Use or St End 3 6.t 35@ 20.180 '262530 TOTALS 38 1,2921-150 490249966 59317,116 X. ISSUES A. Match Between Shorelines ald Zo na EL The existing Urban Stable Shoreline designation appears appropriate for the Shilshole Area. The'shoreline inventory showed a mixture of. residential and commercial uses but no industrial uses. There were' no nonconforming uses identified in the survey and the permitted uses in the US environment match those of the existing CG zoning quite closely. The change to the new Neighborhood Commercia.1 Area Code is not expected to alter the match between zoning and shorelines. B-. Housing as a Conditional Use When the new Neighborhood Commercial Area Code is adopted, housing will cease to require a Council Conditional Use but will still require a shoreline conditional use in this area. The conditional use is considered desirable because although there are already a number of residences in the Shilshole area and although there are fewer incompatibilities between marinas and housing than between shipyards and housing, conflicts can still occur.. Marina activities normally include maintenance by boatowners which require the running of power tools which generate noise and dust. When the marina includes a boat haulout facility, the conflicts are more pronounced. The Seaview Boatyard at the south end of Shilshole has had to restrict its hours of operation because of complaints from residents of the neighboring condominiums. A proposal to build several con- dominium towers at the Shilshole Marina parking lot generated strong opposition from both residents of Sunset Hill and marina tenants. The residents were concerned with view blockage while marina tenants were concerned about possible parking shortages and possible restric- tions on in-marina maintenance activities on their boats. C. Constraints on Water-Dependent Development The Shilshole Area has not been developed for industrial water- dependent uses, and its potential for such use is limited. Industrial uses would not be compatible with the large number of 3-7 residential uses in the area nor with the restaurants. Support ser- vices are not available on adjacent lands. The shallow water and intertidal areas would require extensive dredging and bulkheading to accommodate industrial uses. Moreover, further development of water- dependent uses in Salmon Bay itself is limited because of the narrow area between the shore and the channel and the desirability of main- taining shallow water habitat in the salmonid.migration route. Some potential for additional shallow draft recreational moorage does exist between Salmon Bay and the Shilshole Marina. The present loca- .tion of the state waterway line, shoreward of the federal channel line, acts as a legal restraint to use of this area. The State Department of Natural Resources is considering moving the waterway line seaward as part of comprehensive action on waterway line issues throughout the Ship Canal System. D. Commercial,vs. Recreational Moorage The issue of maintenance and need for expansion of transient commer- cial vessel moorage surfaced in 1981 when the Port of Seattle pro- posed expanding recreational craft moorage at the Shilshole Marina. The maximum expansion alternative described in the EIS would have eliminated transient commercial vessel% moorage on Pier A and was con- sequently opposed by commercial fishermen. The present Shoreline Program gives little guidance for choosing between recreational and commercial moorage. 3-8 CHAPTER 4: ELLIOTT BAY 1. INTRODUCTION A. Area The approximately five miles of shoreline surrounding Elliott Bay include several distinct and diverse areas. To accurately reflect the diverse development of.the shoreline, Elliott Bay has been divided into five areas. Two of these areas, Central Waterfront (Bay Street to South Washington Street, geocodes 3 and 4), and Harbor Island and Waterways (South Massachusetts Street to Southwest Bronson Way, geocodes 6, 7, 8, 9 and 1.1), are reviewed in other background reports. The other three areas, the Smith Cove area (34th Avenue W. to Bay Street), South-Central Waterfront (South Washington Street to South Massachusetts Street) and Harbor Avenue (Southwest Bronson Way to Southwest Atlantic Street) are reviewed in this report. The map following page 4-1 helps to illustrate these area boundaries: the Smith Cove Area includes geocodes 1 and 2; the South Central Waterfront is geocode 5; and the Harbor Avenue area is assigned geocode 12.. B. Physical Characteristics V Elliott Bay provides Seattle with a natural harbor.area.. As part of Puget Sound, it is salt water and subject to tidal action. The Bay is quite deep, dropping to 80 to 100feet close to shore. However, the water depth immediately adjacent to the piers is usually only 20 feet to 40 feet deep. Most of the land adjacent to the shore is relatively flat. This is due to fill activity over the last century that:moved the shoreline toward the west, and to the regrading of Denny Hill. Despite these changes, the original bluff is still apparent in places. Part of the north Elliott Bay area, Smith Cove, is wedged at the foot of Queen Anne and Magnolia Hills. These hills rise 150.feet above the shore. The area along Southwest Elliott Bay has experienced minimal fill activity, and the bluff, 100-150 feet above, remains intact. Access to each of these three study areas is from a major arterial with few intersecting streets. The Smith Cove area is only accessible from the north and south, with very limited private access from streets in between. However, much of this area's southern waterfront is devoted to two waterfront parks, so pedestrian access is abundant. The South-Central Waterfront uses Alaskan Way South as the major vehicular access route. Due to the railroad tracks, access from intersecting streets is primarily limited to Royal Brougham Way. Harbor Avenue SW provides the major vehicular access to the Harbor Avenue area. Intersecting streets are limited by the steep bluff. 4-1 The Smith Cove Area and the South Central Waterfront Area both have excellent rail access. The Harbor Avenue area does not have rail access since the railroad right-of-way stops at Southwest Bronson Way' the eastern boundary of this area. C. @djacent Lands Smith Cove Area. The natural boundary for lands adjacent to this area i7t-h-e-b-Tuff rising steeply to the east of the area and Magnolia and Queen Anne Hills on the north. Residential uses predominate on these hills. The land between the bluff and the Shoreline District is primarily.occupied by manufacturing uses with some retail and restaurant uses scattered throughout and some housing occupying land in the southern section. Elliott Avenue provides.the major vehicular access for the area and, as such, forms the spine of development. Direct access to the waterfront from this area is severely restricted due to active railroad right-of-way and few streets. South Central Waterfront. There is no apparent physical boundary to Me-Ta=ns aajacent s area. For clarity, First Avenue South will be used as the eastern boundary of adjacent lands. The north section is adjacent to Pioneer Square, an historic district with a mix of retail, office and restaurant uses. The Pioneer Square area has a high pedestrian orientation, but this does not spill into the waterfront area due to poor pedestrian acces-s. The south section abutts the Kingdome and numerous railroad tracks. Much of the land is occupied by manufacturing uses, warehousing, and the railroad right-of-ways. The only arterial access from this area to the shore- line district is Royal Brougham Way although there are other local streets. Harbor Avenue. The bluff adjacent to the shoreline district is the TaMir-a7 boundary for an adjacent lands review. This land is environ- mentally sensitive and designated as a greenbelt area. The primarily residential uses at the top of the bluff enjoy views across Elliott Bay to downtown, but the access to the waterfront area is limited due to the steep bluff. II. HISTORY OF ELLIOTT BAY Elliott Bay is a physical resource that played a central role in Seattle's evolution from a wilderness to a major metropolitan center. The waterfront has been the host for industry, trade and recreation throughout its history and continues that role today. However, as needs and tech- nology change, the specific uses on the waterfront have altered. In fact, the shoreline itself has been reshaped several times to adapt to these changes. The maps following this page reflect the changes in Elliott Bay from 1854 to 1981. Only the Harbor Avenue shoreline has remained pri- marily unchanged. 4-2 SMIT" c,,e SmItH cove ELLIOTT 84y ELLIOTT -SAY ANd Flati 1854 IWOd, Platd 190 C)'JWAA4iSH RI VER '01VAMISH RIVER SMIT COVE SM17-H COV 7 ELLIOTT SAY :.i: p ELLIOTT SAY 1918 1981 OUWAA4jStj RIVER COVE 77 170TT OUWAmIsj, RIVER The first landfil], named "The Sawdust," was started prior to 1875 by Henry Yesler (Seat-tle.'_s Waterfront, by Marc Hershman) who dumped waste from his mills at the foot of his wharf. More fill was provided by early trade ships which dumped rock ballast at the end of the piers to*Make room for their cargoes of lumber and coal.' Further definition of the shoreline came with the railroad trestles. While they were originally built )ve@ the water, they soon defined the seaward boundaries of the land. Further reshapIing bega-n in 1895 when the tide flats of lower Elliott Bay were dredged and fil''Ied so that by 1905 the East and West Waterways wore complete. In 1911, the" railroad trestles along the Central Waterfront started to be replaced with concrete seawalls. By 1936 the seawall was complete' from South Washington Street to Pike Street. More recent changes o"ccured with the construction of Interstate 5,,which provided the land fill for Myrtle Edwards and Elliott Bay Parks. Tho@ Port of Seattle created Terminals 37 and 46 by filling the areas betwee@n Piers 37, 38, 39, 42 and 43. Recently, the Port of Seattle prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement on proposals for filling the area between Piers 90 and 91. 111. CURRENT LAND USE REGULATIONS A. The Shoreline Program All of Elliott Bay.lying seaward from the line of extrem e low tide is a "shoreline of state-wide significaticei" as designated by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58). -These shorelines are major resources from which all the people in the state derive bene- fit. Due to this designation, local master programs must give pre- ference to uses which favor public and long-range goals. The order of preference for uses, as established by the Act (WAC 173.16.040(s)) are those uses which: 1. Recognize and protect state-wide interest over local interest. 2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline. 3. Result in long-term over short-term benefit. 4. Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines. 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. 6. Increase the recreational opportunities for the public on the shorelines. The three study areas of Elliott Bay inc lude three shoreline environ- ments: Conservancy Management, Urban Sta'ble and Urban Development. Table I shows the distribution of these environments by water front- age. /1-3 TABLE I Waterfrontage by Shoreline Environment by Area Excluding Street Ends Smith Cove Area South-Central Harbor Avenue of of of Sites Frontag_(@ Sites Frontactq Sites Frontage Conservancy Management 4 7540 0 0 4 2590 Urban Development 3 455.0 4 5062@ 0 0 Conservancy Management (CM), which limits activity to those uses that can be carried out with minimal adverse impacts on the environment, accounts for most of the waterfrontage. Urban Stable (US) is located upland of the CMIenvironments and, therefore, has no waterfrontage in these study areas. The Urban Development (UD) environment, allowing industrial and commercial uses, accounts for the rest of the shore- line in the areas. In addition to listing permitted uses, the SSMP includes development standards which regulate height, lot coverage and view corridors. B. The Zoninq_Code Since Seattle.adopted its first zoning code in 1923, most of these three study areas have been zoned for manufacturing uses. However, over the years some changes were made. -With adoption of the 1957 zoning code, the Interbay section of the Smith Cove area was zoned General Industrial (IG). The Harbor Avenue area was changed from manufacturing to commercial in two steps. In 1947, the upland lots were changed, and in 1963 the waterfront lots were changed. These changes result in the current zoning pattern. The distribution of water frontage within these zones is outlined in Table 2. TABLE 2 Waterfrontage by Underlying Zoning by Area Excluding Street Ends Smith Cove Area South-Central Harbor Avenue of of of Sites Frontage Sites Frontage Slit-es Fronta2e Commercial 1 560 0 0 12 @2090 Manufacturing 3 6980 4 5062 0 Industrial 3 4500 0 0 0 0 4-4 C. Harbor Lines All the areas of Elliott Bay are affected by State Harbor Lines,. Harbor Areas are determined by the State Harbor Lines Commi:s-sionwith the-establishment of Inner and Outer Harbor Lines. The area that falls between the inner and outer harbor lines is the State Harbor -Area and "shall be forever reserved for landings, wharves, -st-r-eets and ot'her conveniences of navigation and commerce" (RCW 79.01.44)., also State Constitution Article XV. Therefore, this area may be leased but not sold. The area beyond the outer harbor line may not be leased or sold. The harbor areas are regulated by the State Department of Natural Resources (.DNR). Under current DNR leasing regulations, water- dependent -uses are allowed leases of up to 30 years. Non-water- dependent uses.are permitted only with shorter leases. In the Smith Cove area, the inner harbor line loosely corresponds to the shoreline along the park section. Pier 86, the grain terminal, is the only extension into the harbor area in the park section. Further north, in the Interbay section, parts of both Pier 90 and Pier 91 extend into the Harbor Area. In the South-Central area, the outer harbor line was moved in the 1970's. Si.nce then, much of the area between the harbor lines has been filled, creating Terminals 37.and 46, In the Harbor Avenue area, the inner harbor line again corresponds, roughly, to the shoreline. The outer harbor line parallels the inner line approximately 575 feet away. IV. CURRENT LAND USE A. Uses of Sites Elliott Bay is composed of areas with distinct uses. The types of uses also differ with their location on the shoreline, that is, waterfront lots or upland lots. Table 3 shows the distribution of predominant uses by waterfront lots and upland lots for each area. In general, industrial and recreational uses comprise most of the Smith Cove area. Industrial uses comprise all the South-Central Waterfront, and recreational uses comprise most of the Harbor Avenue area. 4-5 TABLE 3 Predominant Uses by Waterfront and Upland Lots Smith Cove Area Waterf ront-"51 @es U land Sites General Manufacturing 0 3 Container Terminals 0 Wholesale Trade 2 General Leased Office Space 0 Non Marine Services 1 0 Cultural/Entertainment Uses 4 0 Vacant or Underused Areas 3 0 10 6 South Central Waterfront No. Waterfront Sites Aland S tes Marine Transportations Container Terminals 2 Governmental Services (Coast Guard) 4 Harbor Avenue Area Waterfront" Sites Upland Sites Residential 8 Retail Trade Non-Mar.ine 2 Marine Retail Trade 1 Restaurants 3 Cultural/Entertainment Uses 2 Marina 1 Vacant/Underused Areas .1 .3 Street Ends or Waterway 2- .7 17 4-6 TABLE 4 Secondary Use5 by Waterfront and Up-land Lots Smith Cove Area -land Sit Waterfro 7' 7p nt ites es Residential 0 1 St. End or Waterways 2 0 General Manufacturing 0 1 General Offi.ce 0 1 Nqn-marine services. 2 .4 Cultural Uses 0 . Fi'shing Activities 1 vacant 0 South Central Uses Marine Craft Transportation 2 -No UpIand Street End I Si t es Non-marine Services 3 Cultural Uses 1 Commercial Moorage Va'cant Harbor Avenue Street End or Waterway 1 0 Retail Trade Non-marine 0 1 marine Trade 1 '0 Vacant or Underused 5 0 This information was gathered by the Department of Construction and Land Use during a 1982 inventory of non-residential shoreline areas. As part of this inventory, sites within the shoreline were classified into one of nine categories on the basis of the degree of water dependency exhibited by the predominant use of each site. Results for the Elliott Bay study areas-are presented in Table 5. 4-7 TABLE. 5 Sites And Water-Frontage by Water-Dependent'Use Categ ory Fl I intt Ray by Aroa No. of Water % of Water -Sites Frontage (Ft.1 Frontage Smith Cove Area WD-IC 1 1600 13.2% WD-REC 2 2650 21.9% 1 3500 29 % NOT WD-WR 1 0 0 No Use or Street End 3 4340 35.9% TOTALS 6 9650 100% South Central Waterfront Area WD-IC 4 5062 98.1% No Use or Street End 1 100 1.9 TOTALS 5 5162 100.0% Harbor Avenue Area WD-IrC 390 15.1% WD-BOTH 1 1400 54.1% NOT WD-WR 15 500 19.3% No Use or Street End, 3 300 -11.6% TOTALS 24 2590 100.1% These tables start to give a clear picture of current uses along Elliott Bay. The Water-Dependent Industrial-Commercial Uses are con- centrated in the Smith,Cove area and the South-Central Waterfront.. The Water-Dependent Recreational Uses are concentrated along Harbor Avenue with Don Armeni Park and in the Smith Cove area with Elliott Bay and Myrtle Edwards Parks. There are no sites in these areas that are classified as Water-Related (WR) or Multiple Use including a secondary use that is water-dependent (MULTI-INC-WD). Only one site was Marine-Related (MRN-REL). The Non-Water Dependent or Water-Related (NOT WD-WR) uses are found primarily on upland lots. 4@-81 B. Size of Sites Another way to examine th,ie use of the s-horeline district is the si@z@e of the sites and the relationship of dry land to submerged land. Table 6 shows the total square footage of waterfront sites by water@ dependency category. TABLE 6 Square Footage of Waterfront Sites, by Wat er-Dependency Water-Deptn2p2cX of Sites Dry Land Submer2ed Land Total WD-IC 5 8,614,669, 5,070,986 13, 685,655@ WD-REC 3 287,900 1,.0791'700 1,3.67$'600 WD-BOTH 2 2$177,670 1,.420$445 3,598$115 NOT WD-WR 2 6741,200 285$000 959$200 No Use or Street End 4 141.4700 13,835 283 977,983 TOTALS 16 11,897,139 9,691.$.414 21,58.8,553. Table 7 shows the average total size of sites, dry land, submerged land and percentage of dry land of total site for each area. TABLE 7 Average Size of Sites for Waterfront Sites Excluding Street Ends Avg. Total Avg. Dry Avg. Submerged Avg. Percentage Size Size Size Dry_of Total Smith Cove Area 2$209,601 1,287,645* 1,780,386 59.7% South-Central Area 1,421,013 983$642 437$371 69.2% Harbor Ave. Area 368$750 .59$175 309,575 16.1% When this typo of information is correlated with the degree of water dependency, a pattern in the relationship starts to emer ge. Table 8 shows the relationship of dry and submerged land with water- dependency. *Does not include two sites west of Piers 90-91 that have only submerged land. 4-9 TABLE 8 Average Size of Waterfront Site (Dry, Submerged and Dry Percentage of Total hy Water-Dopendency (Excludinq ')tre(,t Ends) Dry as Percentage Submerged of Total Smith Cove Area: WD-IC 4,680,100 3,321,500 58.5% WD-REC 136,450 419,850 24.5% WD-BOTH 2,027,470 734,645 73.0% NOT WD-WR 607,700 0 100.0% No Use or Street End. 137,700 0 100.0% Vacant Water Area .0@ 1,490,783 0 % South Central Waterfront: WD-IC 983,642 .437,372 .69.2% Harbor Avenue Area: WD-REC 15,000 240,000 5.9% WD-BOTH 150,200 685,800 18.0% NOT WD-WR 66,500 285,000 18.9% No Use or Street End 5,000 27,500 15.4% From,-this information it appears that the water-dependent, industrial/commercial uses require a fairly large amount of dry land. By comparison, the water-dependent, recreational uses require very little dry land, primarily using the submerged land area of the site. V. ISSUES The future development ofElliott Ray's shoreline areas is interrelated. Development in one area may affect development in other shoreline areas and the adjacent communities. Future development is feasible in any number of forms so this discussion is limited to those proposals that have surfaced at this time. Smith Cove Area - The future of Terminal 91, one of the Port of Seattle's largest and least in'tensively used facilities, is the major issue in this area. Originally, the Port intended to develop the area with a container terminal. Now that plan has been somewhat altered so that an Environ- mental Impact Statement has been being prepared on five alternative plans.- with no expressed preferred plan. These plans range from NO FILL of the area between the piers, to FULL FILL between the piers. There has also been discussion about the possibility of the Navy buying back the piers for a carrier force to be stationed in Puget Sound. Impacts of the 4-10 various alternatives vary but all include i,ncreased truck and rail traf- fic, noise, and light and glare. Any of the FILL alternatives wou.ld i.nvolve the loss of both shallow water and deepwater marine habitats. The Corp of Engineers recently issued a Final EIS for the Widening and Deepending of the Duwamish Waterways. The preferred alternative fo ,r that project would.use the submerged land between Piers 90 and 91 as a -disposal area for dredge spoils which do not meet the EPA open water disposal- cr.1- teria. The widening and deepening:project would thus serve as a con- venient source of fill material -for T-91 and the T-91 site would serve as a convenient'and necessary disposal site for' the widening and deepening. The use of T-91 as a disposal site for contaminated dredge spoils raises environmental concerns about leaching of contaminants from the containment areas into Elliott Bay and spillage during transport. On June 14, 1983 the Port of Seattle Commissioners voted to,proceed-with the FULL FILL project. The first 400 feet of the waterway would be filled first and the rest later. Under this-plan the new termi,nal would handle a wide range of general cargo, including cars, apples and lumber. The'Port has no plans to convert the Terminal to container use but has not ruled out the possibility of changing its mind. Construction of both the temporary short fill and eventual full fill will require shoreline substantial development permits from DCLU. However, the dredging of the Duwamish by the Corps would notrequire a shoreline per- mit. The form of development at Terminal 91 Will have impacts on other shoreli- nes of the city as well as the neighboring residential communities and the Elliott Bay environment. Property owners along the Duwamish River h.ave expressed concern that the Port of Seattle will further develop that area with container terminals. However, the Industrial Areas Background Report (Office of Policy Planning; Volume 1, 1980, p. 32) states that "If Terminal 91 were developed for container shipments,, the Port asserts no further container facilities would be required in the Duwamish, and-future capacity could be accommodated without a new terminal on the waterway." Conversely, development of T-91 for other than container shipments would increase demand for container facilities in the Duwamish. The loss of transient moorages for tugs and other vessels at Terminal-91 because of the fill may increase demand for transient moorage on the Central Waterfront whose older piers built close together and in various states of rehabilitation and dilapidation may not he able to accommodate the demand. A more recent development proposal for the tide flats west of Smith Cove also promises to generate some controversy. A developer proposes a rubble. mound breakwater offshore to accommodate 1400 new recreational moorage slips. The proposal would require dredging of 150,000 cubic yards and a fill of 400,000 cubic yards to,provide vehicle access, parking and marina buildings. In addition to concerns about damage to the natural environ- ITIont, the pr6po-'al has, (lenerated concorns ainonq Maqnoli.-l re-,idont.,; 1-ihoilt. LrM71 ic L@iro@uqh their neighborhood. 4-11 South-Central Waterfront - Most of this area is developed with container terminals, a well-established use which relates well to adjacent uses of manufacturing and warehousing. A potential issue is the future develop- ment of Pier 48. Currently occupied by the Alaska Marine Highway system and a public viewing area, some argue that it relates more to the Central Waterfront uses to the north than to the container facilities south of it. A change in the shoreline environment from UD to the Central Waterfront environment may be required to continue this relationship. Connected to this issue is whether the current level of containerization is adequate for future needs. Harbor Avenue - Much of the Harbor Avenue area is vacant or under- developed. Development of any kind would have impacts on the community, primarily increased traffic; however, development of any major proportions has not occurred. The major proposed development is Seacrest Marina. Envisioned as a public-private development of a 700-slip marina with associated shoreside uses, it has been under consideration for years. If constructed it might spur other development in the area. This is supported by the Harbor Ave. Study (Department of Community Development, 1983, P.39) which states "Very little or no retail/office space currently exists along the corridor. While the area would not normally attract major new development, plans to upgrade the Seacrest Marina may change this situation." The CM environment and the CG zoning encourage this type of development in the area. The Harbor Avenue area could accommodate and benefit from deve- lopment. It could provide space for uses needed on a city-wide basis, thereby freeing other areas for more intensive industrial development. 4-12 CHAPTER 5: CENTRAL WATERFRONT .1. INTRODUCTION A. Area The Central Waterfront stretches for a mile and a half along that portion of Elliott Bay that borders downtown Seattle. The Shoreline District includes the submerged and dry landfrom the outer harbor line on the west, to a line 200 feet inland from the ordinary high tide line. The Shoreline District includes land east of Alaskan Way and, therefore, includes upland lots. However, most people view the Central Waterfront as the area west of Alaskan Way, the piers and piersheds. It is here that the activity that shapes the waterfront takes place. This study encompasses the Shoreline District from S. Washington Street (north of Pier 48) to Bay Street (north of Pier 71). The boundaries of the Central Waterfront are illustrated on Figure 5-1; the area was assigned geocodes 3 and 4 in the. inventory. B. History The Central Waterfront has been a focal point of activity throughout Seattle's history. Seattle's first industry, Yesler's sawmill, was dependent on the water for its operation, and it was around this sawmill that Seattle became an expanding port. This role as the hub of port activities has changed as technology altered the needs and requirements of Port activities. In fact, the shoreline itself has been reshaped several times to adapt to these changing needs. The original shoreline followed Post Street and First Avenue from South Washington Street to University Street. From that point north- ward, it followed Western Avenue. As early as 1875, Henry Yesler was dumping waste from his mills at the foot of his wharf. More,fill was provided by early trade ships who dumped their rock ballast at the end of the piers to make room for their cargoes of lumber and coal. The shoreline was further defined by the railroad trestles. Originally built over the water, they soon defined the seaward boun- daries of the land as fill was dumped behind them. From 1911 to 1916 and again in 1934 to 1936, the railroad trestles were replaced with concrete seawalls. Through these various methods, the original shoreline was moved seaward to its current location. The identification of the piers has also changed over the years. Originally, the piers reflected the names of their builder or the company using the pier. In 1901, the piers were numbered north-of Yesler Way and alphabetized south of Yesler Way. Duplication of num- bers became a problem, though, so in 1944, the United States govern- ment renumbered the piers to eliminate any confusion. (Seattle Waterfront, Marc Hershman, 1981, p. 11.) That system, b-eginning- with Pier I in West Seattle, and leaving gaps for open water areas, is still in effect today. 5-1 I LILI I .-I.-TI; JIJ,I Vzi @C_G 1 F_-@ H M j F1 11 '01 N \> 44 41 > A NA </ <\ < "'Nz 17 e @,P < 0@' 4 < x- 4" j ji. e' @.,A Ilk x CENTRAL WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL J1\ SHORELINE INVENTORY 1983 Dept. of Construction and Land Use N 0 400 800 200 2000ft. -------SHORELINE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATIONS: CN Conservancy Natural z 0 z CO H F@ 1, CM Conservancy Management UR Urban Residential us Urban Stable US CW Urban Stable'Central Waterfront US@ LU Urban Stable'Lake Union Urban Development UP C Physical Characteristics The Central Waterfront, as part of Elliott Bay, is salt water with direct access to Puget Sound. The area is subject to tidal action, with the mean differences between high and low tides being 7.6 feet. The water -is deep, dropping from 30 to @O feet close to !Jioro to 100 1'eeL slight.1y beyond Lhe ou *Ler harbor line. -1he waLer1ronL is v(,.,ry open with very little wave protection. The topography of the land adjacent to the shoreline varies. To the north of the waterfront is a bluff, rising over 150 feet above the water level and then dropping off sharply one block east of the waterfront. The rest Of the area is overlooked by a steadly rising slope extending to Downtown Seattl 'e. At the foot of the bluff and slope is man-made fill which covers the original tide lands and is held in place by the seawall along Alaskan Way. This area is rela- tively flat. The major vehicular access along the Central Waterfront is Alaskan Way. Four lanes wide, it runs essentially parallel to the shoreline for the entire length of the.waterfront. Alaskan Way is intersected by perpendicular streets approaching the waterfront in three differ- ent grid patterns. Some of the streets are connecting streets to downtown, others end at the bluff. In addition, the Alaskan Way Viadu Ict, an above grade arterial, parallels the shoreline south of Blanchard Street. This arterial has no exits southbound,, one exit northbound at Seneca Street, one entrance SOLIthbound at Blanchard Street, and one entrance northbound at Bell Street. The railroads have been a major transportation asset on the Central Waterfront since the early days when Alaskan Way was known as Railroad Avenue. Two parallel tracks (three in places) run along the east side of the Alaskan Way roadway. The western of the two tracks is used by the Waterfront.Trolley whi.ch opened in 1982 and operates from Main Street to Broad Street. The eastern tracks are used by the Burlington Northern Railroad which also uses an underground tunnel which runs underneath the city and emerges between Stewart and Virginia Streets on the Central Waterfront.. Spur lines run from the tracks to the piers but at present do not provide rail access to the piers because the spurs leave from the western track, which is used exclusively by the trolley. Spur lines to the sites east of Alaskan Way are still operable. D. Condition of Existing Structures Development along the Central Waterfront is supported by man-made structures. The land itself is.held in place by the Alaskan Way Seawall and the buildings sit on piers over the water. Therefore, the condition of these structures is important to the future of the waterfront. 5-2 The Alaska,Way Seawall was studied in 1982. The summary of the resul-ts of that survey (Condition Survey and Evaluation Report,, Seattle Engineering Department, October 1982) concludes that:- The secti'on of Alaskan Way Seawall studied is 48 years old and its condition is progressively deteriorating. Corrosion of the Seawall's steel sheet piling has resul'ted in holes that allow loss of backfill under the roadway. These holes also allow marine worms to attack timber mem- bers that support Alaskan Way. Fail'ure of these timber supports has resulted in numerous isolated street voids and collapses over the past 30 years. Timber sample removed from@behind the Seawall during the condition survey indi- cate active marine worm activity. The condition of the Seawall does not indicate danger of immediate collapse.. But its deteriorating state does require repa-ir to avoid failure in the next five to ten years. The results of this study are leading the Seattle Engineering Department to pursue options for repairing@1400 feet of the 6000-foot seawall. The piers vary in condition, although all require continuous inain- tenance. Outlined below is the condition of each pier based on inspections made by the Department of Construction and Land Use in January, 1983. Piers 50 and most of 51 - Removed to provide space for. Washington State Ferry Terminal expansion. Pier 51 .- Remainder left since it was stable. Piers 52 and 53 - Good condition. Pier 54 - Currently being renovated. Piers 55 and 56 - In need of some major repair and rehabilitation; work is starting in the near future. Piers 57 and 59 - In need of rehabilitation. Piers 62 and 63 - Condemned due to lack of structural integrity - vacant. (Pilings may be in better shape.than sheds.) Piers 64 and 65 - Condemned due to lack of structural integrity - vacant. Pier 66 - Currently undergoing major rehabilitation on the south side. The north side was rehabilitated with a grant from the Economic Development Agency. Piers 67 and 68 - Needs rehabilitation.. Pier 69 - Currently undergoing major rehabilitation. Pier 70 - Needs rehabilitation. Pier 71 - Vacant and needs.major wor k. It is part of major re- development proposal. E. Adjacent Lands For the Central Waterfront, the logical adjacent lands boundary is the bluff. This land between the water and the bluff is the area 5-3 created by fill. Most of the area is zoned Manufacturing (M). However, two blocks are currently zoned-Metropolitan Commercial (CM), and there are proposals for two more blocks to berezoned to CM. Warehousing, including cold storage faciliti.es, and parking are the major uses in the area. There are also a number of office scattered throughout the area. The cold storage facilities are used by fish processing companies on the piers and by Pike Place Market entre- preneurs. Parking facilities are used by downtown businesses and the uses on the piers. In addition to the existing uses, there are a number of developments that are under construction or proposed (Cornerstone Developments and Harbor Steps) that will alter the use of this area. These develop- ments propose a mix of residential, retail, office and parking uses. These uses will create more of a pedestrian atmosphere which may increase the relationship of the adjacent lands to the waterfront. III. CURRENT LAND USE REGULATIONS A. The Shor The portion of the Central Waterfront lying seaward of the line of extreme low tide,(i.e., the seawall), is a shoreline of state-wide significance, as designated by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58). These shorelines are major resources from which all the people in the state derive benefit. Due to this designation, local master programs must give preference to uses which favor public and long-range goals. The order of preference for uses, as established by the Act (WAC 173.16.040(s)), are those uses which: 1.. Recognize and protect state-wide interest over local interest. 2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline. 3. Result in long-term over short-term benefit. 4. Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines. 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shore- lines. 6. Increase the recreational opportunities for the public on the shorelines. Gilven the designation as a shoreline of statewide significance and the unique.characteristics of the Central Waterfront, the Seattle Shoreline Master Program designates the entire Central Waterfront as Urban-Stable/Central Waterfront. The purpose of US/CW (24.60.355 SMC) is similar to the purpose of the Urban Stable (US) environment, but also incorporates additional goals based on the particular characteristics of the Central Waterfront. In the US/CW environment, new development over water and the recycling and refurbishing of existing piers.will be permitted which will: 5-4 1. Reinforce the historic marine orientation of Seattle as a major downtown'-theme; 2. Strengthen water-oriented recreation tourist activity,. related retail business,-and public areas open to the water; 3. Maintain a full complement of water-dependent uses; and 4. Preserve and enhance views of Elliott Bay and the Olympic Mountains from upland CBD development, street corridor vistas and the street level; provided, no additional coverage of the water by fixed structures shall be permitted. In general, the US/CW environment permits retail shops, restaurants, open wet moorage, marine sales and service, public marinas, accessory parking, ferry terminals, cargo terminals, log storage and rafting, commercial and public recreational piers, aqtjactilture. strtjcttjre.,;, public parks' research and educat 'ional LISPS, clubs and community facil'ities. Offices are allowed on the second floor of a building. Housing is not permitted in the US/CW.environment. The bulk requirements for development on the Central Waterfront limit height to 50 feet both on land and over water. Lot coverage is li'mited to 50% of the area with no new overwater structures per- mitted.- View corridors of 30% are required.in US/CW. These bulk requirements are written primarily for the piers, ignoring the lots across Alaskan Way. However, under the current SSMP, the upland lots have the tame bulk requirements for development. "Fine-Tuning" amendments to the SSMP, prepared by the Department of Construction and Land Use, have recently been adopted by the City Council and are now being reviewed by the State Department of Ecology. These amendments would permit 100% lot coverage an .d a wider range of uses on the upland lots. The warehousing, cold storage, and manufacturing uses made nonconforming in 1977 by adoption of the SSMP would become conforming again, and blocks zoned for residential uses would be permitted Full use of the entire. property, including por- tions within the Shoreline District. The Zoning Code The Central W*aterfront has been zoned Manufacturing (M) since Seattle's first zoning code in 1923. Currently, most of the area is still M, the exception being three blocks: Seneca Street to Madison Street, from Alaskan Way to Elliott Avenue, which were contractually rezoned to Metropolitan-Commercial (CM) in 1974; and Broad Street to Bay Street, granted a contract rezone to RM-MD in 1980. All of the waterfrontage in the Central Waterfront is zoned Manufacturing. The Manufacturing zone allows light manufacturing uses under specific conditions which are intended to minimize conflicts with nearby resi- dential uses. The CM zone permits a wide variety of non-retail, 5-5 commorc ial and lmsin(-@,; iv;w. ftinct-ionally rolaed to and noar 11he retdil core of the business district. RM-MD permits a mixture of residential, retail and office ijs(,s. C. Other LegalConstraitiLs - Harbor Lines All the areas of Elliott Bay are affected by State Harbor Lines. Harbor Areas are determined by the State Harbor Lines Commission with the establishment of Inner and Outer Harbor Lines. The area that falls between the inner and outer harbor lines is the State Harbor Area and."shall be forever reserved for landings, wharves, streets and other conveniences of navigation and commerce." (RCW 79.01.44, and State Constitution, Article XV)., Therefore, this area may be leased but not sold. The area beyond the outer harbor line may not be leased or sold. The harbor areas are regulated-by the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Under current DNR leasing regulations, water- dependent uses are allowed leases of up to 30 years. Nonwater- dependent uses are permitted only with shorter leases. The State ONR recently proposed changes to lease regulations for Harbor Areas. These regulations now include an interim use category which includes all uses other than housing, water-dependent and water-oriented commerce and public access facilities. The proposed regul.ations would treat interim uses more flexibly, allowing the lease term to be based on an analysis of the spate needs of water- dependent commerce rather than being limited to 10 years. New water- oriented commercial use s would be treated like interim uses. Public access facilities would beeligible. for 30-year leases rather than the 20 they may now have. The location of the inner harbor.lin.e@on the pier affects the development of the pier because of DNR leasing policies, which are based on implementing Article XV of the Washington Constitution. The major portions of Piers 51, 52-53, 54 and 55 are over First Class Tidelands; that is., between the point of ordinary high tide and the inner harbor line. Most of Piers 56 and 57 are in the Harbor Area, between the.inner and outer harbor lines. From Pier 59 to Pier 69, all. of the pier, structures are within the Harbor Area since the inner harbor line corresponds with the Alaskan Way Seawall. Piers 70 and 71 have very minor portions of the pier structure over tidelands. These relationships are shown on the map following this page. TV. CURRENT LAND USE A. Uses of Sites The Central Waterfront is composed ofmany differing uses. The types also differ with their locat.ion on the shoreline,,that is, waterfront lots or upland lots. Table 1 shows the distribution of predominant uses by waterfront sites and upland sites. 5-6 PIER 61 S/C PI ER 60 PI KE ST PIER 59 us/cw CN r PIER 58 400 us/CW m PIER 57 us, ic UNIVERSITY ST PIER 56 m us/CW PIER 54 CN m m HARBOR-A@REA ST %#'p TAKE 1 Predomi nant Use-, Central Waterfront Waterfront Upland Uses Sites Sites Residential (Hotel) 1 0 General Manufacturing 0 2 Transportation &.Utilities 0 8 Marine Transportation 4 0 Wholesale Trade 0 1 Retail Trade - Nonmarine 3 2 Restaurants 1 2 General leased office space 0. 5 Non-marine services 0 8 Governmental services 0 Cultural and entertainment services. 0 Marinas (Washington,St. Boat Landing) 0 Vacant/Underused 3 2 Total Sites 13 30 In addition to these uses, half of the sites (26) had at least one secondary use. Table 2 shows the secondary uses found on the Central Waterfront for both waterfront sites and upland sites. .TABLE 2 Secondary Uses Central Waterfront Waterfront Upland Uses -Sites Sites Re sidenti.al 0 2 Seafood products 0 General Manufacturing 0 1 ,Transportation and Utilities'. 3 1 Wholesale trade 0 3 Retail trade - non-marine 2 6 Retail trade marine, 1 0 Restaurants 6 3 General leased office space 3 Non-marine services 0 Governmental services 0 Cultural and entertainment uses 2 Fishing Activities 11: 0 Commercial Moorage 1 0 Vacant/underused areas, 6 0 Restaurants are the most popular secondary use over water and non- marine retail trade uses are the most common on upland sites. 5-7 B Upland_ S,ites The Shoreline District's 200' jur,isdiction,falls east of Alaskan Way; th .erefore all of the sites across Alaskan Way.@are upland sites- Tables 1 and 2 indicate that the uses on these sites differ-dramati- cally from the uses on the waterfront sites. These sites face di-11'.- -ferent-development constraints and have different deve'lopment potent@ i a I'.- Currently, some of the upland sites act as backup space for water.- dependent uses over the piers. Examples include.the parking facility underconstruction across from Pier 66, the Olympic Cold Storage Plant and the Aquarium's storage area. Other upland sites, however, have very little, if any, relationship to the activity on the piers., (:for .example,, Skyway Luggage, the mixed use offi.ce/retail/res,ident,ia.1 de- velopme'n.ts, or Shakey's Pizza Parlor). Recently constructed and,pro- posed upland site development are all mixes of re sidential, retail and office uses. This trend.will most likely continue, and-as tile number of residences increases the overall mix of uses may also change. C. Water_Dependency As part of an inventory in 1982, all sites within the shoreline district were classifi.ed into one of nine categories on the basis-of the degree of.waier-dependency ex,hibited by@the predominant use of each site. Upland sites are excluded from 'the following analysis since they have no water frontage. The results fo.r the water front sites on the Central Waterfront are presented in Table 3. TABLE 3 Sites And Water-Frontage by Water-Dependent Use Category Central Waterfront Area No. of Water % of Sites Frontage _(Ft.) Water Frontage WD-IC 2 620 8.5% WD-REC 3 1,335 18.4 MULTI-INC-WD 2 2,140 29.5 MRN-REL 1 400 5.5 NOT WD-WR 4 1,050 14.5 Vacant 4 1,715 .23.6% TOTALS .16 7,260 100.0% 5-8 These tables begin to give a cl,ear picture of the uses on the Central Waterfront. 'Table 3 shows that @9% of the waterfrontage is occupied by multiple uses with some water-dependency. Only 8 5% of the water frontage is Water-Dependent Industrial-Commercial an@ 18.4% Water- Dependent Recreational; these figures contrast with City-wide avera- ges, which indicate that 42% of non-residential shorelines are WDIC, and 14% are WDREC. The Central Waterfront also has the greatest per- cent of vacant land (open water and vacant piersheds) of all the areas of the City. D. Street Ends The Central Waterfront includes seven street ends, accounting for 11250 feet of water frontage. Although the inventory shows five street ends as vacant, these are often used for moorage, both tran- sient and semipermanent. In addition, the Washington Street Boat Landing provides public moorage for transient pleasure craft, and the Seattle-Fire Department maintains.a station on the Madison Street end. E. Size of Sites Another way to' examine the use of the shoreline district is the size of the.s.ites, particularly the size of dry land and submerged land by water-dependent category. TABLE 4 Square Footage of Waterfront Sites by Water-Dependency Water-Deeendejcy Dry Land Submerg d Land Total WD-IC 2 0 357,600 357,600 WD-REC 3 0 534,850 534,850 MULTI-INC-WD 2 86,018 4229 422 508,440 MRN-REL 11 0 175,100 175,100 NOT WD-WR 5 0 474,150 474,150 No Use or Street End .3 0 -782 550 782.1550 TOTALS 16 86,018 .2,7469672 2,832,690 5-9 TABLE .5 AVerage' Size of Site (Dry and Submerged _b@,Wat6r.-Dependency - Excluding Street Ends) Water-De0endencY Dry Land Submerged.Land WD'-IC 0 357,600 WD-kEC 0 534,850 MULTI-INC-WD 86,018 422,422 MRN-REL 0 175,100 Not-WD-WR 0 474,150 No,Use 0 782,550 Due to the location of,Alaskan Way, Pier 66 is the only-waterfront site which contains any dry I.and;,this land is the result of past fill. I V. ISSUES The future of Seattle's Central Waterfront is the subject of much discussion and debate. Due to its proximity.to downtown and to its loca- tion on tidal waters of Elliott Bay, the potential for development is.. strong. The waterfront has always been a conglomoration of uses and it seems that this will continue in the future. The composition of this mix, however, is the crux of an issue discussion. One point of view is that the piers and piersheds should be reserved for water-dependent or water-related uses with the upland lots developed to support the uses over the piers. An example might be fish processing plants on the.piers with cold storage facilities on upland lots. The opposite point of view is that no restrictions should exist on uses over the piers or on the upland lots. Between these points of view is the position that a mix of water-dependent and non-water-dependent uses on the piers is both economically feasible and desirable. An analysis of the development constraints and potential is necessary to understand the choices for the future of the Central Waterfront. A number of factors contribute to the feasibility of future uses on the waterfront, including physical constraints and development plans and pro- posals. an analysis of these factors is necessary to understand the choices for the future of the Central Waterfront. The most critical ele- ments are outlined below. A. Current Uses Currently, the piers are occupied by retail shops, a hotel, the state ferry terminal, restaurants, the City.Aquarium, Port of Seattle offi- ces, fish processors, the waterfront park and some vacant piers. In addition, the street right of ways between the piers are often used as moorage for tour boats, pleasure boats, a salvage ship, fishing 5-10 boats and the Princess Marguerite. The upland 1.ots further increase the variety of uses in th,e district by accommodating parking lots, restaurants, cold storage facilities, warehouses, wholesale and retail trade, and offices. These uses are only slightly different from those existing prior to the adoption of the Seattle Shoreline Master Program (SSMP) in,1977. Since that time, moorage for tourist boats, office space accessory to existing uses and a fishing charter service have been added. However, during the same time period, two fish processing plants and the..fishing charter left the Central Waterfront. The existing US/CW shoreline environment allows most of these uses, but treats all permitted uses the same, regardless of water- dependency status. This has resulted in an increase in the tourist- oriented retail uses, one of the goals of the US/CW environment. However, another goal of the US/CW environment is not being met, that of maintaining a full complement of water-dependent uses. Constraints on Development There are both physical and economic constraints to development of water-dependent uses on the Central Waterfront. @Ical - The waterfront lots have no dry land (except Pier 66 which was filled) so all development is located on piers which extend into very deep salt water. This poses a number of problems for water- dependent uses, limiting the types of.uses that find the waterfront a feasible site. Developing over the piers is both more costly and more constricting than building on land and, therefore, is unsuitable for large cargo facilities or any use that requires a large amount of space. In addition, the piers and transit sheds were designed for an outdated mode of cargo transfer an 'd may not be readily convertible to other water-dependent uses from their present configuration. Parking may be provided over the piers for.water-dependent uses but again, this is expensive and must fit into constricted space. Parking tan be provided on the upland sites but that means crossing four lanes of traffic and fi.nding available sites, so uses which demand a large amount of parking are limited.. Most of the piers provide some moorage but the deep tidal water, with little wave protection, limits the types of boats and ships that can be served. In general,the waterfront does not provide adequate space for smaller boats, due to the waves, or for permanent moorage, since most boat owners prefer fresh water for long-term moorage. However,- larger boats and transient moorage can be adequately served on the Central Waterfront. Currently, there is demand for this as each pier provides some moorage. This demand may increase with the redevelopment of Piers 90-91 by the Port of Seattle, where some large vessel moorage will be removed. 5-11 Economic The economic return of most water-dependent businesses is, less, per square foot, than retail or office uses.' This makes it difficult for.water-dependent uses to compete with the over uses and to providethe maintainence that is requ.ired to support'the pier structu.'res. (Mo.st of the piers need major rehabil'ttation and all of them requir.e. cIonstant, costly maintenance.) A study of marine use on the Central Waterfront which was done by the University of Washington, found that "In no case does the-marine use support the entire parcel...." (Marine Use of Seattle's Central Waterfront, Bevington, 1983 p. 42) The study further states,,"... marine uses require total or partial subsidy or must be accompanied by other non-marine use to get anything approximating full use of a. parcel.. (The situation is somewhat different with non-marine use, where nine piers have a use that occupies the majority Of the space.)" (Ibid, p. 42) On the other hand, the study does acknowledge that "For the most part ... pier owners wait for propo- sals from marine uses. Some may have their antennae up higher than others .... Owners are rather selective, not scouring for marine uses, b-ut following up on leads if they hear of uses that they. believe have benefit to them." (Ibid, pp. 37-38) This seems,to indicate that either a mix of water-dependent: uses and nonwater-dependent uses is required on each pier or a subsidy of water-dependent uses is required if the piers are to be maintained and the waterfront developed with water dependent uses. C. Development Proposals Current development proposals propose mixed marine and non-marine- development. These proposals include: at Pier 62-63, a marina with residential/commercial uses on the upland lot; at Pier 66, a retail/commercial development with tour boats; at Pier 69, a mix of- retail/office development is being added to the existing Princess Marguerite tour boat and a jetfoil is proposed; and at Pier 71, a marina with residential, retail and office on the upland lots. The Alaskan Way Waterfront Park Committee has a comprehensive propo- sal for all of the Central Waterfront, from Pier 48 to Pier 70. This proposal identifies four general areas with different activities in each. From Pier 51 to Pier 57 would be intense commercial/retail uses with a one-lane southbound roadway and angle parking on the existing Alaskan Way right of way. The next area is a public recreational area using Waterfront Par.k and the Aquarium as the focal point. The proposal calls for the area between Stewart Street and Lenora Street to be developed as a floral garden, with no vehicular access. The floral garden would be developed, in part, through a subsidy from residential development proposed for the upland lots in this area.' Piers 62-65 are located over the water in this area and the proposal calls for these vacant piers to be demolished. The fourth area would be an office/commercial area from Pier 66 to Pier 70 that would be served by a three lane roadway, two-way traffic with 5-12 a left turn lane, along the existing Alaskan:Way. In addition the plan calls for rerouting rail traffic to the underground tunnel and removing the railroad tracks. In addition to these proposals, the Alaskan Way Seawall must undergo major repairs within the next five toten years, which could impact uses over the water. One.option, the "High Buttress" calls for a riprap.bulkhead to be located waterward of the existing seawall, extending into the water for approximately 70 feet. This would affect the amount of moorage avai-lable and the size of ships able to be accommodated. The "Low Buttress" alternative would not affect moorage capacity as much, but would disrupt activity along Alaskan Way during construction since the timbers under Alaskan Way would need to be repaired. The Mayor's Land Use and Transportation Project (LUTP) is in the process of developing a downtown plan which includes the area of the Central Waterfront. The LUTP plan is developed around a number of Land Use Districts. Land Use District #12 - Harborfront, includes all of the shoreline environment west of Alaskan Way. East of Alaskan Way, the Shoreline District would serve as an overlay of five land use districts but includes a major portion of the fifth, Land Use District #7 - Mixed Use - Waterfront. In LUD # 12 - Harborfront, LUTP has endorsed the concept of a waterfront promenade but.not any specific park proposal. The LUTP plan currently maintains vehicular traffic on Alaskan Way but narrows the roadway to three lanes. This would allow a pedestrian promenade to be developed on the right.-of way all along the waterfront. The central design of the promenade could have far reaching effects on the public use of the Central Waterfront for water-dependent uses, with some designs more amenable to maritime uses than others. Critical to the maritime use of the waterfront is the provision of truck.access to the piers. LUTP's proposal for LUD #7 - Mixed Use Waterfront encourages residen- tial development on the upland lots across from Pier 62-65. This same upland area is the only potential area for development of uses that support water-dependent uses 'over the piers. Therefore, the compatibility of residential uses with support type uses needs to be further reviewed but at this time they do not appear to be incom- patible. D. DeveloLment Options - Pier 62-65 and Adjacent Ugland Future development of the waterfront between Piers 62-65 and the adjacent upland area isia critical issue in the.Central Waterfront, primarily due to conflicting views of its development potential. The uses over the piers influence upland development and conversely upl and developments influence the use of the piers. The Waterfront Park Committee proposes to develop Alaskan Way as a floral garden, develop the upland area as residential and to demolish the piers, 5-13 precluding their use for water-dependent uses. The LUTP proposal encourages residential uses on the upland area and maintains vehicu- lar access to the piers along Alaskan Way but does not discuss dev,e- lopment on Piers 62-65. The staff of DNR would like to see an evaluation of the need for water-dependent commerce, and the need for the adjacent area to be developed as accessory uses to support water- dependent uses over water. Therefore,, development over the piers could take a number of forms, with various impacts on water-dependent uses, including: 'total demo- lition, demolition of pier sheds but preservation of the decking for use as access to moorage, demolition of the*piers with redevelopment as transient moorage or rehabilitation of the piers for moorage and of the piersheds for a nonwater-dependent, probably retail use. E. Developent of Policies and Regulations The effort to develop new policies and regulations for the Central .Waterfront is being undertaken by both the Land Use and Transportation Project (LUTP) as part of the Downtown Planning pro- cess, and by the Department of Construction and Land Use (DCLU) as part of the Shoreline Revision process. These two efforts are being c.losely coordinated with the intention of making the land use and shoreline regulations as nearly identical as possible. LUTP's proposal includes a number of "land use districts." West of Alaskan Way, the Shoreline District encompasses only one of these, i.e., the Harborfront. East of Alaskan Way, the Shoreline District, which extends landward 200 feet from the water, would serve as an overlay to five different proposed downtown land use districts. The inventory data illustrate the differences between waterfront and upland sites on the Central Waterfront. Waterfront sites in this area are unusual in having virtually no dry,land (Table 4), and current uses are quite different from uses on the upland side of Alaskan Way (Tables 1 and 2). A separate shoreline environment for upland sites might be one way to address the different needs and constraints of the two types of sites. The Central Waterfront clearly has enormous development potent ial. A critical issue will be to identify the amount and type of water- dependent uses physically and economically suited to the Central Waterfront. The challenge is to develop local policies and regula- tions which satisfy the State's constitutional, statutory, and admi- nistrative requirements while, at the same time, encouraging an. economically viable waterfront serving the needs of Seattle resi- dents, maritime businesses, and tourists. 5-14 CHAPTER 6: DUWAMISH AREA I. INTRODUCTION A. Area Boundaries This background report focuses on the shorelines of the Duwamish Estuary starting from the City of Seattle's southern corporate limit and continuing north to include Harbor Island and the East and West, Waterways. The 4@2- mile study area contains 147 sites, excluding street ends, 100 of which abut water, and about 15;2- miles of actual water frontage. Due to.quite distinct land use patterns.and loca- tional characteristics, three subareas are delineated. South Reach includes all sites south of the First Avenue South Bridge (geocode 10); Middle Reach lies between that bridge and South Spokane Street (geocodes 8 and 9), excluding the southern tip of Harbor Island; and North Reach includes all of Harbor Island and sites north of South Spokane Street (geocodes 6, 7 and 11). Please see the map on the following page showing geographic segments ("geocodes") as used in the 1982 Commercial and Industrial Shoreline Inventory. B. PhXsical Characteristics The Duwamish, East and West Waterways are estuarine environments sub-, ject to tidal fluctuation and salt water intrusion. These effects are most pronounced.at. the confluence of the East and West Waterways, and Elliott Bay, and lessen as one goes further upstream. Tidal variations range-from 11.3 feet near Harbor Island to 11.1 feet at Eighth Avenue South. Sali.nity.l.ikewise slightly decreases with distance from the Waterways' mouths but also varies according to seasonal stream flow. Wave action due to weather disturbances significantly affects only Elliott Bay facing portions of the North Reach and, to a lesser extent,, the West and East Waterways. Wave action caused by the passage of large vessels withinthe Duwamish Waterway also occurs but is of minor impact. A commercial navigation channel with congressionally authorized depths and widths runs the entire length of the study area (see Table 1)' and is maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.and Port of Seattle. Channel depth is generally kept at a minimum of 20 feet south of the First Avenue South Bridge, 30 feet north of it in the Duwamish, with 34 feet the minimum in the East and West Waterways. Outside the authorized channel, dredging is done.by the abutting land owners, so depths are irregular, ranging from 50 feet in parts of the West Waterway to 1 or 2 feet in the.last remaining tide flat in the lower Duwamish, near Kellogg Island. 6-1 TABLE 1 Length Width Depth (Feet Reach (M_i_lesl (Feet-)- Below MLLW) East Waterway 1.1 750 34 West Waterway 1.0 750 34 Duwamish Waterway: 2 West Waterway to 2.5 .200 30 1 First Avenue South First Avenue South to 1.2 150 20 Eighth Avenue South Eighth Avenue South to 1.4 150 15 Head of Navigation Source:. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1982. Topography is virtually flat throughout the Duwamish'area as befits its original status as a tideland and floodplain. The steep bluffs of West Seattle's greenbelt approach no closer than one-quarter mile from the Duwamish Waterway to the west and Beacon Hill parallels over a mile to the east. Street patterns in Middle Reach and the eastern banks of South and North Reach are dominated by wide arterials (East and West Marginal Way South) approximately 1,200 feet from the shoreline, railroad tracks on the inside of the arterials, and narrow, widely spaced feeder streets angling towards the water. Harbor Island has a cir- cumferential arterial slightly'closer to the shoreline with even fewer public feeder streets perpendicular to the water. The west bank of South Reach (South Park neighborhood) is characterized by tightly packed, irregularly angled narrow streets.with many right-of- ways ending on the Waterway's bank. Traffic congestion is most pro- nounced on the First Avenue South and West Seattle Freeway Bridges, both of which handle close to 65,000 vehicles per day (Seattle Engineering Department, 1981), and Harbor Island arterials during commute hours. East and West Marginal Way South and the 16th Avenue South Bridge carry lesser loads. The entire Duwamish area except for the former residential areas of South'Park has excellent rail access. Railroad rights-of-way run the full length of East Marginal Way and as far south on West Marginal Way as the Port's Terminal 115. Rail rights-of-way also run down both 11th Avenue SW and 16th Avenue SW on Harbor Island. Variable street patterns reflect in an assemblage of variably sized lots. Table 2 presents the average size of waterfront sites in the three Duwamish Reaches with a comparison to the City as a whole. 6-2 TABLE 2 Average Dry, Submerged and Total Size Sites, Number of Sites, and Dry to Sumerged Ratios for Three Duwamish Reaches and Entire Shoreline, Waterfront Sites Only, Excluding Street Ends South Middle North Reach Reach Reach City Total Number of sites 45 28 30 375 Dry land 145,345 614,571 613,265 182,781 Submerged land 21,007 135,072 219,499 1049126 Total Land- 166,352 749,643 832,764 286,907 Ratio Dry to Submerged: 6.9 to 1 4.5 to 1 2.8 to 1 1.8 to 1 While the average sized waterfront site in South Reach is little more than half that of the City's average commercial and industrial shore- line site, Middle and North Reaches average more than 2@2- times that of the entire shoreline. All Duwamish Reaches exhibit a high dry to submerged land ratio in comparison to the City's. This is partially due to increased need for backup space in the heavily industrialized Duwamish but also due to the physical and legal constraints of using much of the waterway. The Duwamish Estuary exhibits some of the most severe water quality problems in the City.of Seattle. As a result of combined sewage overflows, urban runoff, industrial discharges and dumping, and in many cases undocumented sources, the levels of coliforms, toxicants and dissolved oxygen frequently violate Washington State Water Quality Standards. The problems of weed and algae growth, litter and debris, high wa 'ter temperatures and pH levels occur periodically, especially during the summer months. The portion of the Duwamish Estuary that runs through Seattle has been designated as a Class B waterway. Class B waters must meet or exceed the water quality requirements for uses that include recreation and aesthetic enjoyment, fishery and wildlife habitat, industrial and argricultural water supply, commerce and navigation and shellfish reproduction and rearing. C. Adjacent Lands The floodplain and tideflats of the old Duwamish River are now host to the largest industrial., transportation, manufacturing and ware- housing concentration in the Pacific Northwest. Representing nearly 60% of all industrially zoned landiwithin Seattle's City limits, approximately 3,140 acres, the Duwamish Industrial Area is bounded by Interstate 5 on the east, the Central Business District and Elliott Bay to the north, and the West Seattle-Burien bluff on the west, with the Waterways acting as a north-south transportation spine. 6-3 The 1979 industrial Area Background Report, Seattle Office of Policy Planning, presented the Duwamish industrial Area as predominantly a trdnsportation and distribution center. Nearly 40% of all land w@s used for such 'purposes. Manufacturing was the second most extensive u.se with 25%, and wh6lesale trade accounted for .roughly 10% of the land. Figure A, which is taken from the 1979 report, presents the land use breakdown by 1 digit SIC codes for the North and Sou th Duwamish industrial areas. North and South Duwamish are divided at So'uth Alaska Street. FIGURE A .Nbilh DIUW`@@M".-' is:--"h SoUth DuMirnis'h e , -'i4-76 1--hd U 1974 Land Ut 19 La se 1 qt Construction 2% i:6nstrucbdn 260t 24% Manufacturing Mahufadturf n*g 340k Transportation/ 43% Communica- Transportatiob tions/Utilities Communica- tions/Utilities 14% Wholesale 5% Wholesale 6% Retail 49t. Retail 4% FIRE/Services 5% FIRE/Services 9% 6% Public POopeity Public Property 3% Residential 1 Residential 4% Vacant Lot 7% Vacant Lbt 1 % Vacant Unit ;Z;--=l % Vacant Unit 4qtuAl Area 15,55.1 Acres Actual Area 1,581.7 Acres 6-4 Dominant industries include aerospace, shipbuilding, food processing, primary metals, machinery, and fabricated metals. While the Duwamish Industrial Area includes some of the largest firms in Seattle (Boeing Aerospace, Inc., Todd Shipyards, and Lockheed Shipyards), by far the largest, most dominant actor is the Port of Seattle. The Port owns 32,538 lineal feet of water frontage and 23,214,017 square feet of land within the Duwamish shoreline area alone. Thirty-eight percent of the shoreline and 43% of the land in the study area belongs to the Port. Residential uses continue to exist in the Georgetown and South Park neighborhoods. Several rezones over the past 30 years have lead to a constantly dwindling housing supply in Georgetown. But South Park seems relatively stable, and the community has indicated a strong desire to retain its residential character. II. LAND USE AND PLANNING HISTORY Since the early years of its founding, Seattle had always looked with desire upon the Duwamish Tideflats as a center for industrial and commer- cial activity. In its natural state, the tideflats presented a broad, flat marshland environment reaching up as far north as today's Central Business District, west across to the West Seattle Bluff and south to a flowing, winding Duwamish River. For hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, this area was home to the Duwamish Indian Tribe whose fish-based culture was ideally suited to the environment. Duwamish, which means "many colors," got its name from the rivers which originally drained into it upstream: the Green, White and Black Rivers. From roughly 1895 to 1921, a series of remarkable engineering efforts transformed the mudflats and winding stream into the waterways and industrial area we view today. In 1895, the Seattle and Lake Washington Waterway Company proposed straightening and dredging of the Duwamish R-iver and filling the tideflats in connection with a Lake Washington Canal cut through Beacon Hill. After two years, the firm failed, but much tideflat was filled in the process. Railroads placed trestles through the flats, and gradually the areas landward were filled. In 1909, the State Legislature created Commercial Waterway District #1 to "maintain and police the Duwamish River." Along with the Port of Seattle, created in 1911, and the City of Seattle, the District shortened the river from 133@@ to 41@ miles within the City, constructed the largest artificial island in the world (at the time), and dredged a navigation channel upstream to 9th Avenue South; all before 1921. In 1919, the U.S. Government took over responsibility for waterway maintenance. In 1962, the Waterway District dissolved itself and the Port of Seattle acquired all its rights and responsibilities. Flooding, a frequent occurrence in the river's natural state, was eased somewhat by the diversion of Lake Washington's outflow through the 6-5 northern ship canal in 1916. But flooding remained a problem until 1962 and the construction of the Howard Hanson Dam in the upper Green River. Zoning for the Duwamish Shoreline area has remained virtually unchanged since adoption of Seattle's first zoning ordinance in 1923. Initially, all of Geocodes 6. 7, 10, and 11 were zoned Manufacturing as well as large portions of Geocodes 8 and 9. All but certain noxious processes-were allowed in this zone and lot coverage was unrestricted. Idaho Street South to Alaskan Street South, Kellogg Island, Slip 1 to Turning Basin #1, and the site of the present Lone Star Cement Company just south of Spokane Street were zoned Industrial. Industrial Districts allowed all but resi- dential us'es and contained no lot coverage limitations. The 1947 and 1957 Zoning Ordinances resulted in no real change in allowed uses. Industrial zones (IG and IH) took precedence over manufacturing zones, and residen- tial uses were prohibited throughout the shoreline area. Currently, a zoning revision of the City's industrial-commercial properties is underway and i-s scheduled to be completed over the next few years. III. CURRENT LAND USE REGULATIONS A. The Shoreline Program Washington State adopted the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) in 1971. Of particular interest to this report is the act's designation of certain shorelines as "shorelines of state-wide significance" due to their size or value to the public. The Duwamish Waterway is so designated and State guidelines stipulate that local master programs "must give preference to uses which favor public and long-range goals" (WAC173-16-040(5)). The shoreline act outlines six principles that local governments must follow when planning for "shorelines of state-wide significance": 1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest. 2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline. 3. Result in long-term over short-term benefit. 4. Protect the resources and ecology of shorelines. 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline. 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shore- lines. The entire Duwamish study area is designated Urban Development. Containing 81,940 feet of water frontage, this represents 73% of the UD shoreline in the City. The intent of the Urban Development environment is to provide areas that are appropriate for commercial and industrial uses. It prohibits housing, principal use parking, and nonwater-dependent warehousing, but allows for almost all industrial and commercial uses with special encouragement given to water-dependent commerce and industry. One hundred percent lot coverage is permitted throughout the entire Duwamish area. Heights 6-6 are limited by a Floor Area Ratio of 2.5. Within the*UD environment, view corridors are not required for water-dependent uses. Zoning Code There are three industrial land use zones within the Duwamish areas: Industrial-Heavy (IH), Industrial-General (IG), and Manufacturing (M). All allow for a broad array of commercial and industrial uses and prohibit-residential development. IH permits outright more noxious processes such.as foundaries, petroleum refining, and chorine manufacture,, with M the most restrictive. All zones allow 100% lot coverage. Table 3 presents zoning designation by site and water frontage for the three Duwamish Reaches, excluding street ends. M is solely in the west portion of North Reach, and IG is predominantly in the South Reach. There are 25 street ends in the Duwamish with 3030 of water frontage. TABLE 3 Water Frontage by Land Use Zone, Excluding Street Ends @Q th Reach t1iddle Reach North-Reach Land Use of Frontage # of Frontage of Frontage Zone Site (feet) Sit f etJ Siles ffeet) Manufact.(M) 0_@ 0 0 0 1 .13-200 (IG) 45 14,550 5 15,200 0 0 (IH) 0 0, 23 173315 29 334681 Totals 45 14,550 28 32,515 30 34,881 C. Legal_Res_ponsibilities Though the Port of Seattle acquired all rights and responsibilities to the beds and shores of the Duwamish River within the jurisdiction of the old Commerical Waterwa District #1, legal conflicts have ari- y sen as to just what that ownership entails. Courts have ruled that the Port cannot extract rent from abutting shoreline property owners, even when they are using either the submerged or dry portions of the Waterway. Apparently the Port has the ability to remove property improvements such as iers or dolphins only when the structures p impede-navigation or enter the Congressionally authorized navigation channel. In addition to the rights obtained from the old Commercial Waterway District #1, the Port has acquired substantial rights to much of the Duwamish areas as an outright property owner. Throughout the Duwamish the Port has acquired 533 acres through purchase and condemnation. 6-7 Responsibility for maintaining and improving the navigation channel beilongs to @the-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps pays two- thirds of,the,apprbximately $500,000 annual cost of dredging the ch'annel with the Port picking up the remainder. State Harbor Areas exist in the Elliott Bay facing portions 'of North Reach. They are regulated by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) a'nd'designated by the State Constitution to "be forever reserved for'landings, wharves, streets, and other conveniences of navigation and commerce (RCW 79.01.44). These Harbor Areas may be leased but not sold. DNR leasing provisions allow water-dependent uses-up to 30-year leases while limiting nonwater-depende.nt uses to much shorter time periods. IV. LAND USE CHARACTERI'STICS (RESULTS OF DCLU'S SHORELINE INVENTORY) A. Waterfront Abutting, Waterfront Not Abutting, and Upland Lots Upland lots are a relatively insignificant portion of the total 1and within the Duwamish shoreline district, accounting for 30 of the sites but less than 3% of the area. Table 4 presents a distribution of sizes and numbers by Du.wamish's Three Reaches and the City as a whole. TABLE 4 Waterfront Abutting, Waterfront Not Abutting, and Upland Sites by Total Sizes for Three Duwamish Reaches and Entire Shoreline, Excluding Street Ends South Middle North City Reach Reach Reach Total Upland: of Sites 39 4 1 310 Size (acres) 18 13 3 152 Size (% of City Total) 11.8 8.6 2.0 100.0 Waterfront - Abutting: # of Sites 42 28 30 365 Size (acres) 141 482 589 2,442 Size (% of City lotal). 5.8 19.7 24.0 100.0 Waterfront - Not Abutting: # of Sites 3 0 0 10 Size (acres) 31 0 0 50 Size (% of City lotal) 62.0 0 0 100.0 Totals: of Sites 84 32 31 685 Size (acres) 190 495 592 29,639 Size (% of City Total) 7.2 18.8 22.4 100.0 6-8 Upland sites.are most prevalent in the South Reach primarily because of the small lot size and large number of singe-family residences in the South Park NeIghborhood. The Middle and North Reaches have almost no upland lots with.the huge size of their waterfront abutting sites usually protruding far beyond the 200-foot limit of the shore- line district. The South Reach also contains the only waterfront not-abutting sites in the Duwamish area. Due to the scarcity of'upland and waterfron t not-abutting sites, much of.the analysis here is done exclusively with waterfront abutting sites. B. Types of Uses The study area is a highly complex commercial and industrial corri- dor. Table 5 reveals thatcomplexity by presenting predominant uses for waterfront and upland sites taken from the Department of Cons.tructionand Land Use's 1982 Commercial,Industrial Shoreline Inventory- TABLE 5 Predominant Uses by Waterfront and Upland Lots for Three Duwamish Reaches North Reach Middle Reach South Reach Uses Upld Wtrfrt UpId Wtrfrt Upld Wtrfrt Seafood Products I General Manufacturing 8 12 6 6 Ship Building 3, 1 1 Transportation & Utilities 6 3 6 Marine Transportation 1 1 2 'Container Terminals 3 Non-Marine Services 3 2 4 9 5 'Government.Services 1 Retail Trade,(Non-Marine) 1 1. Marinas 2 Open Storage 2 1 2 1 Vacant/Underused Areas. 1 3 4 Street Ends/Right-of Ways 8 5 11 Commercial Boat Building 1 Leased Office Space Gen. 1 Marine Services 1 Residential 13 12 Marine Manufacturing 5 Cultural & Entertainment 3 Wholesale Trade 2 Restaurant 1 Total 1 39 3 35 39 56 6-9 Major uses include general manufacturing, nonmarine services, transpor- tation and-utilities, and container terminals... South Reach has addi- tional concentrations of residences and marine manufacturing,. while North Reach is home to two large shipbuilding firms. Table 6 presents a more generic.way of analyzing land use by describ,ing the use func- tions that a site may contain. Almost 70% of the waterfront sites had some portion of the lot over land used for storage. Transporting material, manufacuturing or processing, office space, and residences. are also prevalent uses over land. Moorage and transportation are the two common uses over water. Almost two-thirds of the water f *rontage in the Duwamish,, West, and East Waterways is taken up by sites that have boat moorage. Moorage is further broken down in Table 7 to reveal that almost one- third of the waterfront sites have barge space, 10% have room for tugs, and 8% can moor container ships, and another 8% can moor pleasure craft. Fishing moorage, however, is not significant on the Duwamish. TABLE 6 Duwamish, West, and East Waterways Waterfront Sites Excluding Street Ends How Sites Are Used in Order of Frequency of Sites T. of Sites Over Land: Stores Material 72 69.9 Transports Material 48 46.6 Manufactures or Processes 40 38.8 Office 26 Residential 16 15.5 Services Ships or Boats. 9 8.7 Sells Non-Marine Goods 4 3.9 Dry Moorage 3 2.9 Sells Marine Goods 1 1.0 Restaurant 1 1.0 Misc. Uses Incl. Parks 19 18.4 Over Water: Moorage 53 51.5 Transports Material 35 34.0 Stores Material 10 9.7 Services Ships or Boats 9 8.7 Manufactures or Processes 7 6.8 Sells Marine Goods 2. 1.9 Residential 1 1.0 Sells Non-Marine,Goods 0 0.0 Office 0 0.0 Restaurant 0 0.0 Misc. Other Incl. Parks 4 3.9 Total Uses 103 100.0 6-10 TABLE 7 Moorage onthe Duwamish, West and East Waterways By Numbers of Sites and Maximum Boat Usage Typqs of-Moora2e of Sites % of Sites of Vessels Barge 31' 30.7 64 Tug 10 9.9 32 Container 8 7.9 25 Pleasure 8 7.9 163 Fishing 3 3.0. 11 Freighter 3 3.0 6 Floating-Homes 0 0.0 0 C. Water Dependemp_y Retaining and encouraging water-dependent uses on the shoreline represents a principal policy,objective of both the Seattle Shoreline Master Program and the State Shoreline Management Act. In the _Department of Construction and Land Use's Commercial Shoreline Inventory., sites were classifieds into one of nine categories, on the basis of the degree of water dependency.exhibited by the principal use of each site. Breakdowns for the Duwamish Reaches are shown in Tables 8 through 1.0. TABLE 8 Sites and Water Frontage by Water-Dependent Use Categories for Du.wamish Subarea, Excluding Street Ends Waterfront Abutting Sites Only Frontage of Frontage % of Types_of Uses Sites _(feet)___ Total WD-IC 26 43,591 53 WD-REC 6 1,285 2 WR 16 12,150 is MULTI-INC-WD 7 8,550 10 MRN-REL 500 1 NOT WD-WR 37 14,355 18 No.Use or Street End 6 1,515 2 TOTALS 100 81,946 101 6-11 TABLE 9 Size of Site (Dry, Submerged, and Dry Percentage of Total) by Water-Dependency, Excluding Street Ends for.Three Duwamish Reaches., Waterfront Sites Only Dry as % @'North Reach Dry Submerg_@d ....of Total WD-IC 14,411,519 5 '236,005 73 WD-REC 37,900 4,000 91 WR 2,369,000 640,400 79 MULTI-INC-WD 1'000"000 671,000 60 ,NOT WD-WR 433@@750 @940,900 32 .No Use -- 143,173 38,183 78 TOTAL 18,397,942 7,530,488 7.1 Dry as % Middle Reach - Dry Submerged of Total WD'-IC 7,530,044 1,655,000 82 ,WD-REC 288,000 133,500 68 WR 3,,449,,050 1,399,650 71 MULTI-INC-WD 1,704,000 155,500 92 NOT WD-WR 3,295,300 418,350 89 No Use -- .933,500 20xOOO 98 TOTAL .17,207,974 3,782,000 82 Dry as % Dry Submerged of Total wo-IC 1,169,600 4689000 71 WD-REC 53,000 35,450 60 WR 32,700 18,000 64 MULTI-INC-WD 986,000 185,000 84 MRN-REL 53,080 0 100 Not WD-WR 49231,050 222,900 95. No Use 15,100 16LOOO 49 TOTAL 69540,530 .945,350 87 6-12 TABLE 10 Average Site Size by Water*Dependency for Three Duwamish Reaches, Excluding Street Ends Average Total North Reach of Sites Site Size (sq._ft._) WD-IC 14 1,403,394 WD-REC 43,900 WR 7 430,000 MULTI-INC-WD 2 835,500 NOT WD-WR 5 274,930 No Use 1 181,356 TOTAL 30 749,641 Middle Reach WD-IC 7 1,313$292 WD-REC 1 421$500 WR 8 606$087 MULTI-INC-WD .2 .929,750 NOT WD-WR 8 4641-216 No Use 2 -274,64_1 TOTAL 28 864,281 South.Reach WD-IC 5 327,520 WD-REC 4 22,112 WR 1 50,700 MULTI-INC-WD 3 390,333 MRN-REL 2 26$540 Not WD-WR 27 164,961 No Use 3 -10,366 TOTAL 45 166$353 Water-dependent Industrial/Commercial (WD-IC) is the dominant category in the study area ' with 53% ofall water frontage and 55% of all acreage. This dominance increases as one travels downstream. WDIC represents 30%,of South Reach's water frontage!, 42% of Middle Reach's, and over 70% of North Reach's. The same pattern holds for site size as well. As seen in Table 10, the average size of WD-IC sites is larger than any other category.except-for Multiple Use Including Water-Dependent (MU) in South Reach. .6-13 D. Public Access The Industrial Duwamish provides relatively little opportunity for public access and enjoyment of the shoreline. Duwamish Waterway Park is the only City-maintained park in the study area. A boat ramp exi.sts on the east bank under.the First Avenue South Bridge and a recreation area is planned'for'the Spokane Street Right-of-Way upon completion of the West Seattle Freeway. The only major regulated public access area is the Kellogg Island Bird Sanctuary, but access isIdifficult and no significant improvements have been made to make the site more inviting. In fact, a long-term trend of street right- of-way vacations and approved street use permit actually results in diminishing public access in the Duwamish area. V. ISSUES Desirability of continuted industrial and commercial land use dominance in the Duwamish appears to be a public consensus at this time. Within that umbrella, however, many land use and related issues h "ave surfaced affecting the future of the area. Some significant ones are outlined here. A. Structural Changes Affecti_ng_Waterwayq Two major physical improvements may affect the Duwamish waterway system's capacity and,utilization. First, construction of a new high-level West Seattle Bridge.will allow easier access to upstream properties and spur more intense development of the shoreline for transship- ment over water. The 6-lane,.5,700 feet long, 155 feet high span is scheduled to be completed by the end of 1984. The second major physical improvement involves a potentially major dredging operation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The authorized channels of the East and West Waterways would be narrowed from 750 feet to 500 feet to allow more berthing room along the sides and the channel depths would be deepened from 34 feet to 39 feet. The authorized channel of the lower Duwamish waterway.downstream of the First Avenue South Bridge would be widened from 200 feet to 250 feet and deepened from 30 feet to 39 feet. Mitigation of the loss of shallow water habitat would be part of the project. The benefits of the project would include improved safety and a reduction in tranpsortation.costs for waterway.users. These changes would allow larger container ships and freighters to enter the waterways, raising land use questions about the desirability of extensive con- tainerization of the Duwamish Waterway, efficient use of the shore- line, and public use of publicly improved navigation channels. B. Water Qualit -Y As a "shoreline of state-wide significance," the Duwamish Estuary is designated by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act for spe- cial protection of "the natural character" and "ecology" of its 6-14 shorelines. Yet it currently has the most contaminated.water and least natural shoreline of any body of water in Seattle. The distance between public goals and current conditions is made all the more significant when economic, as well as environmental, costs of contamination are understood. As a recent Metro waterquality study ofthe Duwamish summarized: The.estuary now functions both as the receiving water for major pollutant sources and as habitat for a diverse aquatic community, including economically significant salmonid populations. Major sources of water quality degradation include outflow from the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant, combined sewer overflows, and 11non-point source" metal and organic toxicants. C. Dredge Spoils Disposal. One consequence of long-term water quality degradation has.been con- tamination of the waterway system's riverbed. This has lead to severe environmental and economic problems in the location of suitable sites for dredge spoil deposition. State and federal authorities do not allow the disposal of contaminated spoils in open water and appropriate sites on land are scarce and economically pro- hibitive to reach by truck. One method of disposing of spoils is to use it as fill on.ones own property. However, only the Port of .Seattle has sufficient property holdings to use that pr'ocedure, and even the Port is experiencing political constraints as it tries to accomplish this on a major scale. (Pier.90-91 Fill Proposal) Inability to resolve this problem could result in severe constraints on the use of the Duwamish. Private water-dependent firms might be especially hard hit. A Contaminated Dredge Spoils Task Force'has recently been formed, made up of representatives of:various federal, state, and local government agencies and departments that have responsibilities in this area. This forum, or some other, needs to come up with both short- and long-term solutions to the problem of contaminated dredge spoils disposal to ensure industrial health of the Duwamish.waterway system. D. Relationship Between Industry and Non-Industry Given industrial dominance of the Duwamish Subarea, are any non- industrial uses appropriate? The South Park neighborhood maintains the only significant number of residences within the subarea's shore- line district. Some are under industrial zoning and the Urban 'Development shoreline environment an6are thus non-conforming. There .is currently only one developed public park, and one natural area - a major undeveloped bird sanctuary at Kellogg Island - on the Duwamish. Are these uses compatible with the surrounding heavy industry? The 6-151 future of Kellogg Island in particular has become a significant land use issue. State, regional, and local r 'esource agencies see it as a major environmental asset. In the past, the' Port of Seattle has expressed desire to develop this site for 'Industrial u'se but has no immediate plans.. The issue focuses on how "clean" heavy indust.ry. can or should be. Perhaps localized pollution is politically acceptable if enough job's are provided. If Duwamish water and air quality does improve, demand for increased public access will.follow.. But can industry ever'be clean.enough to exist side by side.with residential and recreational uses? E. Relationship Between Waterways and Major Industrial Area The Duwamish East and West Waterways act as a transportation spine for the entire Duwamish industry area. Though many firms make no direct use of the waterways, they often buy or sell to firms that do. The economic health of the water-dependent firms along the shoreline and those in the greater industrial area are thus linked. Further investigation of this linkage could be useful in helping facilitate both economic development and water-dependent use along the shore- line. F. Air Pollution The Duwamish Industrial Area has the worst air quality in the City of Seattle, with the South Park neighborhood particularly effected. Can land use and emmis.sion controls ameliorate this problem, and if so, what might be the economic impacts of such efforts? G. Street Ends as Public Access Street end rights-of-way have traditionally provided small, usually undeveloped yet plentiful public access to the shoreline. These sites can often be used to launch small boats, to. fish, or just to approach the water's edge. Within the Duwamish area, there have been 19 street ends vacated. Another 10 are proposed for vacation or are known to be possible vacations. Along with.existing street use per- mits and other factors such as width and terrain, only two suitable publicaccess street end sites'exist on the East Bank of the Duwamish north of the First Avenue South Bridge, and only on-e exists on the. West Bank. A task force made up of various City departments, Metro and the Port of Seattle has been formed to study the impacts of con- tinued approval of street vacation permits on public access in the Duwamish and to recommend appropriate policies for future decision- making in this area. H. Coordinated Development With massive public investments being constructed (West Seattle Bridge).and planned (Corps of Engineers dredging project), there is a 6-16 need for a coordinated private-public.development plan for the water way system. The City, the Port of Seattle, maritime husinesses on the Duwamish and elsewhere, and Seattle's citizens would all benefit from the predictability such a coordinated, comprehensive planning effort, in which the Port would take an active role, could achieve. 6-17 CHAPTER 7- I-ake.Washington Ship Canal INTRODUCTION A. The Area This 2-1/3 mile long, narrow body of water is.the home of the Ballard fishing fleet and one of Seattle's major industrial areas. The canal connects Puget Sound on the west with Lake Union.and Lake Washington to the east. The area described here stretches from the Hiram M. Chittendem Locks east southeast to the Fremont Bridge. It includes the freshwater portion of the Salmon Bay Waterway and the Fremont Cut. On its north side are Ballard and Fremont; on its south side are the hills of Magnolia and Queen Anne separated by the Interbay Industrial Area. B. History of the Water Body Both the Salmon Bay Waterway and the Fremont Cut represent radical alterations. of the natural environment. Salmon Bay was once a shallow, saltwater bay,which received the drainage of Lake Union across land that was later excavated for the Fremont Cut. At that time there was no connection between Lake Washington and.Lake Union which was .fed by springs. Lake Washington joined@with the Cedar River at the south end and flowed into the Duwamish. Construction of the Locks and the Lake Washington Ship Canal system lowered Lake Washington about eight feet to the level of Lake Union, and raised Salmon Bay to the same level. The Cedar River then reversed its direction to flow into Lake Washington. Lake Washington now drains through Lake Union to the Locks and spillways. 'The Lake Washington Ship Canal.including the cuts and the locks was completed and dedi- cated in 1917. The Salmon Bay Waterway and,Fremont Cut Area has been a manufacturing and industrial area since Seattle's early days. Even before the Locks were constructed, saw mills lined the waterway. The 1923 Zoning Code shows most of the area along the Waterway as a Manufacturing District with Industrial Districts immediately inland. The 1947 Zoning Code again showed much.of the waterfront as Manufacturing but most of the areas which had been designated industrial in the 1923 Ordinance became commercial in the 1947 Ordinance. When the 1957 Zoning Ordinance was adopted the present pattern of mostly industrial with some manufacturing areas was in place. The 1965 Comprehensive Plan also showed the entire area along both. sides of the Canal as Industrial. With some exceptions, the industr ial-manufacturing nature of the Ship Canal area was recognized during adoption of the Seattle Shoreline Master Program. The majority of the Canal properties were designated Urban Development. 7-1 N.ew Neighborhood Commercial zoning has been proposed by LUTP for the south side of the Fremont Cut. That land now zoned IG would become Commercial 1 (Cl) and that portion zoned M would become Commercial 2 (C2). The Cl-designation requires a retail/service function for manufacturing uses over 25,000 sq ft while the C2 designation does not. II. REGULATIONS IN THE SHORELINE DISTRICT A. The Seattle Shoreline Master Program Four different shoreline environments are found in the Canal area: Urban Development (UD), Urban Stable (US), Conservancy Management (CM) and Conservancy Natural (CN). Urban Development is the environment with the largest land area, encompassing all of the north side of the canal and the central por- tion of the south side. Urban Stable land is found on the south side between the locks and the Ballard Bridge and between 3rd Avenue-West and the Fremont Bridge. In general, the urban environments extend to the harbor line or its equivalent with Conservancy Management or Conservancy Natural in open water. The Ballard Locks are designated Conservancy Management. The purpose of the US environment (24.60.345 SMC) is "to provide areas for controlled development and redevelopment, encouraging a variety and mixture of compatible uses while also maintaining the existing character, scale and intensity of use." The purpose of the UD environment (24.60.360 SMC) is as follows: "The areas included in the UD environment are primarily those which are appropriate for commercial and industrial uses. The intent of the designation is to provide for efficient utilization of such areas for water-dependent commerce and industry consistent with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, as amended, and with other appli- cable regulations." The intent of the two conservancy designations, Conservancy Management (CM) and Conservancy Natural (CN) is to preserve areas in near natural state. Of the two, Conservancy Natural, has more empha- sis,on preserving fragile ecological systems while Conservancy Management is generally for public lands such as parks and public marinas. A CM designation for the locks is consistent with that intent. The use of the two Conservancy designations in the submerged lands of the Canal area is to preserve open water for navigation. No construction is permitted in the Conservancy Natural environment. The major differences in uses between the US and UD environments are that the US environment permits housing while the UD environment pro- hibits it and the UD environment permits industrial uses such as. refineries and mills which the US environment prohibits. The UD 7-2 environment also permits outdoor advertising signs which are prohi- bited in all other environments. Both environments permit offices, retail shops,, restaurants, open and covered wet moorage, marine construction and repair, marine service stations, yacht clubs, seaplane facilities, cargo handling and water-dependent manufac- turing, log storage, sand, gravel and concrete mix plant (a special use in the US'environment), dredging and filling (for water dependent uses), and fraternal clubs. Both environments prohibit hotels, prin- cipal use parking, land based.aircraft facilities, nonwater-dependent warehousing, and sanitarylandfills., From the above it can be seen that the principal difference between the portfons of the Canal designated US and the portions designated UD is that the US proper ties would not, be able to develop with mills and refineries or to put up outdoor advertising signs. Since, except for two L-3 zoned lots next to the Locks the US properties are zoned IG which prohibits housing, the combination of zoning and shorelines would result in housing being prohibited in most of the US shoreline as well as the UD. In addition to the use difference 's described above, the SSMP has dif- flerent view corridor regulations for US and UD properties. View corridors are required for all development on US-designated proper- ties whether water-dependent or not. In contrast, view corridors on UD-designated land are only required for non-water-dependent uses. Where required in either US or UD environments, view-corridors of 35 percent must be provided. Buil-dings or large equipment are not per- mitted in view corridors., and under the present SSMP parking in view corridors is only permitted if it is depressed 4 feet below street level. To date, this restriction.has not affected water-dependent industries between the Locks and the Canal because they were already developed (without view corridors) at the time of the adoption of the SSMP. However, should these industries choose to redevelop and demolish existing buildings they would have to provide view corri- dors. In the Ship Canal those areas designated US correspond to the geographic areas in the SSMP with height limits of 35 feet and lot coverage of 50 percent. The UD areas correspond to the geographic areas with lot coverage of 100 percent, a Floor Area Ratio of 2.5 and no height limit. B . Zoning The zoning on both sides of the Canal in the Shorelines district is almost exclusively General Industrial (IG). The exceptions are: L-3 (Lowrise 3 Residential) -.short st retch of 350 feet immediately east of the Locks on the south side at the foot of the Magnolia Hill. M - two locations: on land between the Ballard Bridge and Jesse Avenue and from midway between 6th Avenue W. and 3rd Avenue W. to Queen Anne Avenue N. (Seattle Pacific.University site) on the south side. 7-3 IH - two locations: on the south side, mostly on wat er between the Ballard Bridge and Jesse Avenue W. (waterward of the M zone) and on the north side between 17th Avenue W.-and 8th Avenue N.W. The three Manufacturing zones on the Canal (M, IG, and H) all have the purpose '@to provide protection for all kinds of industry under conditions'that minimize conflicts of-land use within and between zones. Mutual protection is provided by prohibiting new residential development in manufacturing and industrial zones. The M zone provides for light manufacturing uses under specific conditions'intended to minimize conflicts with nearby residen- tial uses. 2. The IG zone provides for a greater range of general industrial activities with provision for protecting adjacent residential zones. 3. The IH zone provides for and protects the heaviest industrial activities prohibiting residential uses and in locations to achieve maximum isolation." The Manufacturing zone does permit housing on waterfront lots, but only as a Council conditional use. Of the M zoned lots on the Canal,- only one would qualify as a waterfront lot where housing could be developed and that is the site of the Ewing Place mini-park and a transmission tower. Therefore, the only place along the Canal where housing could be built under the existing zoning and shoreline regu- lations are the L-3 zoned lots which are already developed with apartments. C. Other Legal Constraints - Pierhead and Harbor Lines Seattle Kroll Maps show a single state harbor line, federal pierhead and bulkhead lines, and federal channel lines in the Ship Canal. The State Department of Natural Resources reports (Steve Tilley, personal communication) that the Ship Canal is a State Waterway and that the single harbor line is really a waterway line. In many areas, this waterway line coincides with the federal pierhead and bulkhead lines. However, in a number of places the waterway line is inshore of the pierhead line. State law authorizes the Port of Seattle to issue leases and collect rents in these areas, but in the absence of interest by the Port, the DNR has stepped in to administer leases. 111. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS A. The Water The Lake Washington Ship Canal is a freshwater system with no tidal action. Although some saltwater intrudes at depth from the Locks, 7-4 .......... dd V::ff ... .. ....... .......... ... .. ..... ...... ... ... p, d .............. ... % .... .... . . ... ... ... .. . .. ..... .. ..... ... ... .. ...... . 0, ........... .......... .... ..... .. ... ......... -F . .... .. . .. la, rr) .......... ....... ........ ::v; co ox:t@:x: I ITH .......... the.Corps of Engineers has imposed a special condition whereby sali- nity shall not exceed one part per thousand (1%) at any.point or depth along a line that transects the Ship Canal at the University Bridge in Lake Union. The Cedar River is the major mechanism for control of water quality in the Canal. The Ship Canal elevation.and outflows are regulated by the Hiram M. Chittendem Locks and adjoining spillways. The level is normally regulated between elevations 20 and 21-85 feet (Corps of Engineer data). The lower elevation is main- tained during the winter to permit work on shore facilities. B. Water Depth and Channel Dimensions The federal navigation channel maintained by the Corps of Engineers is 100 feet wide and 30 feet deep. Except for minor shoals in the vicinity of Fremont Bridges dredged in 1959, this portion has not required maintenance dredging (U.S. Corps of Engineers, Lake Washington Ship Canal Master Plan, 1976). NOAA chart 18447 shows water depths from 20-30 feet adjacent to the channel and from 10-20 feet on privately owned submerged lands. Various property owners have also applied for and received shoreline substantial development permits for dredging of berthing areas. Three drawbridges with the potential for restricting ship traffic span the canal. All have a horizontal clearance of 150 feet. Vessels entering the locks from Puget Sound must first pass under the Burlington Northern Railroad bridge with a vertical clearance of 43 feet above Mean Low Water. The Ballard Bridge at 15th Avenue West has a vertical clearance of 29 feet (46 feet at the center). The Fremont Bridge on the east end of the Fremont Cut has a vertical clearance of 17 feet (31 feet for the central 30 feet). Ballard and Fremont drawbridges do not open for smaller vessels, whether commer- cial or pleasure, during morning and evening rush hours. Bridge .opening restrictions may cause sheduling difficulties for commercial vessels and increase the disrability of sailboat moorages located west of the bridges. C. Wave Protection Because this part of the Lake Washington Ship Canal is narrow and fully enclosed, it enjoys exceptional protection from wind generated waves. Speed through the Canal is limited to 7 knots to reduce wave damage from passing boats. D. Topography Shoreline dry land on the Canal is generally flat with few topographical constraints for development. E. Submerged to Dry Land Ratios Table 1 gives submerged to dry land ratios for waterfront lots in the various areas of the Ship Canal. Except for those areas along the 7-5 Fremont Cut which have little or no submerged land (Geocodes 14, 15, and 18) ratios are in the 40-60 percent range showing a usable balance between submerged and dry lands. TABLE 1 Total Dry and Submerged Land by Geocode in the Ship Canal, Waterfront Sites Only Water Submerged Frontage Dry Land Land To tal Land Dry Percent Geocode Lots -(Ft. _(Ft,Lj __J Ft. 21_ _-(Ft. 2) of TOTAL 13 17 7062 29,294$580 1,201,627 3$1496,207 65.6% 14 15 4370 1$728,735 245$730 1,973,665 87.6% 15 1 1900 581)500 - 0 - 58,500 100% 16 8 6990 2$251,157 2$698,325 4,949,482 45.5% 17 11 5383 1,086,200 1,415$350 2,501,550 43.4% 18 1 340 12,,600 0 - 12$600 100% F. Upl_and_Lots The longest stretches of upland lots in the Ship Canal area occur along both sides of the Fremont Cut, east of 3rd Avenue West and Northwest, where a combination of railroad tracks and Corps of Engineers-owned property separates privately owned land from the water. The narrowness of the cut and the necessity of maintaining an unobstructed navigation channel through the cut limits moorage and, therefore, precludes water-dependent uses on these lots. Other upland lots occur sporadically along the canal. Table 2 summarizes the number of waterfront and upland sites. Although the number of upland lots is similar to the number of waterfront lots, the upland lots tend to be smaller so that the area of land devoted to upland lots is substantially less than the area devoted to waterfront lots. TABLE 2 Number and Area of Waterfront and Upland Sites by Geocode, the Ship Canal Number of Area of Number of Area of Geocode Upland Lots -Upl_and__Lots Waterfront Lots Waterfront Lots 13 2 9,500 17 3,496,207 14 2 34,315 15 1$973$665 15 28 563$450 1 58s5OO 16 4 191$200 8 4$949$482 17 10 402,350 11 2$501,550 18 15 519$040 2 12,600 7-6 G. The Locks The Hiram M-Chittendem Locks provide a navigation passage between Puget Sound and the freshwater Salmon Bay at'a mean elevation of 21 feet above sea level. There are two locks. The large lock is 825 feet long and 80 feet wide. It will accommodate vessels up to 760 feet long with a maximum draft of 32.5 feet. The small lock has a chamber 150 feet long by 30 feet wide. It will accommodate vessels up to 123 feet long with a maximum draft of 16 feet. Pleasure boat traffic has been steadily increasing since 1961 but no special trend is evident for commercial craft. There is also con- siderable seasonal traffic variation with pleasure boat traffic peaking in the summer while fishboat and light commercial traffic peak in the fall. Rafted logs, sand, gravel, crushed rock, and distillate fuel oil comprise the major portion of commerce shipped through the Canal (85 percent or more of the 1.7 million short tons annual average for 1975-1978). Commodities are shipped and received mostly to or from ports within the Puget Sound area and Alaska. The greatest portion of commercial shipping consists of tugboats and barges. cargo vessels. The largest barges transiting the locks are for Alaska bound commodities. These barges are up to 76 ft. wide, 280 ft. long and about 13 ft. in draft. (The above information on the Locks was taken from U.S. Army Corps of Enginee s Lake Washington hi Canal Master Plan, 1976, and Lake _T' Washing on7rh1D Canal-Emerqency Closure System - Major Rehabi itation Program, H. Traffic The Seattle Engineering Department's 1981 Traffic Flow Map shows that the greatest volume of traffic in the Ship Canal area is over the Ballard Bridge with 46,500 vehicles per day. Fifteenth Avenue West and Northwest has been designated a congested corridor by Metro. Leary Way N.W. and West Nickerson Street are also heavily travelled with 16,100 and 15,500 vehicles per day but are not designated as congested corridors. These are all arterials, mostly outside the shoreline district. Traffic on access streets is considerably less. 1. Rail Access Railroad tracks run parallel to the shoreline along both sides of the Canal. With the exception of Commodore Way Area between the Ballard Bridge,and the Locks on the south side where the tracks run one to two block's inland, these tracks provide direct rail access to shoreline lots. On the east end of the Canal on both sides of the Canal the tracks actually impede water-dependent development because of their closeness to r t the water's edge. 7-7 J -Public Access to the Shorelines The public has access to the shoreline along the ship canal at a number of places on both sides. On the west end,, the grounds of the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks include gardens, viewing areas ofthe locks themselves, and a fish ladder. The fish ladder connects with the Seattle Parks Department's Commodore Park on the south side. The Corps of Engineers reported 430,900 visitors to the locks in 1975. Other public points of public access on the north side of the canal include a partially reconstructed pier in the 24th Avenue N.W. streetend, a boat ramp in the 14th Avenue N.W. street end and a viewing platform on the Fremont Cut. On the south side of the canal, public access is provided at Fishermen's Terminal, at the 6th Avenue West streetend and at the Ewing Place Park adjacent to the 3rd Avenue West street end. It is possible to walk or jog along the canal next to the railroad tracks from 3rd Avenue West to the Fremont Bridge on the south side and for a lesser distance on the north in Canal Park. IV. ADJACENT LANDS The logical boundaries of adjacent lands to the ship canal are the boun- daries of the Ballard industrial area which includes both sides of the Ship Canal from the locks on the west to approximately Greenwood Avenue on the east. The Ballard industrial area includes 368 acres of industrially zoned land, 8 percent of all industrial land in the City. The majority is zoned IG, with an additional 15 percent zoned M and 22 percent zoned IH. This area has a number of marine-related uses and other industrial uses which.serve as necessary support services for the water-dependent uses along the Canal. On the north side of the canal, the industrial area is surrounded by a substantial residential neighborhood and business community, in addition to recreational facilities and tourist attractions. The Ballard business district has recently undergone revitalization efforts. On the south side of the canal, activity is predominantly marine-related. Transportation routes are oriented toward Fisherman's Terminal. Beyond Fisherman's Terminal and related marine activites, the industrial area continues into Interbay. Multi-family zones and small areas of business and commercial activity separate the industrial area below from the resi- dential communities of Magnolia and Queen Anne on the hills above. The "Industrial Area Background Report" prepared by the Seattle Office of Policy Planning in 1979 identified the following factors about the Ballard Industrial Area: 7-8 � The data collected do not indicate significant changes in the character of the Ballard industrial area over the past 10-15 years. In fact, the findings provide a general impression of a healthy and active industrial area, as evidenced by land use data,_numerous property sales, increase in land value, and building investment and activity. � A study of land use since 1967 indicates that manufacturing uses have not been forced out of retail and other non-industrial uses @as some had feared. For the entire Ballard study area, manufacturing acreage has declined slightly from 34.7.percent of the industrial land to 32.7 percent in 1978. � Although manufacturing uses may appear to make up a relativ.ely small portion of industrially zoned land, of all the industrial areas studied, Ballard has the highest percentage devoted to such use. � Since the amount of vacant land has remained quite stable over the years, it can be assumed that new development or expansion of existing businesses has taken place at the expense of resi- dential uses in industrial zones which have declined in acreage. Much of the residential use in the midst of the industrial.area is owned by neighboring industry and is being "held" for future expansion. � Property sales activity is another indication of degree of vita- lity of an area. Sales of unimproved properties(which include residential uses in nonresidential zones) were brisk in Ballard. � The area's vitality is also evidenced in new construction and expansion activites, particularly since 1975. � The fisheries industry appears to offer growth potential in Ballard. � Other characteristics of Ballard's industrial area may be "problems" or "potentials," depending on one's viewpoint. These include: 1) the increasing demand from retail, office and perhaps residential sectors for additional development in this area; 2) the availability of land for future development of expansion--whether vacant, under-utilized, currently in residen- tial use although zoned industrial, or currently in use but with the potential for more intensive development; and 3),the cnested condition of parking, access, and circulation in Bal ard's industrial zones. The study found land use in the Ballard Industrial Area to be distributed as follows: 7-9 Ballard Land Use 1978 7% Construction 33% Manufacturing % 5q Transportation/ Communics- tione/Utilities 13% Wholesale 8% Retail 8% FIRE/Servicos 2% Public Property 7% Residential 6% Vacant Lot 2% Vacant Unit Actual Area 368.7 Acres The Industrial Area Background Study also identified the following issues for the Ballard Industrial Area: High traffic levels, both marine and vehicular, are overloading Ballard's industrial area transportation system. How can this. condition be mitigated? How shall the local industries cope with potential encroachment from non-industrial uses, especially along the waterfront? V. LAND USE The shoreline inventory conducted by DCLU in 1982 gives information about the uses and activities on both waterfront and upland lots in the ship canal. For purposes of the inventory, the Ship Canal was divided into six geographical segments (#13-18) shown on Figure 1. The segmentation allows us to analyze land use from the perspective of the canal as a whole as well as to focus on specific areas with unique conditions. Each shoreline site was placed into one of nine water-dependent categories according to the.amount and type of water-dependent activities of the pri- mary use on the site. For the Ship Canal, the major category (Table 3) was water-dependent industrial-commercial (WD-IC) with 57.8 percent,of the water frontage so classified. Water-dependent recreational (WD-REC) was 7-10 the second most common category with 18% of the sites in that category followed by water-related (WR) with 12% of the frontage. Only 0.1% of the Canal was in a use designated as not water-dependent or water-related, and one site, or 1% of the Canal frontage was vacant. TABLE 3 Water Frontage and Number of Sites in Different Water-Dependent Categories in the Ship Canal Water-Dependency Water % of # of % of Category Frontage Total Sites Total WD-IC 15,055 57.8% 29 54.7 WD-REC 4,680 18.0% 7 13.2 WD-BOTH 805 3.1% 3 5.7 WR 3,125 12.0% 8 15.1 MULTI-INC-WD 1,960 7.5% 3 5.7 MRN-REL 130 0.5% 1 1.9 FLHM 0 0 0 NOT WD-WR 40 0.1% 1 1.9 VACANT 250 1.0% -1 1.9 TOTAL 26,045 100% 53 100% In addition to looking at water-dependency, the inventory classified the primary and secondary uses on waterfront and upland lots according to a land use code. According to that classification, the most common primary uses on waterfront lots are general manufacturing, mar-one services, marine transportation, ship and boat building, and marinas (Table 4). Secondary uses (i.e., uses which are not the predominant uses on a site) fill out the pictuzz of what is happening on a waterfront site (Table 5). In many cases, the secondary use may be the most visible use, for example, when a seafood processor moors large numbers of fishing vessels. Some sites had as many as three secondary uses as well as a primary use. Twenty-two sites provide some sort of marine services as secondary uses, and 12 sites provide commercial moorage. Ten sites are involved with either seafood products or fishing activities. Eleven sites are involved with marine retail trade. An additional three sites are involved with boat or ship building. Restaurants are secondary uses on three waterfront sites. 7-11 TABLE 4 Primary Uses on Waterfront Lots in the Ship Canal Number of Sites by Use in Each Geocode Tot-aF Total - -Geocode for for Use 13 14 15 16 17 18 Area ity-- Residential 1 1 Floating Homes Seafood Products.and Fishing Activities 1 3 General Manufacturing 2 4 1 7 Boat Buildin g 1 1 2 Sh_i_p_Building 2 1 1 4 Transportation and Utilities. 1 1 1 3 Marine Transportation 2 3 2 7 Wholesale Trade 1 1 2 Marine Retail Trade 2 Non-marine Services 1 1 1 3. Governmental Services 1 -1 2 Educational Services 1 1 Marine Services 2 4 1 7 Cultural and Entertainment Uses 1 1 2 Marinas 1 1 4 6 Commercial Moorage 1 1 Open Storage Technical Instruments 1 Vacant/Underused Areas 1 Street End With No Use 3 5 1 1 10 Total Number of Sites: 20 21 3 9 ill 2 66 7-12 TABLE 5 Secondary Uses on Waterfront Lots in the Ship Canal Number of Sitesby_Use in Each Geocod -e lo a otal Geocod-e - for for Use -13 14 15- 16 17 18 Area City Residential 1 1 Floating_Homes 2 2 Seafood Products and Fi_shing_Activities 3. 4 2 1 10 General Manufacturing- 2 1 2 5 ,Boat Building- Ship Building ............ 1 1 2 Transportation and Utilities 3 1 4 Marine Transportation 1 1 3 Retail Trade - Non-marine 1 2 Marine Retail Trade .3 2 3 3 11. Restaurants 1 1 2 Leased Office-Spa.Qe_-_General 1 1 Non-marina Services 2 5 7 Educational Services 1 Marine Services 9 6 4 3 22 Cultural and Entertainment Uses 1 1 Marinas 2 3 1 6 Commercial Moorage@____ 6 4 1 d 12 Open-StorA_qe_ 1 2 1 4 Technical Instruments 1- Vacant/Underused Areas .1 2 1 4 Street Ends With No Use I Total Number of Si tes 136 @31 1 14 18 2 7-13 Primary and secondary uses were also determined for upland.sites (Table 6). The most numerous primary use is residential on 19 sites, 17 of which are in geocode 15. General manufacturing was fou'nd as a primary,use on 10 lots and'a secondary use on 5 lots. Non-marine serv ices occurred on 11 lots as a primary use and 7 as a'secondary use. Marine retail trade (14 primary, 2 secondary) and marine services (3 primary, 2 secondary) were also found, showing the support role that upland lots can give to waterfront Tots. TABLE 6 Primary (and Secondary) Uses on Upland Lots in the Ship Canal Number of-Sites-by_Use in Each Geocode Total Total Geocode for for Use -13 14 7 1-5 --- -17 T8 Area Residential .17 1 1 19 Seafood Products and Fishing Activities General Manufacturing_ 1 (1) -4 _(1) 3 2 10(5) Transportation and Util-ities _L1 L 1 2(l) 3(2) Wholesale Trade 1 (1) (2) 1 -(I)_ 1(4) Retail Trade Non-Marine Marine Retail Trade 1 2 (2) 1 4(2) Restaurants Leased Office Space General (1) 5 5(2) Non-Marine Services 4 6) 1 _4(1) 11(7) Educational Services Marine Services 3(2) Cultural and Entertainment Uses Vacant/Underused Areas. 2 (1) (1) _2(21 Total Number of Sites: 2(l) 2(2) 28(12) 3(4) 10(6) 15(4) 59(29) 7-14 The inventory also provided information on the characteristics of sites occupied by uses in different water-dependent categories (Tables 7 and 8). Tile water -dependent recreation sites had the lowest percent of dry land (43.4%) and the sites which were both water-dependent industrial- commercial and water-dependent recreational had the highest percent (81.9%). Sites classified as industrial-commercial, recreational, and multi-use had similar average water frontage (535, 669, and 653 feet). TABLE 7 Average Site characteristics of Water-Dependent Categories on Waterfront Lots in the Ship Canal I Water Dry Submerged Dry as Water Dependency Frontage Land Land percent of of Catf ,gory __(f tY (S_q Ft) (Sq Ft)__ Total Sites WD-IC 535 143,334 139,037 50.8% 29 WD-REC 669 40,686 52,957 43.4% 7 WD-BOTH 268 242,233 53,633 81.9% 3 WR 391 .198,148 87,800 69.3% 8 MU-INC-WD 653 209,717 94,650 68.9% .3 MRN-REL 130 17,000 9,600 63.9% 1 MULTI-INC-WD 0 0 0 0 NOT WD-WR 40 7,200 800 90A 1 VACANT 250 25,050 600 97.7% 1 53 TABLE 8 Square Footage of Waterfront Sites by Water-Dependency Dry Submerged Water-Dependency of Land Land . ---Cate,gory Sites (S_q_Ft)_ (Sq Ft)- Total WD-IC 29 4,156,692 4,032,080 8,188,772 WD-REC 7 284,800 370,700 655,500 WD-BOTH 3 726,700 160,900 WR 8 1,585,180 702,402 2,286,782 MU-INC-WD 3 629,150 283,950 913,100 MRN-REL, 1 17,000 9,600 26,600 NOT WD-WR 1 7,200 800 8,000 No Use or Street End 2 2292,750 600 - -239,_350 Total 54 7,636,472 5,561,032 13,196,704 The inventory also looked at land use from the perspective of the activi- ties carried out over land and over water. These data are shown in Table 9 and show that the most common activity in the Ship Canal is the moorage .of ships and boats which takes place on 45 of the 53 waterfront lots. The 7-15 next mo st common activity on waterfront lots is the servicing and repair of ships and boats on both land.and water, followed by the storage of materials on land and the manufacture of products on land. Of the 45 sites providing moorage, the number and types of ships/boats is as follows: Typ_q Number Pleasure craft 1,181 Fishing boats @900 Tugs 26 Barges 38 Freighters 5 TABLE 9' Most.Common Activities on Waterfront Lots in the Ship Canal Ac ti v i.@_y OnLand/Water of Sites Moors boats or ships Water 45 .Services boats/ships Land 21 Repairs boats/ships Land 22 Services boats/ships Water 19 Repairs boat./ships W *ater 17 Stores material Land 32 Manufactures prod ucts Land 22 Office space Land 15 Transports material Land 14 Sells marine supplies Land 19 .Transports material Water 11 Stores material Water 8 .Stores boats Land 7 V. ISSUES Although the inventory showed the Canalto be an active maritime waterfront, several issues related to the continuation of the area as an efficient industrial water-dependent center were identified during the study. A. The_Displacement of industrial Uses With Commercial Uses The permit analysis identified two permits which represent a shift in land use. One was the Canal. Restaurant in Ballard next to 24th Avenue NW. This development, permitted in 1976, replaced a nonwater- dependent warehouse and, although not a shift in water-dependency, represents a movement-away from industrial-manufacturing uses. No other similar changes in Ballard have occurred, but the potential is there. A second permit application was for a 6-story office building 7-16 on the south side of the Ship Canal near the Fremont Cut, w4ich- woul-d have replaced a boat repair company and.nonwater-depen@deiit storage@. There was some doubt on the part-of DCLU as to whether the proposed devel-opment met the regulations of the SSW, no dec:ision.was i-ssued and the application was@withdrawn when the property'was purchased by METRO for a water quality laboratory. The water quality laboratory itself has generated some controversy wi-th opponents questioning its need for a waterfront location,. Both the.UD environment and the US environment permit offices, restaurants, and retail' stores.; In addition, the UD environment als,o permits nonwater-widependent manufacturing and*thie US environment per@ mits housing. Although the UD environment may give the Director.of DCLU more authority to deny or condition a permitfor a nonwater- dependent use in the UD'environment than in the US or US/LU environ- ments, the potential for displacement of water@dependent-uses by nonwater-dependent or mixed use developments still' exists in both-the US and UD environments in the Ship Canal. B. The Urban Stable Shoreline Environment Designation Maritime businesses located in the US environment .on the south side of the Canal between the Ballard Bridge and the Locks have expressed an interest in changing the shoreline environment to UD. The. U& environment which permits housing and requires view corridors for water-depend6nt and nonwater-dependent uses is seen as inappropriate for an area zoned industrial and developed with water-dependent .industries. the area was designated US because residents of the- nearby Magnolia and Lawtonwood communities perceived the area as Tess heavily industrialized than other segments of the Canal and wished to. keep it that way. Presumably, a proposal to change.the area to UD would generate opposition from community residents. C. Recreational Versus Industrial Moorage The conversion of industrial uses to recreational uses is also a possibility in-the Ship Canal. The area is desirable for recreational moorage because it is close to the Locks. For sailboats, the Canal has the. advantage of being west of the-Fremont Bridge, the lowest drawbridge in the system, and for powerboats i't has the advantage of permitting covered moorage which is prohibited in Lake. Union. Although marinas and industrial uses exist side by side in a number of locations throu-ghout the Canal, there are indica.- tions of incompatibility. A marina located next to.a shipyard may result.ih damage to pleasure craft when paint or sand blast material drifts on to them and to liabilities and expense for the industrial uses. Marinas can also tie-up t*he land and water for future industrial uses. Marinas generally need much more submerged land. than dry land, and when they locate in areas with high percentages of dry land, the dry land is no longer usable for water-dependent 7'17, industry,.a situation which leads to development of.nonwater- dependent uses on the drylands. Perhaps controls should be placed on marina development in. the Canal. D. Fishermen's Terminal and Moora_qe__for_Larger_Vessels Since the original construction of Fishermen's Terminal, the size of new fishing vessels has increased with crab vessels now measuring as much as 160 feet. The nature of moorage needs has also changed. The larger vessels fish in Alaskan waters',,,land their catch there, and return to Seattle for repairs and outfitting. Thus the moorage demand for the larger vessels is seasonal and of short duration and likely to generate more traffic and service requirements than do the smaller vessels which moor year round. To accommodate the larger vessels, the Port of Seattle has constructed a new T-shaped pier on the west side of the terminal and replaced an old timber pier on.the east side with a modern concrete pier. However, fishermen claim there is still insufficient moorage space for the larger crab and trawl vessels. Owners of these vessels complain that.the large center portion of the terminal is occupied by smaller, older vessels that are obsolete and used infrequently. The redevelopment of this area for larger vessels would alleviate the moorage shortage for those larger vessels but create a problem of what to do with the smaller vessels. The decision to redevelop the terminal.is up to the Port of Seattle but will have repercussions on the demand for fishboat moorage throughout the Canal and Lake Union. E. New Uses for the Honeywell Site A problem which.the City will soon.confront is what uses to permit -in the large office-manufacturing complex to be vacated by Honeywell when it moves to Edmonds. This large marinb-related business now contributes to the marine orientation of the Ballard area, but the potential for occupancy of another large marine-related business may be small. Redevelopment of the site for water-dependent or water- related industry is unlikely because of the existing buildings on the land and the existin.g marina-in the water. 7-18 CHAPTER 8: LAKE UNION INTRODUCTION A. Lake Union: Boundaries This report discusses the shorelines of Lake Union, including its northeastern extension, Portage Bay. Lake Union is located directly north of Downtown Seattle, and now connects the waters of Lake Washington with the Salmon Bay Waterway, the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, and Puget Sound. For the purposes of this report, the Fremont Bridge is considered to be Lake Union's western boundary. The lake is about 1-1, miles long from north to south, and roughly half a mile wide; total shoreline frontage is about 51@k miles. When the shores of Portage Bay are included, total frontage approaches 9 miles. (See map following page 8-1.) B. 1hysical Characteristics Lake Union is a fresh water lake with a fairly consistent depth of 35 to 45 feet throughout. The water level varies very little over the course of a year, and the lake is not subject to tides. Its relati- vely small size and location in the midst of Seattle's hills protect its shores from severe storm and wave damage, in marked contrast to the Central Waterfront on.Elliot Bay. The topography is steepest along the lake's western shore, where a bluff rises to the top of Queen Anne hill. To the east, the land slopes less steeply to the north part of Capitol Hill. From Gasworks Park on the north shore, the land rises gradually through the Wallingford neighborhood, while to the south and southwest the former Denny Hill is no longer a hill at all. The street pattern near Lake Union is characterized by principal arterials and highways which run generally parallel to the shorelines and function as major transportation corridors, and by smaller streets which provide local access and are often platted perpen- dicular to the lakeshore. Development is Constrained by street pat- terns in particular along the western shore, where the Westlake Avenue right-of-way is very close to the water; in some cases, lots are actually developed which have no dry,land. Traffic congestion is particularly severe at the south end of the lake; the Environmental Impact Statement for the Multi-Family Land Use Policies identified the area from 1-5 to Aurora along Mercer and Valley Streets as the only "critical" congestion problem along Lake Union (Multi-Family Final EIS, 1980, pages 140-141). C. @djacent Lands The lands adjacent to Lake Union are, of course, highly urbanized, and encompass several neighborhoods. To the north, the Wallingford 8-1 commun-ity is located on the slope above the Gasworks Park and its surrounding industrial and maritime activities. Wallingford is com- posed primarily of single-family@structures north to 45th Street, a characteristic reaffirmed in the recent city-wide rezoning of Seattle's residential areas. Its relationship with the lake is a visual one, with many sites enjoying spectacular views of the.down- town skyline over Gasworks Park and the lake. Low heights appropriate to single family ne.i.ghborhoods are controlled. by the Land Use Code. Industrial uses al.ong-the north shore provide visual interest, and current heig,hts on these waterfront si.tes do not create view blockage problems. On the east of Lake Union, the logical boundary of adjacent lands.is the Interstate 5 freeway. Between the lake and the freeway, Eastlake Avenue provides commercial and retail services, and functions as a major transportation route to downtown and the Seattle Center. West of Eastlake Avenue, a residential community of mixed single-family and lowrise apartments is located between commercial and light industrial uses to the north and south. Several street-end parks in this area encourage direct contact with the lakeshore. Extending southwards from the south shore of Lake Union, the small residential Cascade community is located amidst scattered commercial and industrial activity. The area is close to downtown and at this time is effectively "fenced" from the lakp,by the traffic along Valley and Mercer. The steep east slope of Queen Anne abuts Lake Union on the west. Although some of this bluff still functions as greenbelt, other recent developmpnts include apartments and condominiums on the west side of Westlake Avenue. Westlake itself is heavily travelled, and direct access to the lake from the west is limited by this arterial and by the steepness of the hillside. II. HISTORY OF THE LAKE The Vashon glaciation, which covered the present Seattle area with up to 3,000 feet of ice as recently as 13,000 years ago, was responsible for carving the Lake Union basin. The ice retreated about 12,000 years ago, after which the surrounding hills were gradually reclaimed by a dense forest typical of the Puget Lowlands. The surface of Lake Washington was about eight feet higher than Lake Union at that time, and drained south into the Cedar and Duwamish rivers.. Lake Union was fed by springs and the runoff from surrounding hills, and its outlet was a narrow, steep creek flowing west into Salmon Bay., Several villages were settled along the lake's shore by tribes associated with the Nisqually nation in the centuries before white settlement of Puget Sound. Later, during the 1850's, Thomas Mercer and David Denny 8-2 staked cl-aims' on Lake.Union. Mercer named the lake in anticipation of the day.when it would connect Lake Washington with Puget Sound. Seattle grew slowly during the 1850's and 1860's; its populat.ion reached 1,000 only after-1870. Scattered settlements were established on Lake Union and Portage Bay during these years, and the first industrial use of the lake, coal transportation from east of Lake Washington, began. During the 1880's several sawmills were constructed, and in the mid 1880's the canals linking Lake Washington, Lake Union and Salmon Bay were opened. The Industrial Area Background Report not .es that: By the turn of the century' the sawmiIIls which dominated the lake shore were doing a booming business, and Lake Union became one of Seattle's prime commercial and industrial areas. However, several mills closed or relocated in the early years of the century due to decreased demand. Many of the support @industries which had located at the south end of the lake were among the first to relocate to the Duwamish valley. (Office of Policy and Evaluation, Volume 2 [19803 p.29). In more recent,years, Lake Union has evolved from a "working lake" to one where marine-oriented commercial and industrial uses are mixed with marinas, houseboats, offices, restaurants, and residential structures along the shore. A more complete summary of current land uses is provided in Part IV of this report. III. CURRENT LAND USE REGULATIONS A. The Shoreline Program Table 1 presents information on water frontage in e-ach shoreline designation for Lake Union and Portage Say. Most of the Lake Union shoreline is designated "Urban Stable/Lake Union," or US/LU. As a general rule, the Urban Stable designations prohi- bit. some of the heavier industrial uses permitted in Urban Development (UD). In Lake Union, for example, such uses as housing, restaurants, retail, and boat construction and repair are'now permitted by the US/LU designation, while hotels and refineries are prohibited. Covered moorage, principal use parking, and offices are also prohibited in US/LU. Other designations of the SSMP which occur in Lake Union and @Portage Bay are US, UR (Urban Residential), and CM (Conservancy Management)., One additional site, on the north shore between the Aurora and Frem'ont Bridges, is UD. In addition, most of the lake area between the pierhead.line and the construction limit line is designated CM. This is a more restrictive designation than US/LU; existing houseboats and open wet moorage are the only two uses permitted outright in this CM environment. (There are further restrictions on use of the area between the pierhead and construction limit lines, as will be described below.) This 8-3 curr,ent division.of submerged land on a site into two.-different ,shoreline designations actually favors water-rdependent., recreational.u�e or mixed use of a site over water-deppndent Industrial use; there.may be reason to change current desig,na- tions. if the restrictions are not accompanied by a public.bene- fit. TABLE 1 Front-age by Shoreline Environment, Excl.uding Street Ends 'Lake Union Portage Bay Environment Sites Frontage_(Ft..) Sites 'Frontage (Ft,.) UD 1 650 0 0. ,us .0 0 12 2.,346 U,S/LU 98 23, .5210 .1 300 UR 0 0 35 3,470 CM 2 1,970 .2 2$700 In addition to a listing of permitted u-ses, the SSMP also inclu- des development standards independent of use, which regulate height, lot coverage, and view corridors. Requirements on Lake Union include provision of a view corridor and a lot coverage limit of 5%, regardless of use on the site. B. Zoning Code Table 2 contains information on water frontage in Lake Union and Portage Bay of underlying land use zone. Most of Lake:Union's frontage is zoned for Manufacturing (M); other zones which occur are CG (.Commercip-l-General), and IG (Industrial-General).. 'In addition,,Portage Bay has frontage zoned SF (Single Family), L-3 (Lowrise 3), and proposed MI (Major Institutions). The most signifi.cant i,mpact of the underlying zoning on lakeshore land use is that housing is more restricted in M and. CG zones than it is in US/LU. Although the sh,oreline d.esigna- tion US/LU permits resi,dential uses, housing on the waterfront in the M zone requires City Council approval, as does housing in all CG zones. 8-4 TABLE 2 Frontage by Land Use Zone, Excluding Street Ends Lake Union Portage Bay No. Frontage No. Frontage I-and Use Zone Sites (Feet) Sites (Feet) IG (Industrial General) 1 650 0 0 M (Manufacturing) 77 21,495 6 1,066 CG (Commercial - General) 23 3$685 1 300 MI (Major Institution) 0 0 6 1$280 L-3 (Lowrise 3) 0 0 1 100 SF (Single Family) 0 0 36 6,070 Totals 101 259830 50 8,816 C. Pierhead, Harbor, and Construction Limit Lines A confusing set of lines which appears on various maps of Lake Union deserves some explanation at this time. The closest line to shore, the Harbor Line, marks the limit of private ownership. Alongmost of Lake Union, the Harbor Line coincides with the Pierhead Line. Overwater construction out to the combined Pierhead/Harbor line is allowed, subject to the use,, bulk, and lot coverage requirements of the SSMP and Land Use Code. The Construction Limit Line is 100 to 150 feet further from shore than the Pierhead/ Harbor Line, and is important in two respects. First, it marks the outer limit to which piers may be constructed. In addition, the area between the Pierhead and Construction Limit Lines is considered to be state submerged land, and any use of this area is subject to the review and lease requirements of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). In general, the DNR lease policies favor water-dependent uses over non-water-dependent develop- ment. Finally, there is one area of the lake on the east shore, from Waterway 7 north to the NOAA site, in which both an Outer Harbor Line and Inner Harbor Line are established. The state constitution refers to such "harbor areas," and specifically provides that they should be reserved for "navigation and commerce." DNR lease policies establish strict requirements for water-dependency in such areas. IV. CURRENT LAND USE A. Waterfront Lots Ever since Seattle first adopted a Zoning Ordinance in 1923, most of. the shoreline surrounding Lake Union has been designated a Manufacturing Zone. Although developed acreage devoted to manufac- turing uses continued to increase until about 1950, as a percentage 8-5 C USILU' cm, .USILU, C10, Wolerwo HALLADAY ST. No cm* fln, L-3 X. -4 rn WHEELER- ST. C-M USA U U SWL U CG ;om C.19 McGRAW. ,5N. VR4E. McGRAW ST- Ld USIL U of all'l@keside uses manufacturing has been steadily declining for at least 60 years. This trend has been documented both in the 1963 Lake Union Study and the 1980 Industrial Area_Background_Report. By 1-973, for example, only 14% of total a7eage in the M zone was in manufac- turing use. Although manufacturing uses no longer predominate, much of the shore- line continues to be occupied by business uses dependent on the water for one reason for another. The DCLU shoreline inventory conducted in 1982 related current land uses more directly to state and local shoreline regulations Results for the 101 sites on Lake Union which abut water are presented in Table 3. Table 4 shows the same infor- mation from Portage Bay. TABLE 3 Sites and Water Frontage by Water-Dependent Use Category - Lake Union No. of Water % of Category Sites Frontage (Ft.) Frontage 1. WD-IC 15 7,150 27.7% 2. WD-REC 21 6,255 24.2 3. WD-BOTH 13 3,365 13.0 4. WR 1 400 1.5 5. FLHM 23 2,860 11.1 6. MRN-REL 1 120 0.5 7. MULTI-INC-WD 17 31,867 15.0 8. NOT WD-WR 8 1,320 5.1 9. VACANT 2 493 1.9 TOTALS 101 25,830 100.0% TABLE 4 Sites and Water Frontage by Water-Dependent Use Category - Portage Bay No. of Water % of Category Sites Frontage__(Ft._)_ Fron-ta_q_q 1. WD-IC 4 858 9.7% 2. WD-REC 9 41,133 46.9 3. WR 4. FLHM 28 2,195 24.9 5. WD-BOTH 6. MRN-REL 7. MLJLTI-I.NC-WD 4 1,180 13.4 8. NOT WD-WR 5 450 5.1 9. VACANT TOTALS 50 8,816 99.9% 3-6 The lake was divided into seven "geocodes," or subareas, in order t& determine how land use differed by area. Table 4A presents'infor-7 mation on water frontage and-number of sites for each.water- dependency categoryj by.geoco*d-e. The geocodes are further identified on the map following.,page 8@1 of this: report. The tables provide a,useful starting point for discussion of current land uses along the shores of Lake Union. The use with the greatest amount of frontage on Lake Union is water- dependent industrial or commercial., yet a total of only 15 sites fall into this category (Table 3). The areas with the greatest concentra@ tion of this use type are south Lake Union (geocode 20) and north Lake Union (geocodes 23 and 24)i The second largest use category in terms of lake frontage is water- dependent recreation; if Portage Bay frontage is included, the recreatiani frontage is actually the largest (Table 5). When the cate'go@y "water-de0endent, both industrial/commercial and recreation" is added to the first two categories, the two types of water- dependent uses (commercial and recreation) account for 16,770 feet of frontage, or 64.9% of all frontage on Lake Union. The category "multi-use, with water-dependent as a secondary use,!' represents another 15% of Lake Union's frontage. Uses included in this group are, for example, office buildings with accessory marinas. Nearly three-fourths of this category's frontage is found in geocode 19, the west shore of Lake U'nion. Houseboat.frontage, as one might expect from a drive around-the lake, is concentrated along the south shore of Portage Bay (geocode 26) and the east shore of Lake Union (geocode 21). Categories with a smal I number of sites included "water-related" (1 site); "marine@-related" (I site); and "vacant" (2 sites). Tables 5 and 6 illustrate the specific uses found on upland and waterfront lots in Lake Union and Portage Bay. Whe.n grouped into water dependent categories, these counts of uses formed the basis-of the earlier tables indicating frontage by water-dependency. These use tables indicate the degree to which recreational uses (marinas and marine retail) have expanded on Lake Union, in terms of number.of sites if-not frontage. 8-7 TABLE A LINEAL FRONTAGE (NO. OF SITES) BY GEOCODE: LAKE UNION AND PORTAGE BAY LAKE UNION --- PORTXG-E BAY - - Geocodes: 9 2-6 - TOTAL Categ_or,y:- WD IC 160 (1) 4020 (7) 750-Cll- 1200_(@)- --1020 (31 508 C3) 350 -@l 8,008 _(19) WD REC 1365 (7) 300 -@1) 1200 (5)-- -725 2665_(4y_ 608 _@4)__ 3525 _C5 J_ _10,388 _(30) L WD BOTH 1695 (6) 1150 -(2) 330 -0- -190 _C21 -0- -0- 3,365_(13) WR -0- 400 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 400 HSBT 560 (5) -0- 2200 (171 '0- 100 50 2145 (271 5,,055 _(51) MRN REL -0- -0- 120 -@1)_ -0- -0- -0- 120 -@lj- MULTI INC WD 2697 (9) 460- 1(2) 420 -(4) - 180 _@1) 110 (1) 1180 (4) -0- - ---5,L047 _(21)__ NOT WD/UR -0- 130-(2) 250 (3) 290 (2)_ -650 _(1 -0- 450 (5) 12770 _@13) VACANT -0- 303(1) -0- 190_(I)_ -0- -0- -0- 493 2 TOTALS 6477 (28 6763 _(16)- F5150 _(331 2705_(121__ 4735 2@ 1. -2346 _(121 6470 _(38)_ -34, 46_(151 GEOCODES: 19. West Lake Union, Highland to Fremont Bridge 20. SE and So. Lake Union, Newton to Highland 21. East Lake Union, University Bridge to Newton 23. North Lake Union, from east edge of Gasworks Park t46 t( '1511 to University Bridge 24. North Lake Union, from Fremont Bridge to (and including) Gasworks 22. Portage Bay, north shore 26. Portage Bay, south shore TABLE 5 Lake Un.ton Waterfront :Sites: Number of Sites by Use Predominant Secondary Use Use U s,e .Residential 3 @.6 Fl-oating Homes '23 '7 S.eafo@od Products '6 General Manufacturi,n 2 0 Marine Manufacturing 0 0 Boat Build-ing 5 Ship'Building 1 Trans-portati-on .& Utillt-ies 3 Marine Tra:nsportatio 0 Container Terminals 0 0 Wholesale Trade 0 Non-mari-ne retail 1 4 Marine r-.etail 13 13 Restaurants 6 4 General Office Space .6 .6 Non-marine Services 1 7 Government Services 5 0 Educational Services 0 2 Marine Services 13 24 Cultural/Entert.ainme 8 Marinas 15 34 Commercial Moorage 0 8 Open Storage 1 0 Technical Instrument .0 0 Vacant/Underused 4 34 Street Ends 36 8-8 TABLE 6 Portage Bay Waterfront Sites: Number of Sites by Ilse Predominant Secondary Use Use Use Residential 6 20 Floating Homes 28 3 Seafood Products 0 General Manufacturing 0 Marine Manufacturing 0 0 Boat Building 1 0 Ship Building 0 0 Transportation & Utilities 0 3 Marine Transportation 1 0 Container Terminals 0 0 Wholesale Trade 0 0 Non-marine retail 0 0 Marine retail 3 1 Restaurants 0 1 Generl Office Space 0 2 Non-marine Services 0 4 Government Services 3 Educational Services 0 3 Marine Services 2 3 Cultural/Entertainment 4 3 Marinas 4 8 Commercial Moorage 2 Open Storage 0 0 Technical Instruments 0 1 Vacant/Underused 0 9 Street Ends 7 4 B. Upland Lots Table 7 summarizes inventory information on upland versus waterfront lots. Lots were classified as "uplan d" during the inventory if they were within 200 feet of the shoreline, but separated from the water by a 'street or railroad right-of-way. 8-9 TABLE 7 Waterfront and Upland Sites by Geocode Lake Union and Portage Bay (Street Ends Excluded) Waterfront Geocode Sites. Upjand Total 19. 28 30 58 20 16 16 32 21 70 103 23 12 3 15 24 12 4 16 22 12 7 19. 26 38 5 43 Totals 151 135- 236 These results comparewith city-wide* totals of 375 waterfront sites and 310 upland sites. Although the count of -upland sites'for Lake Union is high 9 the area affected is quite small. Uplahd sites account for only 17% of the area within the Shoreline District in Lake Union. The Eastlake ('geocode 21) and Westlake (.geocode 19) sections.- contain 100 of the 135 upTand sites around Lake Union. Of the 70-upland sites in geocode 21, 48 are residential, 7 are va,,@ant and.the remaining 16 are in assorted commercial, office, and service uses. Only two of the upland sites in-the Eastlake area are marine-related.. The large number of upland sites results from a Combination of a street-right-cf-way near-the shoreline and small platted upland lots.- The Westlake area.has-30 upland sites; 9 of these are-vacant, 6 are in manufacturing use, and another 4 are residential. None of the' upland sites in this area are marine-related. These 30 sites are located on the west side of Westlake Avenue. Development is constrained to an extent by the steepness of the land to the west, and direct access to the waterfront is limited by traffic on Westlake. C. Sizes.Sizes Table 8'presents information on average site size for Lake Union and Portage Bay, by geocode.. Size of dry and submerged land area is often an important concern for a business in deciding-where to locate; certa,in uses need a minfinum amount of la,nd area, or of water area, in order to operate at all. The table illustrates that the two areas with the greatest number of upland lots (Westlake and Eastlake, geocodes 19 and 21) also have the smallest average.dry land area for waterfront lots. Significant dry 8-10 I'AtId are't be 11oLed itl 9e0' -'U ('otiLfi Lake llnioii), ?_3 (NorLh Lake Union), and 24 (also North Lake Union). TABLE 8 Average Dry Land Area and Average Submerged Land by Geocode (Waterfront Sites only; Area By Square Feet) Average Dry as Average Submerged Percentage Geocode Dry Land Land of Total 19 5,905 55,250 9.7% 20 80,976 79,853 50.3 21 8,236 23,650 25.8 23 60,933 40,158 60.2 24 @101,841 72.1 22 14,347 37,226 27.8 26 42,285 32,898 47.9 Tables'9 and 10 presents the total size of waterfront sites by water- dependency for Lake Union and Portage Bay, respectively. TABLE 9 Square Footage of Waterfront Sites by Water-Dependency Lake Union Water-Dependency Category of Sites Dry Land SubmergedLand Total WD-IC 15 1,408,350 .954,300 2,362,650 WD-REC 21 988,550 879,335 1,867,885 WD-BOTH 13 198,050 1,013,450 1,211,500 FLHM 23 94,150 499,650 593,800 WR 1 240,000 150,000 390,000 MULTI-INC-WD 17 306,500 1,001,070 1,307,570 MRN-REL 1 14,400 0 14,400 NOT WD-WR 388,650 36,400 425,050 Vacant or Street End 2 _47,425 __25,200 72,625 Totals 101 3,686,075 4,559,405 8,245,480 8-11 TABLE 10 Sou@re Footage of Waterfront Sites by Water-Depen@dency Portage Bay Dry Land SubmeUed-Land Tota.1 -C @gory f. pf S.i es 4 239,950 113,800 353,750 wb-@EC 9 . 1,159,170 1,020,168 2-,679,338 FLHM 28 181,750 342,500 524,250 MULTi-_4NC-WD 4 82,550 191,100, 273,650 NOT WD=WR .115,600 29,300 144,900 TOULS 50 .1,779,020 1,696,.868 3.,,975,888 D. 5 r6,6t_,F'hdt,and., Waterway's There aio 39 street ends and waterways along Lake Union, and another 11 in Rortage Bay. Of these 50 sites, 36 were listed in the inven- tory as having no use. Of the 14 street ends having some use, 9 are classified As "water@dependent, recreatiohal," 3 are water-dependent ihdUstrial/commercial, one is used for floating home moorage., and another i-s marine@related. The water-dependent recreational category includes seven par ks@ one site used by a rowing club, and one:site used partially for pleasure craft moorage. A more complete discussibb 'of Lake.Unton's waterways is included as an addendum to ,thi's chapter. E. Ra_i 1.,,,Access A large-porti-on.,'but not all, of Lake Union's Waterfront lots have ra .il ac:cess.. On'the Wes'tl-ake Ave. N. side of the 1ake,tracks run South from the @Shi-p Canal, around the sout ,h end ofthe lake, then north on the east side to just beyond Yale Ave. N. North of Yale Ave. N. there is no rail access. On the Northlake side4of the lake there is rail access west of Gasworks Park but east and north of;the .Park the railroad tracks-were removed for a bicycle path. V. ISSUES A. Type s. -of_ U,5,es @Both the state's Shoreline,Managiament Act and the city's Shoreline MAster Program 'establish a-preference for water-dependent uses on the .shoreline. Have the shoreline regulations been effective in -imple- mehtihg this preference? If. not, are changes warranted,,or do water- dependent uses have sufficient access to shoreline locations without addit'iohal protection in the Land Use Code? If changes are `w arranted, what shape should-they take? 8-12 One recent application, for the H. C. Henry Pier project at 809 Fairview Place North,.on south Lake Union between Waterways 4 and 5, was granted a permit with conditions by DCLU in October, 1982. Although this, project.would displace several water-dependent busi- nesses (commercial vessel repair, refitting, service, and moorage), the proposed uses are all permited in the US/LU environment, so long as public access to the waterfront is provided. Proposed uses include restaurant, retail shops, offices, a marina, and parking. The decision has been appealed to the state's Shorelines Hearing Board, and a final decision should be issued by the end of this .summer. An Environmental Impact Statement has been issue d (February, 1983) for another project on south Lake Union, the proposd Rusty Pelican Restaurant at 1111 Fairview Avenue North. This proposal would replace a commercial marine repair shop 'and moorage of two large L.iberty-class (former Navy vessels) ships with a restaurant and pleasure craft marina.. Again, these proposed uses are permitted in the US./LU environment. These projects introduce a new element to Lake Union land use: the displacement of water-dependent industries. They also continue a trend towards increasing recreation oriented development in Lake Union. Since the City started issuing Shoreline Permits a total of 6 new recreational developments have applied for permits in Lake Union compared to only one totally new industrial-commercial development. In addition, many of the marine-related developments in Lake Union are recreational rather than industrial including sail makers and yachting chandleries. The present purpose ofthe US/LU environment does not give any preference to industrial vs. recreational or vice versa. Two criticisms that have been levied against both the H.C. Henry Project and the Rusty Pelican Project are that they are using.a mini- mal water-dependent element (i.e. a small marina) and the provision of public-access to make otherwise unacceptable nonwater-dependent uses legitimate. Neither project proposed using available state- owned aquatic lands for full marina development and both projects claimed that.public access was a major public benefit of their deve- lopments. The Industrial Area Backqround Report (Volume 1, pp. 18 - 19) acknowledged that non-industrial uses like-offices and restaurants are typically able to outbid industrial uses for land, "especially in areas with views or waterfront.locations." The Report points out .that permitting such ". high bidders" in industrial areas has both advantages and disadvantages. It allows flexibility, and a range of intensity of use within an industrial zone. At the same time, there is a risk that "the established net- work of industrial support services weakens as firms move to Pther 8-13 flexibility, and a range of intensity of use within an industrial zone. At the same time, there is a risk that "the established net- work of industrial support services weakens as firms move to other areas." This risk may be particularly great on Lake Union, since, although water-dependent industrial frontage is large, the actual number of water-dependent sites is quite limited. The SSMP as currently written expresses a preference for water- dependent uses, but also permits such "high bidder" uses as restaurants in the US/LU environment. The intent was to permit the mix of activities that Seattle residents have come to associate with Lake Union. If that mix is desirable, and if it is threatened, the Land Use Code and Shoreline Master Program might be amended to pro- vide greater protection for certain uses. B. Floating Homes The floating home community on Lake Union and Portage Bay is one of the largest in the country. It adds color and diversity to Seattle's housing opportunities, and provides a link with Seattle's past as a growing waterfront city. The recent decision of the Washington State Supreme Court which declared a portion of Seattle's "houseboat equity ordinance" (SMC Chapter 7.20) unconstitutional has resulted in confusion and uncer- tainty about the future of floating homes on Lake Union and Portage Bay. At this time several efforts are being made to amend the floating home ordinance and/or the Shoreline Master Program, in order to satisfy the court's legal requirements and property owner concerns while avoiding mass evictions at leased moorages. In the longer term, several concerns must be addressed. Floating homes have consistently been recognized as a unique and valuable feature of Seattle's shorelines which should be maintained. This recognition can be found in the Lake Union Preliminary Comprehensive Plan and Action Program (Joyce, Copeland, Vaughn; 1971), in Resolution 25173 adopting goals and policies for the Seattle Shoreline Master Program (March 1976), and in the SSMP itself which classified floating homes as water-dependent uses. However, the Resolution was careful to stress that support for floating homes was intended to maintain the existing community and not to endorse or encourage the increased use of shoreline or water area for houseboat moorages. Care must be taken that other equally important water-dependent uses are not displaced by floating homes, either by new homes at new moorages or by existing floating homes which might be evicted. C. The Conservancy Management Environment and the Construction Limit Line Throughout Lake Union the submerged lands between the Pierhead line and the Construction Limit Line are designated Conservancy Management 8-14 (CM). The only.uses permitted there are open wet moorage and existing floating homes.. This split designation tends to favor recreational uses over industrial uses hy allowing marinas to make full use of the submerged lands for moorage but restricting industrial uses to land behind the.pie*rhead line. -Recently, Marine Power and Equipment requested a redesignation of the CM area water- ward of their property. DCLU and the City Hearing Examiner both recommended granting the request based on the large size of modern ships and the need for large industrial sites to accommodate them., Additional redesignations in other areas of the Lake may be appropriate also, orthe dual-environment concept could be eliminated and replaced by bulk regulations restricting structures but not uses. The construction limit line was intended to be the outer limit of piers and other structures leaving the remainder of the Lake as open water for navigation. Two businesses, Marine Power and Ivar's Salmon House have placed structures beyond the construction limit line and have been cited for violations. Both have expressed an interest in requesting movement of the line rather than compliance with the existing line. These applications will raise the issue of the public's right of navigation versus the needs of businesses including water-dependent uses. Waterways Lake-Union's waterways are inviting parcels of public lands,'mostly undeveloped. Theiruse has been a@subject of much controversy in recent years because of private development proposals. This*issue is explored at length in the following addedum. B-15 LAKE UNION ADDENDUM: WATERWAYS IN LAKE UNION I. WATERWAYS AS A UNIQUE PUBLIC RESOURCE Waterways are platted public ways for watercraft. They were established by the State Harbor Line Commission in 1907 in conjunction with the establishment of Harbor Lines. Their purpose is to facilitate marine com- merce and navigation. In Lake Union the waterways provide access to land for the loading and unloading of watercraft. RCW 79.93.010 mandates the Department of Natural Resources to establish public waterways" located at such ... places as in the judgement of the Department ... may be necessary for the present and future convenience of commerce. All waterways shall be reserved from sale or lease and remain as public highways for watercraft until vacated ...." The State of Washington owns the waterways. In Seattle, the City enacted SMC 16.60 for the purpose of regulating the use of waterways in Lake Union and Lake Washington. In 1970, the Lake Union Association, Inc. and others challenged the City's legal authority to regulate certain waterway uses in Lake Union. On January 18, 1971, the King County Superior Court affirmed that the use of waterways are subject to the City's control as established by the State Constitution and Statutes. Presently, there are 20 waterways in Lake Union, occupying 3,375 lineal feet of shoreline (see Exhibits 1 and 2). About 21% of the waterway areas are dry land as a result of past fills (221,875 sq. ft.), but the majority (79%) is submerged land (1,067,575 sq. ft.). Waterways normally run parallel to shore; in the Lake Union, however, waterways are unusual in that they are platted perpendicular to the shoreline, much like streetends. II. WATERWAY PERMIT PROCESS The City's regulations on waterways are contained in the Harbor Code (Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code). Boats may be moored or anchored in the waterway without a permit for no more than 21 consecutive days. If a boat is moored in the waterway for more than 7 consecutive days, no other boat may be moored in the waterway for 60 days without a permit. Moorage for longer periods must be authorized by the Board of Public Works. The enforcement of waterway uses is carried out by the Harbor Patrol (Port Warden) of the Seattle Police Department which has its headquarters near Waterway 20 west of the Gas Works Park on N. Northlake Way. In addition to the enforcement authority of the Port Warden, the board of Public Works is authorized to revoke a permit. Section 16.60.030.A of the Harbor Code provides that the Board of Public Works is the final City decision-maker on waterway use proposals. The Board has delegated its review function for minor projects to the Engineering Department. However, the Board maintains its role as the final decisionmaker when a party seeks an appeal of the Engineering Department decision. The Engineering Department reviews the applications to ensure compliance with the Harbor Code, and issues decisions on most 8-16 LiLl -Ml@"-, m M RtO GE El F,-@ F, I @101 P4 CA) Ll .............. .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... ...... .......... . -..; ..... .... . . .... . ....... Fill] . .. ... .......... ........... j r=,L@ F-V, F@711EASTLAKE E;;@ FF] F@ El ------ AVE C I E D, ... .. VIE I FA---i IC, Exhi@bw&:tp-2 ea,,'(-gq,, ft.) toning 'Sl@ote- ine Vit'6i-@7ay Subrn:ei@g6a umb- trtreilay ei@. L Land Vp4ox@lYln7g I i@b 3o,;400 'CM -2 'i'4b 42,00 m cm 3 t4b "'60o B-0,150 m 4 16 5 '90,9750 cm 5 "V ll!@60 '55,iooo Im @cm .7 9 'CM `ii5 @-;m Xm 10 A,,'800 -1:8,000 'tG. 'CM 11 '22b "0 47,2.50 @m ''CM m 14 ibo '22,@5'00 cm 15 1"Ob -4@,'Obb -6 "Ooo "M -'CM 16' .1,9ro @25 !200 14 @cm JOO @00 30,i" 000 :31,;860 744 ..:Cm 18 12 ,6c(o 1:02,'900 A cm -i9 :@Oo '@1'500 84,wo I'm o 12'0 ".14.4oo !4'i4oo 14 'CM i-50 7,500 24,750 m cm 22 '165 .11-650 45,375 -,.,m cm 23, 4-,,-125 --5 1,15 0 'm -cm Total 20 Wdte'rways 3;3T5 221A75 i,o67,575 (aboiit 21%) @(aboiit 79%) waterway permits. The Department also gives notice to property owners and lessees who may have access affected by the proposed use. For long-term uses (i.e., when.an.applicant seeks a use in excess of@one year), the Department further notifies the State Commissioner Of Lands and the Port of Seattle regarding public hearing schedules, which are published in the Daily Journal of Commerce. Notices are also posted in the immediate vici- nity of the subject waterway. The Engineering Department reviews these long-term applications and makes recommendations to the Board. In most long-term cases and when a Seattle Shoreline Substantial Development permit is required for the proposed improvement, the Department of Construction and Land Use is involved to ensure compliance with the Shoreline Master Program and zoning regulations. Except for minor improvements exempt under SEPA, a threshold determination and environmental impact analysis is required for every proposal. For any construction in the water, hydraulics approval from the State Department of Fisheries and Game and authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are required. The Department of Construction and Land Use is responsible for coordination with these permitting agencies through the shoreline permit process. As part of the City's overall effort to consolidate and improve all land use permit processes, the waterway permit procedure was reviewed by the Land Use Administrative Task Force on Phase II Procedural Reforms project. The Task Force recommended'a simplified procedure for making decisions on waterway use applications. This recommendation is now being reviewed by City departments which have an interest in waterways, and a new waterway permit procedure may be recommended to the City Council for adoption this summer. The new procedure may,require subsequent amendment of the Harbor Code. III. NATURE AND TYPE OF WATERWAY PERMIT Section 16.60.050.A of the Harbor Code states that all waterway permits "shall be wholly of a temporary nature, shall vest no permanent right, and may be revoked .... " Further, the Waterway Resolution of the Board of Public Works adopted on June 17, 1981, specifies the following (item 12): Permits granted by the Board shall lapse and shall require reapplication at least each year. Renewal shall require a Board hearing, with a review and opportunity for comment by City Departments and interested parties, including members of the public .... Therefore, any use or structure authorized by a waterway permit does not acquire any permanent right. Additionally, the temporary right conferred does not obviate the permittee's responsibility to satisfy the City's land use requirements. 8-17 There are two types of waterway permits. Their summary descriptions and permit fee schedule are listed below (Resolution 26822). These fees, intended to cover costs of administration, inspection and policing and commensurate with fees established for street uses of similar character, go into a Waterway Fee Fund. WW100. For structures such as piers, 1.8 cents per sq. ft. per loading platforms, bridges, scales, month for first 1,000 sq. overhead hoists, beams and cranes, ft., 1 cent per sq. ft. buildings and building overhangs, per month for additional. (cornices excepted) or similar $50.00/year minimum. installations. WW200. For material storage (moorage) or 10 cents per sq. ft. per any other use not covered in month for first 1,000 sq. schedule. ft., 5 cents per sq. ft. thereafter. $25.00/month minimum. To protect the public interests, the permittee is also required to provide a public liability insurance sufficient to cover potential claims against the City, to post a bond or cash deposit sufficient for the removala of water-crafts or other obstructions in the waterway, and to submit an indemnity agreement to hold the City harmless from any and all claims as a result of using the waterway. IV. DISTINGUISHED FUNCTIONS OF WATERWAY PERMITS AND SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS In early 1980, some citizen groups petitioned to the Planning Commission to remove the waterway permit regulations from the Harbor Code to the Shoreline Master Program. It was argued that all of Seattle's shoreline policies should be included in the Shoreline Master Program for consistent definitions and permit issuance. A special task force was formed to explore this concept, involving the Department of Community Development, Department of Construction and Land Use, and Department of Engineering. After considerable research, it was determined inappropriate to combine the regulations because of the distinct functions of the two permit pro- cesses. The waterway permit allows the temporary use of navigable water for purposes of navigation and commerce. Fees are required for the costs of administration, inspection, and policing of waterways. The shoreline permit authorizes construction, substantial development, and use of shore- lines. Operation of boats, ships, and other vessels used as such is not subject to the Seattle Shorelines Regulations. The Shoreline Management Act does not have authority over navigational uses. Therefore, the regu- latory functions of the two permit systems are clearly different. However, any substantial construction in a waterway is also governed by the shoreline permit requirements, so that construction in a waterway must conform to both the Harbor Code and the Shoreline Master Program. 8-18 V. WATERWAY PERMIT POLICIES AND RESOLUTION GUIDELINES The overr iding policy of both State and City'authorities over waterways is to preserve the Waterways for use as public highways, and to insure that waterways are used for water-dependent navigation and/or commerce pur- poses. The Seattle Harbor Code Section 16.60.03O.E provides the general policy criteria for the issuance of waterway permits. Basically, the Board of Public Works mayissue a waterway permit with "appropriate terms and conditions" upon finding that the proposed use is "compatible with use of the waterway as public ways for watercraft and the convenience of com- merce, is consistent with the City's land use planning in the immediate vicinity, and does not deprive adjacent properties of reasonable water access." This general policy appears to apply well to the traditional uses of waterways for temporary moorage, loading and unloading of water craft, and access to adjoining properties. However, the interpretation of the Harbor Code becomes increasingly problematic in recent years when less tradit ional uses were proposed for the waterways. The Center for Wooden Boats, for example, proposed to construct a floating dock system, a boat- building shop and a museum in Waterway 4 as part of their marine historic and educational center in south Lake Union (MUP 82-0089 at 1010 Valley Street). When this project was first proposed in 1982, disputes arose on its seeming conflict with the waterway policies because it appeared to be a permanent use, and it might block navigation access to the shore. (A waterway permit and Master Use Permit for a "temporary" use has been issued.) Another example is Marine Power and Equipment Company at Waterway 21. The City has historically allowed the use of Waterway 21 for commercial boat moorage and repair, but has been repeatedly confronted with permit renewal issues. Again, disputes were focused on Marine-Power's preference-for a longer term for the Board's permit. The use is not only inconsistent with the Shoreline Master Program, but also with permit conditions and Harbor Code requirements. A third example is at Waterway 23, where a 100-slip pleasure craft marina was proposed by the Fremont Dock Company in 1979. It was questionable whether such comme.rcial moorage would indeed benefit the public, and whether adequate open water would be left for,public navigation and access. In all of these and other proposed non-traditional uses of the waterways, the State Department of Natural Resources had taken a relatively more restrictive interpretation of the allowable uses. The City, on the other hand, tended to accept uses beyond the traditional temporary moorage and access, as long as such uses were water-dependent and would benefit the general public rather'than a few individuals. Several citizen groups were also apprehensive about the possibility of losing the waterways to exclu- sive, Private uses instead of preserving them for public access and view corridor. 8-19 In recognition of these conflicts, the Board of Public Works sus,pended action an a n,umber of-permit proposals in mid-1980 and reque-sted an i.nter,- departmental task force to develop permit issuance gu-,jdLelines consistent with all pertinent State and City codes and ordinances After much dis- cussi.on and con-sultation with several City departments,,*the'State Department,of Natural Resources and the City's Attorney's Office., and after several,public hearings, the Board of Public Works finally adopted -a Water-way Resolution on June 17, 1981. The Resolution provides the current guideli:nes 'and criteria-for waterway permitissuance and for implementing the Harbor Code. The Res,olu'tion clearly gives,precedence to the traditi-onal uses for water- ways omer the non@traditional uses. It mandates. that if a waterway fs required to be left open for,the t ,raditional uses, other permits shall not be .granted. The traditional uses are defi-ned as'temporary anchorages, loading and unloading of watercraft, and access to adjoini.ng lands, including temporary moorage of vessels by adjoi@ning property owners who have piers7a ZuttMng the waterways. The Resolution also states-: "Waterways are dedicated to the use of the Public and shall be in the public interest. Uses other than the tradi- tional uses shall be temporary uses benefiting the general public rather than a few 'individuals or a private profit organ 'ization." Therefore, the Resolution allows non-traditional uses as secondary uses only if the waterways are determined not necessary for access purposes, and only if such uses qualify as a temporary use benefiting the general public. The requirement.for public benefit must apply to-the entire waterway proposal; tradeoffs shall not be allowed. For example, provision of a transient moorage or other public amenities will not give a private use a-public character. The Resolution specifies that to qualify as a public use, a waterway use must be non-profit as designated by the U.S. Internal Revenue service, must provide a public service, and must be opened to the general public without discriminatory membership requirements.. To ensure the long-term availability of the waterways as open, public passages for watercraft, the Resolution states that new stuc.tures in waterways shall be on floats rather than fixed structures so as to be readily removable; and that anchors shall be preferred over pilings. The Board of Public Works may also require that a minimum 50 feet be left open for navigation, although the Harbor Code allows less-than 50 feet. Further, the Resolution reinforces the temporary nature of waterway per- mits, requiring yearly reapplicati-ons and approval by the Board. The Resolution also mandates that all uses in the waterways must be directly related to navigation and/or commerce, and must meet the definition of a water-dependent use. (See detailed discussions on th.e defined uses of the Shoreline Master Program in an earlier section of this report.) The Resolution provides some opportunittes for citi*zen participation. The Board may request comments of other public agencies as well as citizens, but is not obligated to do so. Compared to notification and comment opportunities embodied in Seattle'.s Master Use Permit legislation, citizen participation is not as extensive. B-20 Another requirement of the Resolution is that all waterway uses must meet the regulations of the Shoreline Master Program, the-Seattle Zoning Ordinance, and must conform to the City's applicable Plans and Policies. VI. ZONING AND SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS OF WATERWAYS At present, all waterways and their abutting properties on Lake Union are zoned for Manufacturing (M) uses, except for Waterway 10 which is zoned for General Commercial (CG) uses, and property west of Waterway 23 which is zoned forGeneral Industrial .(IG) uses. This zoning pattern reflects the general.historic land use developments of the Lake Union shorelines around a marine-oriented working lake. Their intensity of development, however, has also been governed by the shoreline overlay zones (or shore- line environment designations) and bulk regulations since the enactment of the Shoreline Master Program in 1977. In most instances, the properties abutting the waterways are under the Urban Stable/Lake Union designation, except for the following: Properties abutting Waterway 14 Urban Stable Property abutting west of Waterway 23 - Urban Development Property abutting east of Waterway 20 (Harbor Patrol) - Conservancy Management Properties abutting Waterway 19 (Gas Works Park) - Conservancy Management All waterways on Lake Union are designated under the Conservancy Management (CM) environment. In addition, the submerged areas beyond the waterways between the Pierhead Line and Construction Limit Line are also designated CM. The purpose of the CM environment is to protect areas for 'Ienvironmentally related, usually public, purposes, such as public and private parks and marinas. ... . While the natural environment is not maintained in a pure state, the activities to be carried on provide mini- mal adverse impact." (Section 24.60.335 of the Seattle Municipal Code.) With this general intent, the CM environment is a relatively restrictive zone, permitting only limited types of.development. The typical allowable uses in the CM environment are (refer to Table 2A of the Seattle Shoreline Master Program Amendment): Open wet moorage - principal use and,accessory use Existing yacht club Marina Marine sales Passenger and auto ferry terminal Bicycle and pedestrian ways, Streets, scenic roads and auto-oriented viewpoints Recreational piers Floats Bulkhead and shoreline protective structures Public parks Research and educational uses Community facilities 8@-21 Open dry-boat.moorage (as!a shoreline speci-al.u.se) Stacked:moorage,(as a..shoreline special use) Launching ramp (as a shoreline special use) Haul-out facilities (as-A shoreline special use) New yacht, boat and beach clubs (a's a s-horel.ine soecial use) Accessory parking-(as a shoreline special' use) Groins (as &.shoreline special use) Breakwaters (as a shoreli-ne special use) Aqua-culture structures (as a.sh-orel'i,ne special use) LandfiAl (as a shoreline special use') Floating-.do1phins,(a.s a shoreline,special use-) Although the above uses are permitted in the CM environment,-theymay not necessarily be permitted in the waterways (CM zoned) because they are also required to meet the conditions of the Harbor Code and the Resolution Guidelines of-the Board of Public Works. Also, certain. intensive uses such as mari,n-e repair and dismantling is not permitted'in-the waterway's (CM zoned),-although they are permitted'in the abutting US/LU properties. Therefore, the waterways abutting such industries., as in the case of Waterway 21,, could only serve as accessory moorag'es for-vessels awaiting for the repair work. Marine Power and Equipment Company is currently pursuing an environmental redes-ignation of Waterway 21 from-CM to US./LU to permit marine construction and repair work in the waterway (CC,82"0018).. The bulk-regulations for development in the waterways are, the s@ame as those in most parts of Lake Union, and are specified in Sections 24.60.385, 390 and 395, and Tab1e 1 of the Shore1ine Program ftendMen@t'. View Corridor requirement is 35%.and maximum height is us.ua-Ily 35 feet. Section 24.60.405 also requires that public access shall be provAded by all nonwater"dependent or nonwater-related uses on-waterfront lots in the US/LU environment, except when such properties abut a street'end or water- way which provides public access, and which have a front lot 11he less than 100 feet in length.. There are currently only five public'accesses in' or abutting the Lake Union waterways (further details in next.section). VII..CURRENT WATERWAY PERMITS AND DEVELOPMENT The Department conducted a field survey on all the waterways and their abutting properties in Lake Union in March and April of 1983. Of the total 20 waterways, 15 are partially occupied by authorized uses. Th-e. five "vacant" waterways are: Waterway 2 (next to Latitude 47 Rest@urant)j. Waterway 10 (next to Lynn Street mini-park), Waterway 14 (next to the University of Washington YMCA), Waterway-16 (next to Sealand Assoc.),. and Waterway 19 (next to Gas Works Park). These 5-waterways remain open entirely for public use, while the other 15 waterways are used,for'private uses. 8-22 With. a total of 19 permits issued for 15 waterways, several waterways have more than one permit related to them, namely: Waterways 1, 3, 15, 17, and 23. Over half of all the authorized permits (10) are WW200, which are for moorage purposes only, without any structure. The remaining n.ine permits are WW100 and are granted primarily for piers and floats except for a few long-established structures, such as the access driveway of Lone Star Industries at Waterway,5. In terms of degree of water dependency, all waterway permits are for water-dependent uses, except for Waterways 5 and 6 which are occupied by a water-related,use (the Lone Star Cement Manufac- turing Plant). Of all the water-dependent uses, ten are for industrial and/or commercial purposes (e.g., moorage for commercial vessels), and eight are for recreational uses (e.g., pleasure craft moorage). The following discussion highlights the special characteristics and- current issues of each waterway: - Waterway 1: Waterway permits were granted to moor a commercial boat, "K.J.", and pleasure crafts. The main pier of NC Marine (repair and services) abutting north was built right on the property line. The waterway is used for temporary anchorage and access to the abutting properties on both sides. The waterway shoreline has a high bank, with the Burlington Northern railroad tracks close to the waterfront. - Waterway 2: The existing properties abutting Waterway 2 are the Marine Mart covered moorage and the Latitude 47 Restaurant and open moorage. Again, the waterway has a steep bank with very little upland at this site. The existing moorages on both sides of the waterway use the waterway for access. There is no permit issued for the use of the waterway at present. - Waterway.3: The properties now ab utting Waterway 3 are the vacant Kurtzer Flying Service and the U.S. Naval Reserve Center. Permits were granted to moor the historic Seaport San Mateo and Wawona in the waterway. Some old-dolphins were installed for anchorage on the west side of the waterway. The Department is reviewing a proposed mixed retail/ condominium/boat moorage use abutting west of.Waterway 3 (MUP 81222-0255; CC 81-010). - Waterway-4: The Center for Wooden Boats was recently approved for a waterway permit and is in the process of preparing a bond to cover the potential cost of removing the structures in the waterway, if necessary. The existing waterway permit N-4466 for the storage and rehabilitation of the vessel Circe on land would then be terminated. The proposed floating boatbuilding shop and museum are keyed to historical restoration and education in traditional boat building and sailing skills and are, therefore, considered as a water-dependent marine research and education use (see MUP 82-0089 issued 12-8-82). The proposal also met the Waterway Resolution requirement for "public use," and the proposed structures over water are on floats instead of being fixed. The MUP was issued to remain valid only as long as a valid waterway permit is in effect. Further, the MUP clearly states that only a "temporary use" is authorized. 8-23 Waterways 5 and.6: The Lone Star Cement Manufacturing plant has historica-Ily.used these waterways for barge loading and unloading, and for other-access purposes. In October 1982, the Department approved MUP 81170-0133 for the redevelopment*of the H.C. Henry Pier abutting Waterway 5 into a multi-use retail/commercial building with a pleasure craft marina. This proposal does not include the waterway area-. However, the SMA permit was appealed by Lone Star, Shoreline Coalitton, Seattle Marine Business Coalition and League of Women Voters. The major issues are: oppositionto proposed. uses, displa- cement of water-related and water-dependent uses, amount of accessory office space and parking provisions, and adequacy of the Envi-ronmental Impact Statement. Lone Star has subsequently withdrawn as appe1lant. - Waterway 8: The Lake Union Drydock Co. currently has a permit to use Waterway 8 for commercial moorage. Properties abutting both sides of .the waterway are boat sales/moorage facilities, using the waterway for access and temporary moorage. A shorel-ine permit to relocate the Polynesian Restaurant at the property south of Waterway 8 was recently denied (MUP 82-0070). - Waterway 9: The Lake Washi.ngton Rowing Club has a pier and boathouse in Waterway 9. The abutting properties, Lake Union Drydock Co. on the south and the NOAA marine research facilities on the north, use the waterway for access and moorage. - Waterway 10: The.waterway and street end areas have been dev.eloped* into an attractive mini-park (Lynn Street Park). A waterway permit was requested by the Union Harbor Condominium abutting-north in 1982 for pleasure-craft moorage in the waterway. The request was dented primarily because it did not qualify as a public use to benefit the general public. The condominium later was granted a MUP to construct a moorage float on private property abutting the waterway. - Waterway 11: A waterway permit has been granted to the Lake Union Terminals at Waterway 11 for fishing boat moorage. However, a fixed walkway has also been built across almost the entire width of the waterway. The commercial moorage abutting both sides of the waterway uses the waterway for access and moorage purposes. - Waterway 14: There is no current permit for Waterway 14 'use. The property abutting east is developed with a covered pleasure craft moorage. The property abutting west is a cold storage company with commercial moorage. The waterway is used by both neighbors for access and moorage. - Waterway 15: Waterway permits have been granted to Ward's Cove Packing Company for commercial vessels moorage in the waterway. The Engineering Department has raised the question of possible building and dock encroachment by the permittee, but,the disputes have not been resolved. A public access is provided by the Ivar's Restaurant abutting west of Waterway 15. The public access consists of a viewing and informal outdoor eating area. 8-24 Waterway 16: No permit is authorized for Waterway 16. However, the waterway appears to be occupied by broken concrete and a deteriorating float and shed. Waterway 17: The Seattle Marina, Inc., has been granted waterway permits for pleasure craft moorage and pier structures. An attrac- tive mini-park has also been developed abutting east of Waterway 17. The Board's approval for the last permit extention in October 1978 required the permittee to submitplans to phase out the moorage use in the waterway. However, the permittee has not yet totally vacated the waterway. Waterway 18: The.Boy Scouts of America developed a float and moorage and provides a public access at Waterway 18 (SMA 232). The abutting food processing company and commercial moorage currently use the waterway for access and temporary moorage. Waterway 19: The upland property abutting the waterway is vacant. There was a proposal to develop a restaurant with.public access, but that project has never materialized. The waterway abuts the Gas Works Park to its west and a private marina to its east. Waterway 20: The Seattle Harbor Patrol's headquarters are located east of Waterway 20. The waterway is used for temporary moorage of impounded boats and other lost items. Further, the easterly ten feet of the waterway has been dedicated and fenced off for public access purposes. However, this easement area is now overgrown with natural shrubbery due to lack of use. There appears little need for reopening this easement because of proximity to the Gas Works Park. However, development of a public transient moorage fot access to the Park may be desirable. Waterway 21: Marine Power Equipment Company has had a waterway per- mit to moor vessels in Waterway 21 for many years. It has also used the waterway for years for marine repair and dismantling activities. Since marine repair and dismantling is prohibited in the CM environ- ment, the company has requested an environmental redesignation to US/LU designation. As a condition of reviewing a waterway permit in 1971, the Board required Marine Power to provide a viewing platform at Waterway 21 (SMA 296). However, the perm.ittee still has not met this condition. Waterway-22: A waterway permit was granted to J. Z. Collins Co., a marine electronics company abutting east of Waterway 22, for moorage. Recently, in processing MUP 82-0588 (conditionally granted in March 1982), the Department required the owner abutting west of the water- way to apply for a waterway permit because the existing moorage of the marine sales business appears to have encroached on Waterway 22. The owner has not responded to this requirement. Waterway 23: This waterway provides the dividing line for the UD environment to the west and US/LU environment to the east. Within 8-25 the waterway there is an authorized log breakwater and,float for the pleasure craft moorage abutting east (Waterway Permits M-593 and M-5575). The Burke.Industrial Center-abuts the west'side of the waterway. -The proposal of Fremont Dock Co. for a "public marina" in the waterway-was dentied by the Board of Public Works in 1980 because it constitutes a private project with permanent, fixed structures proh,ibited in the waterway. VIII. OTHER ISSUES 1. WaterwayVacations The State Department of Natural Resources has suggested that in cases ,where waterways are desired for permanent and/or non.-public uses not meeting the RCW requirements, the City consider requesting the State to vacate the waterways in question. A number of such uses have been proposed for the south Lake Union waterways in recent years. . RCW 79.93.060 authorizes the City to select a.150-foot width of a vacated waterway for street purposes. The remaining portion vests in the port district. The waterway can.only be sold-Jo the City and/or the port district (RCW 79.94.150). It may.or may not be in the City's best tnterests to.request waterway vacations from the State. If not, what are the City's options regarding waterway ownership/ management, that will protect the public i.nterests-as well as allow flexibility for the desirable non-traditional uses in the waterways? 2. Proposed Five-Year Permit Terms In mid-1982, the Marine Power and Equipment Company proposed to amend the Board of Public Works Waterway Permits Resolution to extend Waterway Permits from a one-year term to a five-year term. In response to this request and in considering the permit renewal of Marine Power, the Board met on October 15., 1982, to discuss concerns of City departments, the State Department of Natural Resources, and citizen: groups. The Board decided to retain the one-year permit term for the present, and to consider such term amendment after DCLU's study on Seattle's shorelines is completed. The State Department of Natural Resources expressed opposition to granting five-year permits because such a proviston would be contrary to the statutes establishing waterways for public, temporary use. The City departments also recommended against the proposal because long-term u@sage implies a permanent condition which should not be assumed by the permittee. The current one-year permit term is. impor- tant to allow the City to review and update the on-going authorized uses in the waterways. -SMP14,19/ 1-3,,1-1 8-26 8-26 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alaskan_Way_Seawall.,-Condition Survey,And Evaluation Report Seattle Department of Engineering, October 1982. Eugene Avery. Aguatic_Land--Management, WAC Chapter 332-30. Aguatic_Land_Management Plan for the Duwamish-Green River State of Washi,ngton,, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land Management, July 1982. A Development_Concept_for the Duwamish Basin Economic Development Administration, Technial Assistance Project, U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle-King County Econowic Development Council, February 1974. Distant Water-Study, Natural Resources Consultants, January 1983. Distribution and Food Habits of Juvenile Salmonoids in the Duwamish Estuary U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington, March 1981. Duwamish Clean Water Plan (Draft) MunMpal-ity of Metropolitan Seattle, May 1983. East, West-and Duwamish-Waterways_Navigation_Improvement_Study Kenney, Martin J., U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, September 1982. Goals for Seattle 2000, Citizens of Seattle, 1974. Guidelines for-Development of Master Programs WashM6ton.Administrative Code. Chapter 73-16, DOE, 1980. Harbor Area Report, Department of Natural Resources. Harbor Avenue-Study, Seattle Department of Community Development, 1982. Industrial Area_Background Report, Volume 1 Seattle Office of Policy Planning, 1979. Industrial Area Background_Report, Executive-Summary Seattle Office of Policy Planning, 1979. Lake Union Prel-iminary_Comprehensive Plan and Action Program Joyce, Copeland, Vaughn; Seattle, 1971. Lake Union '72, Clayton and Jean Young, Seattle, 1972. Lake Union Study, Seattle Planning Commission, City of Seattle, 1963. Lake Washington ShIp Canal Design Memorandum_#5,_Master Plan, U.S.-Army Corps of Engineers, April 1976. Lake Washington-Ship_Canal Emerging Closure System Major Rehabilitation Program, General Design_Memorandum No. 7, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, December 1981. Marine Use of Seattle's Central Waterfront, Judy Bevington, Master's Degree Project, March 1983. Mayor's_Recommendation for Multi-Familx Lan-d Use Policies, Final EIS, Seattle Office of Policy Evaluation, July 1980. Port of Seattle. DEIS. Exp ansion_of_Moorage: Shilshole_Bay-Marina, September 1981, Final EIS. Port of Seattle, Environmental Impact Statement, Alternatives for Terminal 91, 1980. A Proposal for an Alaskan Way Waterfront Park,, Phil Sherburne et al, Alaskan Way Waterfront Park Committee, August 1982. Proposed Changes in Harbor Area Use Policies, Department of Natural Resources, March 1983. Public Works in Seattle, A Narrative History, The_Engineerinq_Department 1979-1975, Nyia Phelps, 1978. - The Seattle Central Waterfront: 1968-1971, George T. Rockrise et al, geRtle Department of Community Development and Seattle Parks and Recreation Department, 1971. Seattle Harborfront, Seattle Waterfront Symposium.'Panel Interim Report,' DNTsion Draft, September 1982. Seattle Shoreline Master Program, SMC Title 24, Chapter 60, 1976. Seattle Shoreline.Master Program, Housekeepinq_Amendments, 1983. Seattle Waterfront: A Walking Guide, Marc Hershman et al, Waterfront Awareness, 1981. Seattle's Unsinkable Houseboats, Howard Droker, Seattle, 1977, Shoreline_Management Act of 1971, Revised Code of'Washington. South Lake Union Sjyd@, Department of Community Development, Mandy Joslin, Urban gEdies7Publications Consultant, March 1980. Tide Tables,_1982_- West Coast of North and South America,-Including the, HgMian Islands, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, 1981. Water-Quality_Assessment of the Duwamish_Estuary (Draft), Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, October 19827. SMP19/bib2 2 DATE DUE GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTED IN J.&A. 3 6668 1411