[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
IM FINAL ee ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RUSTON EWAY PLAN DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT RUSTON GUIDELINES FOR WATERFRONT WAY REVITALIZATION TD 157.3 W22 T33 @A.COMA WASHINGTON commencement bay point iance rk COIX' r the ruston way narrows ruston way 30th ave. pearl st. r narrows schuster park upiversity 0 puget sou 6th ave. c.b.d. C.C. pacif ic ave. Lf imrest i-5 0. a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FINAL) for the Ruston Way Plan, Design and Develo pment Guidelines for Waterfront Revitalization City Planning Department Jack D. Creighton, Director January 1981 Property of CSC Library U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-24 13 FOREWORD As provided by the City of Tacoma's Environmental Code, the Res- ponsible Official (Director of Planning) determined that no sub- stantial revisions to the text of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were necessary. Some minor revisions were made to the proposal but were determined not to be of a significance that would require a revised Draft EIS. The Final Environmental Impact Statement includes the Introduc- tion, Summary and Description of the Proposal from the Draft EIS, the text of all comments received from consulted agencies and individuals, responses to those comments, and a summary of oral and written testimony given at a public hearing before the Planning Commission on December 15, 1980 on the draft Plan. Federal, state.and local agencies, and individuals who displayed an interest in the proposal, will be. provided with a copy of this document. The Draft and Final EIS will also be sent to the Office of the Governor, the Ecological Commission, the Washing- ton State Department of Ecology, and City decision-makers who must take action on the proposal. The Final EIS will be avail- able for review at the Planning Department Office and the main branch of the Tacoma Public Library. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Action Sponsor: Department of Planning City of Tacoma Proposed Action: The proposed action is the adoption of a plan for the Ruston Way water- front area in the City of Tacoma. This document will be provide guide- lines for design and development of public and private properties along and near the Ruston Way shoreline. Location: The Plan area is an approximate two- mile stretch of shoreline located between the Old Town community and the Town of Ruston bordering on Com- mencement Bay. With the exception of Waterview Street, the area considered in the Plan lies between the railroad tracks and the outer harbor line. Lead Agency: City of Tacoma Responsible Official/ Contact Person: Jack D. Creighton Director of Planning Jimmie W. Lee, or Donna Kinkela Tacoma Planning Department 9th Floor, Medical Arts Building 740 St. Helens Avenue Tacoma, WA 98402 (Telephone 593-4170) Authors and Principal Contributors: Rodney M. Kerslake, Jimmie W. Lee, Donna Kinkela-E.I.S. Coordinators Joseph A. Quilici, Bart Alford, Donna Kinkela-Plan Coordinators v Licenses/Permits Required: None Location of E.I.S. Background Data: Background data used in the prepara- tion of this E.I.S. is available for inspection during normal office hours at the Tacoma Planning Department, 9th Floor, Medical Arts Building, 740 St. Helens Avenue, Tacoma, WA 98402. (Telephone 593-4170) E.I.S. Cost to Public: Copies of this Environmental Impact 0 Statement are available at no charge at the Environmental Public Informa- tion Center, 9th Floor, Medical Arts Building. Date of Final E.I.S. Issuance: January 22, 1980 40 Review Period: The Draft EIS was listed in the City's 11EIS Available Register" and transmitted September 4, 1980 for a 42-day review period to those agen- cies, organizations and others as 0 cited in the Distribution List of thi's document. Public notification of the availability of the Draft EIS was published on September 7, 1980 in the Tacoma News Tribune. The notice indicated where the Draft EIS could be reviewed and the last date com- ment.s or substantive information could be received by the Planning Department. The review period offi- cially ended October 17, 1980. 46 vi 9 i 0 0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS a 0 0 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS Draft Final INTRODUCTION Page Page Action Sponsor v v Proposed Action v v Location v v 0 Lead Agency v v Responsible Official/Contact Person v v Authors and Principal Contributors v v Licenses/Permits Required vi vi Location of E.I.S. Background Data vi vi E.I.S. Cost to Public vi vi .0 Date of Draft E.I.S. Issuance vi vi Review Period vi vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ix ix DISTRIBUTION LIST xiii xiii SUMMARY xvii xviii CHAPTER I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Name of the Propos'al and Sponsors 3 3 0 Location of the Area Affected 3 3 Description of the Proposal 3 3 Relationship with Existing Comprehensive Policies, Plans and Regulations 7 7 CHAPTER II. EXISTING CONDITIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES- 9 The Physical Environment 11 Earth .Topography 13 .Soils 14 Air .Climate 17 .Air Quality 18 Water (Water Quality) 22 Flora(Vegetation) 26 Fauna (Wildlife) 28 Noise 31 Light and Glare 35 Land Use 36 Natural Resources 41 Not included in the Final EIS; refer to the Draft EIS for this information. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Draft Final Page Page The Human Environment 43 Population/Housing 45 Economics 46 41 Transportation/Circulation 49 Public Services Fire Protection 59 .Police 60 -Parks and Recreation 61 Utilities Solid Waste 63 .Sewer Utilities 64 .Water Utility 66 Energy 67 Aesthetics 68 Archaeological/Historical 69 Social 100 CHAPTER III. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAWS- ENIMIR-0-NMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENRANCETNr OF LONG-TERY PRODUCTIVITY; AND IRREVERSIBLE Ug'_ TRR=VABLE COMMITMENTS OF_RMURCES 71 CHAPTER IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL 75 CHAPTER V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 81 APPENDIX 85 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 89 LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT 93 CHAPTER VI. LETTERS OF COMMENT 9 CHAPTER VII. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 63 CHAPTER VIII. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY 83 CHAPTER IX. REVISIONS TO DRAFT EIS 95 Not included in the Final EIS; refer to the Draft EIS for this i nf ormat i on. Not included in the Draft EIS. x 0 0 0 0 DISTRIBUTION LIST a 0 0 6 9 DISTRIBUTION LIST Federal, state, and local agencies and others from whom comments were requested are listed below. All letters of comment receiv- ed by the Planning Department are reproduced in full and can be found at the indicated pages under the first column. Responses to the comment letters are located on the pages listed in the second column. Comment Comment Letter Response FEDERAL AGENCIES -Page Page Department of Housing and Urban Development NC Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation NC Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 11 67 Department of Interior, Heritage Con- servation and Recreation Service 13 67 Energy Administration NC Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Affairs NC Office of Coastal Zone Management NC United States Army, Corps of Engineers 15 69 National Marine Fisheries Service 17 NR STATE AGENCIES Department of Commerce and Economic Development NC Department of Ecology 19 72 Department of Ecology, Shorelands Division NC Department of Emergency Services NC Department of Fisheries 21 72 Department of Game 23 NR Department of Natural Resources 25 73 Department of Social and Health Services NC Department of Transportation 27 NR Inter-Agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation NC Office of Community Development NC Parks and Recreation Commission 29 NR State Energy Office NC Utilities and Transportation Commission NC Washington State Historic and Preservation Office 31 73 NC-No Comment Letter Received NR-No Response xiii Comment Comment Letter Response Page Page REGIONAL AGENCIES Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 33 Puget Sound Council of Governments NC 73 LOCAL AGENCIES Pierce Transit NC Port of Tacoma NC Tacoma Department of Community Development 37 76 Tacoma Department of Human Development NC Tacoma Department of Human Relations 39 76 Tacoma Department of Public Utilities 41 77 Tacoma Department of Public Works 47 78 Tacoma Fire Department NC .Tacoma Metropolitan Park District 49 81 Tacoma/Pierce County Department of Health NC Tacoma Police Department 51 NR Tacoma Public Library (All branches) NC Tacoma SEPA Public Information Center NC Town of Ruston NC PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS American Smelting and Refining Company 53 82 Burlington Northern, Inc. NC Dames & Moore NC Growth Policy Association of Pierce County NC Historic Tacoma NC League of Women Voters NC North Slope Citizens' Advisory Committee NC Old Town Improvement Club Pacific Northwest Bell NC Prospect Hill Historic District NC Puyallup Tribe of Indians NC Save Our Shorelines NC Tacoma Area Chamber of Commerce NC Tacoma Boatbuilding Company, Inc. NC Tahoma Audubon Society NC Washington Environmental Council NC Washington Natural Gas Company 55 NR Washington State Sportmen's Council, Inc. NC Beautification Committee 57 82 Natural Systems Citizens Advisory Committee 59 82 Pierce County Sportsmen's Council 61 NR A letter was also sent to owners of property along the Ruston Way Shoreline and on Waterview Street, community organizations and those citizens who expressed an interest in shoreline con- cerns, notifying them of the availability of the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement. xiv 9 0 0 0 0 SUMMARY 0 0 0 9 0 SUMMARY (Revised) Description of the Proposal: The proposal is a non-project ac- tion consisting of aido-pt-Fon of the RUSTON WAY PLAN, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION, sponsored by the City of Tacoma. The proposed Ruston Way Plan discusses opportunities for private and public development along the Rus- ton Way shoreline, recommends preferred development proposals for public properties, and discusses methods of implementing public improvements. The Plan will direct future public policy and actions and will assist public and private developments by setting forth policies and guidelines concerning common design and development elements. These common elements will unify deve- lopment and foster continuity along the shoreline. The Ruston Way shoreline is an urban waterfront undergoing re- newed public and private sector interest. The area was once a thriving industrial complex but now is characterized by some scattered, newer commercial office and restaurant developments and vacant, littered property. The City of Tacoma owns about 40Y. of the shoreline properties including street - rights-of -way. It is the intent of the City to retain the present mixture of pub- lic and private developments along the waterfront. Such a mix- ture has proven successful for urban waterfront revitalization in Tacoma and elsewhere. Some limited acquisition may be appro- priate, however. It is the intent of the Plan that the Ruston Way waterfront be developed as a people place. It is envisioned to become an attractive place where people can go to relax, play and enjoy the surroundings. Public development and human use are stressed in order to satisfy recreational needs of Tacoma's citizens. The existing public ownerships (with a few exceptions) are clustered in three large parcels. Public water-related recrea- tional developments are proposed for each of these three areas. The first area is the Old Town Dock and Commencement Park comp- lex, located near the Old Town community. The park is partially @eveloped and is scheduled for completion in 1980. Improvements incl'ude landscaping, picnic facilities, decking., beach improve- ments, pathways, and parking area development. The second major public ownership is located near the center of the Ruston Way shoreline, adjacent to a well-established restaurant. This area is the site of a proposed public fishing pier which is being 0 @ointly developed by the Washington State Department of Fisher- ies and the City of Tacoma. The State will construct the pier and the City will operate and maintain the facility and con- struct necessary upland support facilities. A marine park with emphasis on fishing and other water-related activities is also proposed for the site. The. park development will include land- scaping, lawn areas, picnic facilities, a jogging trail with exercise stations, riprapping the shoreline edge, scuba change shelter, artificial reef, beach expansion and xvii enhancement, and parking area development. The third large- parcel is envisioned for boating-related and other active public uses. Public development of this area could include such facilities as dry boat storage, boat rental, boat launch and a public marina, with the marina.concept appearing to be the most difficult to achieve. The feasibility of these types of developments needs to be explored further. An important element of the Ruston Way Plan is the circulation of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. The Plan contemplates transforming the Ruston Way roadway into an attractively land- scaped, low speed, scenic parkway. The roadway will remain two traveling lanes, one in each direction although left turn lanes may be necessary in some limited areas of concentrated high use. Selective realignment and widening of the roadway are recommended to create opportunities for waterside development and alleviate traffic hazards. Adequate off-street parking areas will also be provided. The Plan proposes a continuous bicycle/pedestrian path, prefer- ably located along the water's edge. In some areas, because of existing development and restrictive land width, this location may not be possible. Pedestrian access to the water will be provided all along the waterfront whenever possible. A pedes- trian trail system through the gulch and slope areas will permit residents of the upper neighborhoods to travel to and from the waterfront area. Protection of the shoreline edge is also a concern. Storm and wave action has eroded the edge and much of the shoreline is in need of repair. Although the primary function of shoreline edge treatments is protection of the land they also can visually uni- fy the waterfront. For open, visible shoreline areas, the use of riprapping is the preferred method of shoreline edge treat- ment. The proposed Plan also includes policies for design details for the overall shoreline area. The policies set forth guidelines for landscaping, signs, and lighting, among others which will provide visual continuity along the shoreline. The policies also encourage the use of natural colors and wood to create an additional sense of continuity. Policies in the Plan recognize the importance of scenic viewing in the area. Panoramic views will be maintained to the extent possible as development occurs. Viewing points will be encour- aged wherever possible. Structures will be designed and con- structed to allow some views of the water through the property. Implementing Ruston Way waterfront projects, both public and private will continue to require a broad base of community xviii support, cooperation between public and private property owners, financial assistance from federal, state and local sources and city staff resources. Substantial capital expenditures will be required to accomplish the overall,program for public improvements detailed in the Plan. The proposed Ruston Way Plan will have the following impacts on the envi ronment: EARTH: The proposed Plan will not have a direct impact on the topo- graphy and soils of the area. Specific development projects may in- volve land fills along the shoreline which may cause silting, impact natural habitats and affect the migration of salmon and other fish. The substrate along the Ruston Way Shoreline has been affected by past industrial activities and can be described as biologically limiting. Replacement or covering of this substrate with suitable material in conjunction with development projects will serve to increase the bio- logic productivity of the shoreline area. Mitigating measures: All fill activities will be subject to appro- priate regulations. Fill materials should be non-erodible. Any fill in the intertidal areas should be accomplished in accordance with State Department of Fisheries guidelines so as not to impede migrating fish. AIR QUALITY: Mobil e source air emisstons may increase as a result of increased-fraffic. Mitigating measures: Control of outside sources of air pollution is generally beyond the scope and context of the Ruston Way Plan. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency has the authority to control the emissions of all contaminants from all sources within its juris- diction. The Ruston WaX-Plan encourages alternative forms of trans- poration. The Plan proposes a continuous bicycle/pedestr'ian path along the waterfront. in addition, the design concepts for public properties include provisions for transit pull-outs. WATER QUALITY: Cut, dredge and fill activities can affect the exist- ing water quality by causing erosion and silting problems. miti3ating measures: Cut, dredge and fill activities will be subject to a 1 appropriate regulations. Fill materials exposed to wave action should be non-erodible to avoid excessive silting of the water. Dredged material should be disposed of -on land rather in the water. FLORA (VEGETATION): Land development projects in the hillside areas 71 1 1 result in the removal of some natural vegetation by clearing and grading. Marine flora may be affected by development activities along the shoreline. Mitigating measures: The planting of trees, shrubs and grasses will reduce the impact of urbanized development and offset the affects of development. Replacing or covering the unsuitable substrate will xix provide a desirable habitat for marine plant life. Riprapping the shoreline edge with a rocky surface will also increase plant life by providing a more suitable habitat. FAUNA (WILDLIFE): Specific development projects may result in the loss of some natural habitats. Fill activities can eliminate shallows which can affect some species of fish, birds and other marine life. The addition of artificial reefs, and the removal of undesirable sub- strate and the c 'onsequent replacement or covering with more suitable material (beach nourishment) can create a more desirable habitat for- marine life. Clean up and repair of the existing shoreline edge will also increase biologic productivity by supplying a more suitable habi- tat. Mitigating measures: Protecting the shoreline edge with riprapping or other materials of a rough or irregular surface will provide security from predators for juvenile salmon and will increase the food produc- tivity in the area. Specific development projects will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as to their impacts on fauna and marine life. NOISE: The principal effects of the proposed Plan regarding noise wol be an increase in the noise level caused by increased traffic and activity along Ruston Way. Mitigating measures: Noise levels will be consistent with appropriate noise regulations. LAND USE: Development of publicly-owned properties along the Ruston Va_y___s'Fo_re1ine will enhance water-related recreational opportunities, and encourage private investment in the area. Types of uses permitted by the Master Program for Shoreline Development will not be affected by the -ado-p-tion of this Plan. The area is designated in the Master Program for mixed public and private development. Public devel 'o`pm_en_YS_ proposed for the area include park areas, bicycle/pedestrian path and roadway improvements. Low intensity, multi-family residential development may occur in the Waterview Street area. Overall density may be up to 8 dwelling units per acre in this area and 3 dwelling units per acre in the adjacent slopes. Mitigating measures: The proposed public and private developments along the Ruston Way shoreline will greatly enhance water-related re- creational opportunities. Policies in the Generalized Land Use Plan govern residential develop- ment in the city. These policies state that new residential develop- ments must be consistent with the physical limitations of the site and compatible with the existing character of the area. NATURAL RESOURCES: The Plan strives to enhance the natural beauty of xx the area and provides a balance between urbanized, recreational dev- elopment and open space areas. Mitigating measures: The purpose of the policies in the proposed Plan is to offer additional guidance so that future development is accomp- lished in an environmentally sound and aesthetically pleasing manner. It is intended that the aquatic resource of the Ruston Way waterfront be considered and enhanced. LIGHT AND GLARE: Views of the water can be affected by too much and o bright 11--gRing. Mitigating measures: The use of indirect or low wattage lighting can 4* produce soft , subdued light and eliminate glare. POPULATION/HOUSING: Some limited low intensity, multi-family housing, such as duplexes, triplexes and condominiums, may occur in the Water- view Street area because of its desirable location and commanding views of the water. Mitigating measures: Policies in the Generalized Land Use Plan state that new residential development must be consistent and compatible with the character of the area. Density may be up to 8 units per acre for the Waterview area and about 3 units per acre in the slopes. The Ruston Way Plan intends that the Waterview area remain a low intensity residential area. ECONOMICS: The Ruston Way Plan provides direction for the economic and aesthetic revitalization of a declining urban waterfront. Con- siderable -public and private investment will create opportunities for water-oriented recreation and enjoyment and satisfy community needs. Employment and tax benefits will also be realized as development occurs. TRANS PORTAT ION/C IRCULAT ION: Selective realignment and widening of the Ruston Way roadway may occur. The roadway will remain two lanes, but a left turn lane may be necessary at limited areas of concentrated @igh use. Traffic may increase as development activities occur. It is anticipated that transit service may also increase to serve expect- ed development. A continuous combination pedestrian/bicycle path is envisioned. Pedestrian trail development is anticipated in the slope and gulch areas. Mitigating measures: Future roadway realignment or widening will con- form to design safety standards to minimize hazardous traffic situa- tions. Off-street parking areas will be screened by landscaped buf- fers. Roadway access points to and from the parking areas will be designed to reduce vehicle conflicts and acci dents. The combination bicycle/pedestrian path will be physically separated xxi from other modes of transportation whenever possible to insure safe- ty. Nature trails will generally follow the existing topography. Construction of nature trails will involve only the area directly af- fected by the trail development. PARKS AND RECREATION: As proposed public recreational developments are constructed, use of the shoreline will intensify. Mitigating Measure: Some of the citizens anticipated to use public facilities along the Ruston Way shoreline are currently utilizing facilities elsewhere. This switch should alleviate facility demand and congestion at these other sites. FIRE PROTECTION: Future development on Waterview Street may require an additional water supply to ensure adequate fire protection. Mitigating measures: Each site specific development proposal will be analyzed by Tacoma Fire Department officials for potential fire hazards or difficult access ways. SOLID WASTE: Litter will increase as the use of the shoreline inten- 0 sifies. Mitigating measures: Trash receptacles will be conveniently placed to serve visitors to the area. WATER UTILITY.: The water supply along Waterview Street is not ade- quate to meet potential future development demands. Mitigating measures: Formation of a Local Improvement District (L.I.D.) may be necessary to fund improvements to the water supply system along Waterview Street. ENERGY: Electrical energy use will increase as development occurs. Mitigating measures: The existing electrical service on both Water- view Street and Ruston Way is scheduled for upgrading by 1991. AESTHETICS: The Plan is intended to enhance the unique character of the Rusto5 Way waterfront. As development occurs, vacant, open areas will diminish. For some, this will constitute a decline in the aesthetic character of the shoreline. Mitigating measures: Policies in the Plan encourage compatible, well- designed developments that reflect a marine, northwest character. The repetition of certain design elements will create a unified, visual image. Landscaping will also help to create an attractive, pleasing character. ALTERNATIVES: Three alternative actions to the proposal were con- ered; "no action," "linear corridor," and "concentrated core/- frame." The no action alternative would allow the Ruston Way shore- line to develop in the present manner without the aid of adopted xxii 40 policies to achieve the desired continuity. The existing haphazard development pattern does not enhance the unique setting of the water- front and would continue. Some improvements could be expected on pub- lic properties, but private developments would not necessarily be dev- eloped in a consistent and compatible manner. The linear corridor concept would emphasize a development scheme of continuous land use a tivities paralleling the Ruston Way waterfront and severely impacting view opportunities. This concept would rein- force the linear alignment of Ruston Way, the shoreline and pedes- trian/bicycle path. The roadway would provide a continuous connection between equally stressed developments. .Vehicular and pedestrian movement along the shoreline would be stres- sed. The Ruston Way waterfront would be an area to drive or walk through rather than a location for specific activities. Because of the movement emphasis, increased through traffic can be anticipated. The speed limit would serve the commuter and passerby. The use of Ruston Way as a thoroughfare rather than a parkway would be empha- sized. An enlarged roadway configuration could be necessary to accom- modate increased use. Available land could be consumed by the larger roadway'and therefore.shoreline developments would require more fill. The increased traffic could result in more pressure for less restrict- ed traffic flow and access at the norfhwesteriy end Ot Kuston Way. An enlarqed roadway configuration at the northwesterly end would resu-Ft in considerable impact to the e ironment of the shoreline slope areas and nearby re-sidential areas. Land acquisition and/or displacement of existing homes might be required to obtain sufficient right-of-way. Such improvements would be very costly. Considerable visual impact would also occur. 'Continuous shoreline dev- elopment would block many waterfront views. The intensity of develop- ment along the entire length of Ruston Way would impact and conflict with pedestrian use of the beach. The concentrated core/frame concept would concentrate development act- ivity in the Old Town waterfr6n area. The Old Town waterfront area would become densely developed with both private and public dev- elopments. The higher intensity development in the waterfront area would conflict with the intensity of development desired by Old Town community residents. A concentration of public investment in the Old Town waterfront area would severely limit public development on the balance of the shore- line, thereby limiting public access and enjoyment of the water at other points along the waterfront. Implementation of this alternative would impact the Old Town community. Large parking areas would be necessary to accommodate visitors to the area. Impacts to the remainder of the shoreline would be lessened. Although some development may occur along the rest of the waterfront, xxiii these developments would not be of the size and scale found in the Old Town waterfront area. Much greater traffic volumes could also be ex- pected on streets in Old Town. The concentration of buildings in the area would imp-act water views for Old Town residents. The intensity of expected development would substantially alter the existing charac- ter of the area. Pressure would increase for commercial and multi- family development near the water to support the increased activity and use of the area. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS: Impacts that may occur will be related to growth and devel opF-entact i vi ties and include such effects as loss of vacant land, loss of plant and animal life and their habitats, de- gradation of air and water quality, increase in noise and traffic levels and increased public costs for extension and maintenance of services. xxiv 0 0 0 CHAPTER I 0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 0 0 0 0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Name of the Proposal and Sponsors: The proposal is a non-project ac- ETF tion cons ing ot adoption of e Ruston Way Plan, Design and Deve- lopment Guidelines for Waterfront Revitalization, sponsored by the City of Tacoma. Location of the Area Affected: The Plan area is an approximately two- mile stretch of s5oreline loFated between the Old Town community and the Town of Ruston bordering on Commencement Bay. With the exception of the Waterview Street area, the Plan area lies between the railroad tracks and the outer harbor line. The nearby slopes and gulches are also considered in the Plan document. Description of the Proposal: The proposed Ruston Way Plan discusses opportunities for pri --and public development along the Ruston Way shoreline, recommends preferred development proposals for public prop- erties, and discusses methods of implementing public improvements. The Plan will direct future public policy and actions and will assist public and private developments by setting forth policies and guide- lines concerning common design and development elements. These common elements will unify development and foster continuity along the shore- line. The Ruston Way shoreline is an urban waterfront undergoing renewed public and private sector interest. The area was once a thriving in- dustrial complex, but is now characterized by some scattered, newer commercial office and restaurant developments and vacant, littered property. The City of-Tacoma owns about 40Y. of the shoreline proper- ties including street rights-of-way. It is the intent of the City to retain the present mixture of public and private developments along the waterfront. Such a mixture has proven successful for urban water- front revitalization in Tacoma and elsewhere. Some limited acquisi- tion may be appropriate, however. It is the intent of the Plan that the Ruston Way waterfront be developed as a "people place." It is envisioned as an attractive place for people to relax, play and enjoy the surroundings. Public development and human use are stressed in order to satisfy recreational needs of Tacoma's citizens. The existing public ownerships (with a few exceptions) are clustered in three large parcels (see accompanying map). Public water-related, recreational developmemts are proposed for each of these three areas. Area 1 This recreational area encompasses Commencement Park and the Old Town dock complex and is about 1,000 feet long. The park is scheduled for completion in 19,81, and will provide facilities for fishing, sunbath- ing, picnicking and other recreational pasttimes. 3 40 4,R&-A Al@eA NN XX, XX'\ er r-k WA ... .............. Improvements include beach access, viewing areas, landscaping, shoreline edge protection, mooring buoys, an artificial reef and pathways. This moderate activity area is visually and physi- cally linked to the Old Town community and reflects the historic character of this residential neighborhood. Area 2 This long stretch of public property is situated between two private commercial /recreational areas. A public fishing pier will be constructed on this site along with a man-made fish hab- itat. Beach access will be available for scuba divers, swimmers and others. A bait concession, restroom and shelter for changing gear will also be provided. Park development will allow for passive recreation such as picnicking, sun-bathing and enjoying scenic views. The area will be developed with landscaping, parking areas, a combination bicycle and pedestrian path and other related elements. Area 3 The third large parcel of public ownership lies at the north- westerly end of Ruston Way. It is anticipated that this area will be developed with active public uses oriented to the boat- ing public. Dry boat storage and a boat launch are envisioned for the area as well as several multi-purpose recreation build- ings. The substantial investment necessary to develop this area may necessitate private participation. The proposed Plan also includes policies for design details for the overall shoreline area. The policies set forth guidelines for landscaping, signs, and lighting which will provide visual continuity along the shoreline. The policies also encourage the use of natural colors and wood to create an additional sense of continuity. The repetition of a selected street tr ee along the Ruston Way roadway will assist in achieving the desired continuity. Native species will be predominately used to landscape new develop- ments, repeating the natural vegetation found in the adjacent slopes. A common street lighting standard along Ruston Way will vi'suall connect developments along the shoreline. Other lighting shoA be compatible with the waterfront setting. Low glare lighting is encouraged in order to protect views both from the land and from the water. A sign logo for the Ruston Way shoreline is proposed in the Plan. The logo will be used by both the private and public sector and incorporated into the design of developments wherever possible and appropriate. 5 A common sign standard for all public developments will help the visitor identify public properties. The use of international sign symbols is also encouraged. Policies in the Plan recognize the importance of scenic viewing in the area. Panoramic views will be maintained to the extent Possible as development occurs. Viewing points will be encour- aged wherever possible. Structures will be designed and con- structed to allow some views of the water through the property. An important element of the Ruston Way Plan is the circulation of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. The Plan contemplates transforming the Ruston Way roadway into an attractively land- scaped, low speed, scenic parkway. The roadway will remain two traveling lanes, one in each direction although left turn lanes may be necessary in some limited areas of concentrated high use. Selective realignment and widening of the roadway are recommended to create opportunities for waterside development and alleviate traffic hazards. Adequate off-street parking areas will also be provided. The Plan proposes a continuous bicycle/pedestrian path, prefer- ably located along the water's edge. In some areas, because of existing development and restrictive land width, this location may not be possible. Pedestrian access to the water will be provided all along the waterfront whenever possible. A pedes- trian trail system through the gulch and slope areas will permit residents of the upper neighborhoods to travel to and from the waterfront area. Human comfort needs are stressed in the Plan. Structures that incorporate human scale elements will be encouraged. Seating, trash receptacles, water founta,ins and protection from the dis- agreeable elements of the weather will also be encouraged. Protection of the shoreline edge is also a concern. Storm and wave action have eroded the edge and much of the shoreline is in need of repair. Although the primary function of shoreline edge treatments is protection of the land, they also can visually unify the waterfront. For open, visible shoreline areas, rip- rapping is the preferred method of shoreline edge treatment. The Waterview Street area is also considered in this Plan. The area is designated as low intensity in the Generalized Land Use Plan. This Plan reaffirms this intent and further intends thaf the area remain residential in character. Although singlefamily housing will remain predominate, other low intensity residential development consisting of duplexes, triplexes, townhouses and condominiums may be permitted. The commanding views of the water and close-in location make this area desirable for resi- dential developments. 6 Implementing Ruston Way waterfront projects, both public and private will continue to require a broad base of community sup- port, cooperation between public and private property owners, financial assistance from federal, state and local sources and City staff resources. Substantial capital expenditures will be required to accomplish the overall program for public improve- ments detailed in the Plan. The Plan also discusses development constraints in the Ruston Way area. These include the presence of the railroad which consumes a considerable amount of the available land, the lack of dry land for development and parking, excessive water depths, and a severe wave climate, at times. Relationship with Existing Comprehensive Policies, Plans and De.ulations: The dra t KUston way Plan is an element of t City's comprehensive Land Use Management Plan. The draft Plan is consistent with t-Fe Generalized Land _LTs-e Plan which sets forth land use intensities for the entire city. The draft Plan is also consistent with the Master Program or Shoreline Development. The Master Program governs uses for aT`T of the City's shorelines. Th-e Ruston way shoreline segment is designated for "mixed public and private uses" in the Master Program. The Plan document and the Environmental impact statement have been torwarded to the United States Army @orp of Engineers-To-r TFeir use in the Commencement Bay Study. The Study is in pro- gress and Phase I, Data Collection will be completed by 1981. The policies in the Ruston Way Plan will be used during the normal review process for any substantial development along the Ruston Way waterfront. 7 0 0 0 e 9 CHAPTER VI 0 LETTERS OF COMMENT 0 0 0 0 "tal Or United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services 2625 Parkmont Lane, S.W., Bldg. B-3 Olympia, WA 98502 October 14, 1980 Mr. George A. Hoivik City of Tacoma Planning Department Medical Arts Building 40 740 St. Helens Avenue, Ninth Floor Tacoma, Washington 98402 Dear Mr. Hoivik: Thank you for copies of the draft Ruston Way Plan and the draft environmental impact statement for the Ruston Way Plan. Members of our staff have met with the City of Tacoma Planning Department and have discussed all aspects of the plan which we feel are relevant to this office. In genera7l, the plan will enhance the area and its use by the public. The plan will also limit major industrial use which could threaten fish and wild- life resources of the region. We recommend that filling of shorelines be limited and examined on a site-by- site basis. The slope of the shore should be 1-12':l' unless this would require excessive filling. Finally, we suggest that any changes in the present shoreline be accompanied by proper considerations of migrating salmonids. Sincerely, (141 R. G. Starkey Acting Field Supervisor t147 OF 0. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OCT 17 HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE NORTHWEST REGION (206) 442-4706 915 SECOND AVENUE. RM. 990 102-01a (2) SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98174 FPC 3 George A. Hoivik City of Tacoma Planning Department Medical Arts Building 740 St. Helens Avenue, Ninth Floor Tacoma, WA 93402 Dear Mr. Hoivik: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Tacoma Ruston Way Plan and. Development Guidelines for Waterfront Revitalization. We hope our comments will be useful in preparing your final Environmental Impact Statement. Recreation The description of nature trails on page 57 is detailed and adequately describes design plans. The discussion of bicycle paths on page 58 and in the Summary on page xviii.needs to be expanded in the final EIS as does the public boat launching facility, on page 58. Recreation need in the Commencement Bay area is adequately described on pages 61 & 62. Plans for park development on page 62 are not detailed and should be expanded in the final EIS. We note from the distribution list on page xiii that the Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission received a copy of the draft EIS. We recommend consultation with the Commission on planned recreation develop- ment of the project area. Archaeological, Historical & Unique Scenic Resources The statement on page 69 indicates that the City of Tacoma has consulted with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Documentation of this consultation is required in compliance with 36 CFR 800, as amended, (Federal Register, January 30, 1979) if any Federal action is involved. 1.3 AMD. George A. Hoivik 2 The requirements include consultation on the need for and type of surveys to identify eligible historic and archeological properties, survey boundaries, application of National Register criteria to identified properties, determination of effect of the proposal on properties listed on or found eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the other procedures in 36 CFR 800.4, if such properties will be affected. The statement: "The head saw is on both the City and State Registers of Historic Places" indicates only that these registers have been reviewed but does not,comply with the requirements of 36 CFR 800 respecting the National Register of Historic Places. Sincerely, T rice H. Lundy' Re ional Director r Re DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX C-3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124 NPSEN-PL-ER 7 OCT-1980 Jack D. Creighton, Director Tacoma Planning Department Medical Arts Building 740 Saint Helens Avenue, Ninth Floor Tacoma, Washington 98402 Dear Mr. Creighton: We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the Ruston Way Plan, Tacoma, Washington, with respect to the U.S. @rmy Corps of Engineers' areas of responsibility for flood control, navigation, and regulatory functions. Our comments are attached as inclosure 1. Thank you-for the opportunity to review this statement. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Steven F. Dice, telephone (206) 764-3624, of my staff. Sincerely, 1 Incl SIDNEY WUT1S0N,'P.F- As stated Asst Chief. Engineering DivWon NPSEN-PL-ER 3 October 1980 COMMENTS: Ruston Way Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Tacoma, Washington 1. The Commencement Bay Study, which.is. being conducted by the Seattle District, should he referred to in this. EIS'. The Ruston Way Plan and EIS. will be addressed in phase I (-existing information) and in phase I'l, (environmental impact evaluation) portions of COBS. 2. Page VI, item titled "Licenses/Permits Required:" Although.the.EIS@ 49 addresses the overall plan for .Ruston Way, each development in the area thatinvolves work in navigable waters of the United States@ or their adja- cent wetlands, would require a Section 10 and/or Section 404 permit. Each. permit application is reviewed according to the Council on Environmental Quality policy for implementing the National Environmental Policy,Act, and, if any project would be adjudged as: having a significant impact on the human environment, then a Federal EIS would be required. 3. Page 16, second paragraph., first sentence: Limiting beach-nQurishment to the "leeward side of promontories" may be unduly. restrictive. x4ny@ beaches, both.natural and artificial, are located on the updrift (-windward) side of promontories. 4'. Page 29, last paragraph,: We suggest expanding this paragraph.to clarify, the basis for the assumption that if Commencement Bay water quali.ty is. "good" and suitable substrate is. avai.lable, then biologic productiVity-would likely increase. 5. Pagea 29 and 30. Potential impacts due to dredging and placement of fill on typical intertidal habitat and resident benthic faunal populations along Ruston Way shoreline are not given adequate treatment. Ole U11JITED STATES 011EPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Natianal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion Of NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Environmental & Technical Services Division P.O. Box 4332, Portland, OR 97208 December 9, 1980 F/NWR5:JRB Mr. Jack D. Creighton City Planning Department City of Tacoma 9th Floor, Medical Arts Bldg. 740 St. Helens Avenue Tacoma, WA 98402 Dear Mr. Creighton: We have completed our review of the draft environmental impact statement for the Ruston Way Plan, Design and Development Guidelines for Waterfront Revitalization. The plan proposes guidelines for design and development of public and private development along and near the Ruston Way shoreline. It reflects earlier discussions with resource agencies in addressing projects for bulkheads, revetments (riprap), seawalls, beach nourishment, artificial reefs and other modifications of the shoreline. We generally have no comment to make on the concept as it does not include sufficient detail to identify any projects that may have a significant adverse impact on marine resources. Endorsement of this plan will not release this agency from the responsibility under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (amended) to evaluate each project on an individual basis. We must consider the water-dependency basis factor and public need of the project, and that construction alternatives having less impact on the environment are not available. The intent of this process, as you are aware, is to minimize the loss of intertidal and wetland areas. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIS and the Ruston Way Plan. sincerely yours, Dale R. Evans Division Chief cc: Joseph Quilici 1-7 AMhk STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WASHINGTON Mail Stop PV- 11 206/753-2800 Dixy Lee Ray Olympia, Washington 99504 61 JN."J Governor October 16, 1980 40 Mr. Jack D. Creighton 0 City of Tacoma 9th Floor, Medical Arts Building 740 St 'Helens Avenue Tacoma, Washington 98402 Dear Mr. Creighton:- Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environmental impact statement for the Ruston Way Plan, Design and Development Guidelines for Waterfront Revitalization. Department staff at gur headquarters and Southwest Regional Office have reviewed the document and have the following comments to offer. The discussion in the Population/Housing section of the EIS indicates single family houses will predominate. We are aware of a.multi-family development on Ruston Way which is presently being considered by the Tacoma City Council. It would be helpful to know how the proposed project relates to the Ruston Way Plan. If you have any questions, please call.Mr. Leighton Pratt of our Shoreland Division at 753-4387. Sincerely, Barbara J@ Ritchie Environmental Review Section BJR cc: Leighton Pratt, Shorelands Division F 4W. STATE OF H21 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES WASHINGTON 115 General Administration Building, Olympia, Washington 98504 206/753-6600 Dixy Lee Ray Governor October 17, 1980 Tacoma Planning Department 9th Floor, Medical Arts Building 740 St. Helens Avenue Tacoma, Washington 98402 Attention Mr. Jack Creighton Gentlemen: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Ruston Way Plan WRIA B-12 The Department of Fisheries has reviewed the above-referenced document and offers the following comments. It is quite apparent that extensive shoreline modification is proposed with the development of the Ruston Way Plan. We concur with the statement on page 13 of the Aquatic Surveyand Assessment of Ruston Way Shoreline that "filling should be allowed where necessary for enhancement purposes if precautions regarding migrating salmon are taken and if highly productive areas are avoided." Depending on the habitat types which are involved, the placement of riprap may or may not increase the numbers and diversity of food organisms or otherwise improve the nearshore waters utilized by the juvenile salmonids migrating through the area. It is therefore necessary for us to review these proposed fills along Ruston Way on a case-by-case basis. A mitigative measure suggested on page 30 is the creation of tide pools. We believe that these pools could entrap juvenile outmigrating salmonids during periods of low tide and suggest their deletion from the plan. The Department of Fisheries has worked closely with the City of Tacoma Planning Department on the guidelines for the development of this plan. We hope that open channels of communication will be maintained so that future plans for specific projects related to the Ruston Way Plan can be discussed early on in the development stage. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, A@/S. Gordon Sandi so Director 3 A!!" Sr-A 7. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF GAME 600 North Capitol Way, GJ- I I Olympia, WA 98504 206/753-5700 Dixy Lee Ray Governor October 8, 1980 Jack D. Creiqhton, Director Tacoma Planning Department Medical Arts Building Tacoma, Washington 98402 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: Ruston Way Plan Mr. Creighton, Your document was reviewed by our staff as requested; comments follow. Though somewhat general by nature, your discussion of existing conditions and environmental impacts on flora and fauna appears to be accurate. As indicated, impacts, mitigating measures, and alternatives can be better defined on a case-by-case basis as individual's proposals enter permit and State Environmental Policy Act processes. We commend you for the obvious effort that has gone into developing the Ruston Way Plan. Public needs and desires appear to have been given a great deal of consideration. Ultimately, such land use planning direction will help to provide for quality recreational opportunity. Thank you for sending your document for our review. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME Fred Maybee, AssX. Program Manager Environmental Affairs Program Habitat Management Division FHM:cv CC: Agencies Region :P 3 3 STATE OF WASHINGTQ;.-i. COMMISSIONER BERT L. COLE R, A. BESWICK SUPERVISOR OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 September 25, 1980 Jack D. Creighton @k) Director of Planning City of Tacoma Planning Dept. '7LO J St. Helens Avenue Tacoma, Washington 98402 Dear Mr. Creighton: The Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the draft Environ mental Impact Statement for the development of Ruston Way. The Department's interest and jurisdiction concerns the harbor area which is established along Ruston Way. As you probably know, the harbor area's in the State of Washington have a constitutional mandate to provide for conveniences of navigation and commerce. Therefore, any proposed uses of the harbor areas in the State, must conform to this constitutional mandate. In order to determine a priority for uses in harbor areas, the B rd of Natural Resources has established harbor area use classes oa -30-115. These use which have recently been adopted under WAC 332 classes are based on the degree to which the intended use of the harbor area conforms to the constitutional intent. The planning cess by the City of Tacoma must recognize that any future proposed pro uses of the harbor area, such as Clinkerdagger's Restaurant, would be viewed by the Department as a use which clearly does not conform to the purposes for which harbor areas are created. It is not the Depar tment's intent to discourage the City of Tacoma's plans for the development of Ruston Way. However, we do want the City to :,vI understand that plans for the use of the harbor area that fronts Ruston Way, must take into account the restrictions which are placed on these waters by the State Constitution. If you have any questions concerning the use of the harbor area, we would be more than happy to discuss them with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, BERT L. COLE 4 x-V1 com orf3blic Lands I@OBERT W. COON Division of Marine Land Management RWC/nr cc: Bill Johnson AN EQUAL. OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION KF-01 WASHINGTON Highway Administration Building, Olympia, Washington 98504 206/753-6005 Dixy Lee Ray Governor September 26, 1980 Mr. Jack D. Creighton, Director Tacoma Planning Department 9th Floor, Medical Arts Building 740 St. Helens Avenue Tacoma, Washington 98402 City of Tacoma Ruston Way Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Creighton: We have reviewed the subject document and have no comments to offer regarding the proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to review this information. Sincerely, ROBERT S. NIELSEN Assistant Secretary for Public Transpor tation and Planning By: JOSEPH BELL, Manager Planning Implementation and Environmental Policy RSN:cag JB/WBH cc: A. R. Morrell/R. C. Cook 27 S" Ar4- STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION WASHINGTON 7150 Cleanwater Une, Olympia, Washington 98504 M.S. KY-11 206/753-5755 Dixy Lee Ray Governor September 10, 1980 35-2650-1820 DEIS-Waterfront Revi tal i zati on (E- 1997) Mr. Joseph Quilici Tacoma Planning Department Medical Arts Building 9th Floor 740 St. Helens Avenue Tacoma, WA 98402 41 Dear Mr. Quilici: The staff of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the above-noted document and finds that it will have no effect on properties under the management or control of the Was.hington State Parks and Recreation Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to review and conTlent. Sincerely, David W. Heiser, E.P., Chief Environmental Coordination DWH/DAP:wt 44 4f3l,3 STATE OF OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION L. WASHINGTON I I I West Twenty-First Avenue, M.S. KL- 11, Olympia, Washington 98504 206J753-4011 Dixy Lee Ray Governor October 16, 1980 Mr. George A. Hoivik Tacoma Planning Department Medical Arts Bldg., 9th Floor 740 St. Helens Avenue Tacoma, WA 98402 In reply refer to: 169-C-PI-08 0 Re: Ruston Way Plan DEIS Dear Mr. Hoivik: A staff review has been completed of your draft environmental impact statement. The draft notes the limited potential for the existence of largely undisturbed prehistoric archaeological sites. There is, however, potential for the existence of important historic archaeological data relating to the period of early historic settlement and development. This potential should be considered when specific projects are proposed. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, JEANNE M. WELCH, Deputy State His c Preservation Officer 40 Sheila A. Stump, Archaeologist db 40 410 West Harrison Street, P.O. Box 9863 (206) 344-7330 Seattle, Washington 98109 PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY October 16, 1980 Mr. Jack D. Creighton, Director of Planning Tacoma Planning Department 9th Floor Medical Arts Building 740 St. Helens Avenue Tacoma, WA 98402 Dear Mr. Creighton: Ruston Way Plan We reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the Ruston Way plan and are forwarding comments and recom- mendations which are listed below. Since no new traffic projections have been included as part of the statement, we are assuming that no significant increase in traffic resulting from implementation of the plan is anticipated by the City of Tacoma. It should also be noted that the area served is well north of the Tacoma carbon monoxide hot-spot area, for which special transpor- tation control measures are now being considered as part of our commitment to carry out terms of Washington State Implementation Plan for obtaining ambient air quality standards. Text on page 18 states that fog is a particulate. While finely dispersed liquids are classed as particulates, an exclusion is made for uncombined water, and therefore fog should not be included in this classification. Ambient air quality standards are listed on page 19. Since changes have beenmade recently to ambient air quality standards both by the State of Washington and by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, standards shown are no longer current. We are enclosing a page listing correct standards which should be used as a replacement. A statement at the bottom of page 18 requires modification. The statement is that "carbon monoxide and oxidants are normal by products of incomplete fossil fuel combustion". The statement is correct for carbon monoxide but oxidants are 33 SERVING: KING COUNTY 410 West Harrison St. P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, 98109 (206) 344-7330 KITSAP COUNTY Dial Operator for Toll Free Number Zenith 8385 Bainbridge Island, 98110 Dial 344-7330 PIERCE COUNTY 13 Hess Building Tacoma, 98402 (206) 383-5851 SNOHOMISH COUNTY (206) 259-0288 BOARD OF DIRECTORS CHAIRMAN: Gene Lobe, Commissioner Kitsap County; James B. Haines, Commissioner Snohomish County; Harvey S. Poll; Member at Large; Glenn K. Jarstad, Mayor Bremerton; Charles Royer, Mayor Seattle; William E. Moore, Mayor Everett; John D. Spellman, King County Executive; VICE CHAIRMAN: Patrick J. Gallagher, Commissioner Pierce County; Mike Parker, Mayor Tacoma; A.R. Dammkoehler, Air Pollution Control Officer. Ash Mr. Jack D. Creighton October 16, 1980 Page 2 produced as a result of a secondary reaction between nitrogen oxides (which frequently are a product of good combustion) and volatile organic compounds, in the presence of ultra- violet radiation. In the Puget Sound area, the foregoing factors have limited the occurrence of high ozone concentra- tions to months of June through September. On page 20, and in the summary, there is a discussion of mitigating measures. Mitigating measures would include efforts to provide public transportation to the parked areas and other attractions of the central waterfront and to provide an unimpeded bikeway along the waterfront. We understand that these measures are being contemplated and would encourage their implementation. Very t 1 irs Arthur R. Dammk6ehler Air Pollution Control Officer si Enclosure co X. r Z_ ;e V ruly__@o .3Y AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS OZONE SULFUR OXIDES NATIONAL WASHINGTON PUGET SOUND Oxidants are produced in the atmosphere STATE REGION when nitrogen oxides and some hydro- The presence of sulfur oxides in the - N carbons are exposed to sunlight. Ozone ambient air has been associated with a PRIMARY SECONDARY o 0 0 i s the ox i da n t found i n I a rges t amounts . variety of respiratory diseases and in- L t t It is a pulmonary irritant that affects e e e lung tissues and respiratory functions. creased mortality rates. They repre- SULFUR OXIDES ppm ppm IN pp, PPM 11 sent a significant economic burden and I Ozone impairs the normal function of have a nuisance impact. When sulfur Annual Average 0.03 a 0.02 a 0.02. a lung and, at concentrations between oxides are inhaled withsmall particles, 30 day Average 0.04 a 0.15 and 0.25 ppm, causes lung tight- the effect on health is increased. In- ness, coughing, and wheezing. Other halation of sulfur dioxide can cause 24-hour Average 0.14 b 0.10 b 0.10 a oxidants, produced in smaller amounts increased airway resistance by con- 3-hour Average 0.50 b than ozone, cause eye irritation. Per- stricting lung passages. sons with chronic respiratory problems 1-hour Average 0.25 c 0.25 c such as asthma seem most sensitive to I-hour Average 0.40 b 0.40 a changes in ozone concentration. .,-,RTICULATES 5 min. Average NITROGEN DIOXIDE 1.00 d Small discrete masses of solid or liq- I I -_ - uid matter dispersed in the atmosphere, SUSPENDED Pg/m 3 lig/m, lig/m, Wg/m, Nitric oxide results from the fixation especially those of one micron or less PARTICULATES - of nitrogen and oxygen at high temper- atures as - in f ue I combustion. There in diameter, are associated with a Annual Geo. Mean 75 60 a 60 a 60 a variety of adverse effects on public are several atmospheric rea ctions health and welfare. Particulate mat- 24-hour Average 260 150 b 150 b 150 b which lead to the oxidation of nitricv) ter in the respiratory tract may pro- oxide to nitrogen dioxide, and the duce injury by itself, or it may act CARBON MONOXIDE ppm presence of nitrogen dioxide in ambient") in conjunction with gases to increase air is essential to the production of'. the effect on the body. Small part' - 8-hour Average 9 same b same same photochemical oxidants. The presence cles suspended in the air are chiefly of nitrogen dioxide in ambient air has responsible for reduced visibility in I-hour Average 35 b been associated with a variety of res- thePuget Sound area.Soiling of build- piratory diseases. ings and other property is a common OZONE ppm HYDROCARBONS effect of high particulate levels. 1-hour Average 0.12 same e same same Defined as organic compounds composed CARBON MONOXIDE exclusively of carbon and hydrogen, hydrocarbons are primarily associated .!7irbon monoxide reacts with the henio- NITROGEN DIOXIDE ppm with the use of petroleum products. in red blood cells to decrease Annual Average 0.05 They are the main components of photo- same a same same chemical smog. Hydrocarbons alone have oxygen-carrying capacity of the I - , no known effect on human health; there- blood. The national primary standard HYDROCARBONS ppm fore the sole purpose of prescribing for carbon monoxide was based on evi- (Less Methane) b a hydrocarbon standard is to control dence that levels of carboxyhemoglobin 3-hour Average 0.24 same photochemical oxidants. in human blood as low as 2. 5% may be associated with impairment of ability LEAD Vg/m 3 LEAD to discriminate time intervals. The same as Lead affects humans in numerous ways, national ambient air quality standards Calendar Quarter Tor carbon monoxide are intended to Average 1.5 same a National but the greatest effects appear tobe protect against the occurrence of car- on the blood-forming system, the nerv- boxyhemoglobin levels above 2%. Note: ous system, and the kidneys. It af- Smoking up to 2 packs of cigarettes a a Never to be exceeded fects some persons more than others. day raises carboxyhemoglobin levels to b Not to be exceeded more than once per year Young children (ages 1-5) are particu- about 5%. This is-equivalent to expos- C Not to be exceeded more than twice in seven days larly sensitive to lead exposure. The ure for 8 or more hours to 30 ppm of d Not to be exceeded more than once in eight hours standard for lead in air is intended carbon monoxide. e Standard attained when expected number of days to prevent most children from exceeding per year with maximum hourly average above 0.12 ppm = parts per million blood lead levels of 30 micrograms per PPm is equal to or less than one /M3 deciliter of blood. f Applies 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. daily P9 = micrograms per cubic meter PSAPCA 8/80 PUGETSOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 410 West Harrison Street SOURCES OF INFORMATION P.O. Box 9863 ABOUT OTHER AIR POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS Seattle. Washington 98109 In addition to ambient air quality standards, the federal Clean Air Act specified that standards NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS were to be set to limit emissions from specific categories of air pollution sources. These stand- ards are: A new approach to air pollution control came into National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pol- being with the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970. lutants - These standards are intended to protect The law requires Ahe U. S. Environmental Protec- the public from emissions of pollutants which tion Agency to promulgate national rimary and could cause serious illness or death. secondary ambient air quality standarl1s. The pri- mary standards for each pollutant are based upon New Source Performance Standards - These stand- known health effects forthat particular substance ards are applicable to certai@_ categories of as detailed in "air quality criteria" documents industries which significantly contribute to air pqblished by the federal government. pollution. They apply to new or modified instal- lations of industries for which performance st .and- Primary standards protect the public health and ards have been set. must allow an adequate margin of safety. Second- Another limit on air pollution exists in the fed- ary standards must protect the public welfare eral Clean Air Act to protect areas which have against other adverse effects. These include cleanerairthan that required by National Ambient effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man- Air Quality Standards. While not strictly a stand- made materials, animals, wild life, weather, vis- ard, the Act does contain numerical limits on the ibility, climate, property, transportation, econ- amount of increase allowed for particulate matter omic values and personal comfort and well being. and sulfur dioxide in clean air areas. Pursuant to the schedule established by the Con- Information about air pollution control standards gress, the Environmental Protection Agency pub- is available from: lished on April 30, 1971, the first . national U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ambient air quality standards. In January, 1979, 1200 6th Ave., Seattle 98101 the standard for photochemical oxidant was re- named "Ozone," and was changed from 0.08 ppm to Washington State Department of Ecology 0.12 ppIm. A new national standard for lead in air Olympia 98504 was adopted in October, 1978. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency P. 0. Box 9863, Seattle 98109 Strving KING, KITSAP, PIERCE & SN0110AIISH COUNI 'IFS CITY OF TACOMA:...@ INTER. DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: George Hoivik, Acting Director From: Kei A. Palmquist, Director Planning Department Community Development Subject: Review of Draft Ruston Way Plan Date: October 17, 1980 and Draft EIS The Community Development Department has reviewed these documents with particular concern for land use, economic, historic, and design content. The documents appear to be generally well written and quite adequate. However, the documents could be improved through the following suggested revisions: Economic The listing of major public expenditures and waterfront development projects on page 66 of the Draft Plan could be clarified. The degree of overlap between the two lists is uncertain. Historic From this perspective, there are two comments that can be made about the documents. First, we recommend using the word Historic rather than historical as written in the caption on page 6 of the Draft Plan. It should read Historic Preservation. The other comment can not be made under Historic Perspective because 0 so little is left of the original buildings or historic properties. Perhaps under the category of Aesthetics in the Draft EIS or under Purpose and Intent in the Draft Plan some language could be added regarding the need to maintain scale and proportion so that the waterfront development will be lower and the other buildings may be planned or stepped into the hillsides and gulches so that the maximum view is preserved for all. The North Slope Plan notes the need to maintain scale and proportion and in some places to use materials compatible with existing building.It seems important to continue this idea for those who cross reference the various plans. The Historic Preservation Plan will deal with this subject also. KAP:GP:cw 1'. Ke@i 137 0@ V, CITY OF TACOMA INTER- DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION To: George Hoivik From !L-Mary J. Johnson Planning City EEO Officer Subjwt: Ruston Way Plan, Design and Development Date: 10 October 1980 Guidelines for Waterfront Revitalization, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Page XXi, Transportation/Circulation Page 56 Mitigating Measures l.a paragraph 4 The development of bus service to the Ruston Way area has potential human rights impact. Such transportation systems, which adequately address the needs of citizens without available private transportation, should be developed. Many elderly and/or economically disadvantaged citizens will not have access to the area without bus service. Since the development is designed as an urban water-based recreational area, consideration must be given to affording all urban residents the greatest opportunity for utilization. MJJ:ma 40 @)u 002 WIN 3 @'6 1*0 7 1 CITY OF TACOMA Department of Public Utilities INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION DATE October 10, 1980 TO M. J. Cleary, Property Management Supervisor FROM E. E. Kilga, Manager, Electrical Distribution SUBJECT Draft EIS for Ruston Way Plan The Draft Ruston Way Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for that plan have been reviewed and the following comments are offered. The Draft Ruston Way Plan contains several errors or misleading assumptions. Page 65 of the Plan displays a photograph taken along Waterview Street. This photo includes three pole lines, the roadway and railroad. The center pole line consists of medium size wood poles each with three cross-arms and numerous electrical wires which create a high level of visual pollution. The obvious implication is that this line serves power to the local residents and undergrounding the electric utilities will remove this cause of visual pollution. In'truth, it is a railroad communication line and has no connection with the electric utility. The electric power line, serving Waterview, is located on the southerly side of the roadway and can be seen to the left in the photograph. The high voltage line and station to station distribution feeder can be seen on the poles to the right in the photo, along Ruston Way. The $2,813,000 quoted on Page 66 of the Plan is the estimated cost to underground the Ruston Way lines only. An additional $100,000 would be required to underground the Waterview feeder. The Light Division interoffice communication to the Planning Department dated June 17, 1980 refers to the above estimates. The Draft EIS for the Ruston Way Plan also contains errors. On Page xxii and on Page 67 under the paragraph on "Energy," it is stated that electrical service on both Waterview Street and Ruston Way is scheduled for upgrading in 1985. These distribution feeders are not planned for conversion to 12.5 kV until 1990 or 1991. At the same time, the sub-transmission line on Ruston Way is planned to change from 52.5 kV to 115 kV as it has previously been reconstructed for use at that voltage. Page 67 of the Draft EIS states that electric service on Waterview Street is on poles along the northerly side of the roadway. As discussed above, the distribution feeder serving this street is on the southerly side of the roadway. Conversion is anticipated to be in 1990-91, not 1985.- as stated. Contrary to the final paragraph on this page, undergrounding of this feeder is not scheduled. lath. CITY OF TACOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES Memo to H. J. Cleary October 10, 1980 Page (2) Rage 96, a reference list of elements of the environment, indicates that communications is not applicable. It is recommended that more research be done with respect to the railway communication system along Waterview Street. Also, telephone and cable TV lines are not mentioned but may be affected on both Waterview Street and Ruston Way. The Light Division has studied alternate methods of routing the 115 kV transmission line on Ruston Way which would permit its removal in the 1990-91 period. The alternate method, as shown on the attached sketch, would require rebuilding existing 52.5 kV lines from Cushman Substation at North 21st and Washington to Gove Substation at North 45th and Mullen and thence to the Smelter Substation; the existing route is along North 24th, Huson, North 31st, Cheyenne, I'lullen and North 49th Streets. To complete the alternate route a new 115 kV transmission line along Pearl Street from North 26th to North 37th would be required along with rebuilding the existing 52.5 kV from North 37th and Pearl Streets to the Smelter Substation, which i-s along Pearl, North 42nd, Visscher, North 51st and Shirley Streets. Should the undergrounding or the relocation of Light Division facilities be required,funding should be accomplished under the Ruston Way Plan. Attached are the Ruston Way Plan and the Draft "EIS." DMC:lam Attached xc: James E. Thompson w/attached R. H. Schneider E. E. Kilga W. B. Miller D. M. Campbell R. W. Rosenberg R. F. Athow SMELTER 1989 SUBSTATION TO BE CONVERTED MAIN SUBSTATION RUSTON L 0 SUBSTATION TO BE REMOVED Remove 1990 0 L 115KV CONSTRUCTION 52.5 TO 115KV CONVERSION ORIGINAL PLAN GOVE ............. 52.5 TO 115KV ADDITIONAL 1990 CONVERSION NEW PLAI@@..-:, 52.5 kV Remove Convert to IDEFIA CE 115kV 1990---*"t PUGET 1982 Remove 1989 Construct 1981)@ Lt. Div. Budget FAIRMONT L Remove 1991 OLD TOWN 0 1991 SCENIC PEARL TO Potlatch CUSHMAN Remove To SW JUNETT STADIUM via DOWNING 1988 Highland 1987 To To To SW and To NE SW SW Cowlitz via viab KAY. Cedar Hilltop Remove 1988 I @i A A. 356 Revised 04/80 CITY OF TACOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MEMORANDUM DATE: October 10, 1980 TO: M. J. Cleary, Property 114anagement Supervisor FROM: John A. Roller, Superintendent Water Division SUBJECT: DRAFT EIS FOR THE RUSTON WAY PLAN The Water Division has reviewed the subject Draft EIS for the Ruston Way Plan and has no objections or comments. John A. Roller 'Superintendent Water Division JAR:PRH:mwd *JohInA.' TRo@ller Adxbk 356 10/71 CITY OF TACOMA Department of Public Utilities INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION DATE October 15, 1980 TO Paul J. Nolan, Director of Utilities FROM Woodrow E. Jones, General Services Manager SUBJECT DRAFT EIS FOR THE RUSTON WAY PLAN Both Light and Water Division have reviewed the subject of the EIS Draft of the Ruston Way Plan. Water Division has no objections., Light Division comments are attached. Mjims cc: Property Management CITY OF TACOMA INTER- DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION To: George A. Hoivik, Acting Director From: R. M. Button, Director Planning Department Public Works Department Subject: Draft EIS Ruston Way Plan Date: October 17, 1980 The Public Works Department has reviewed the Draft Environmental I.mpact Statement for the Ruston Way Plan and has the-following comments: 1) Page XVIII, First Complete Par.: The term "low speed" should be removed as it is purely a subjective description and may be used as a lever to force lower posted speed limits than warranted. To artificially reduce and control traffic volumes and speeds causes operational and enforcement problems and increases conflicts between the various users of the facility. Speed limits on public streets are set by City Council action based on 11 . . . the findings of a traffic engineering investigation." per Ordinance 11.36.060 and as authorized by Ordinance 11.38.010 and 1.06.750. A discussion of speed limits does not belong in a land use plan. The -characteristics and use of a street will determine the safe speed limit and it is the responsibility of the Public Works Department to study and recommend those limits. -(See Comment 2) 2) Page XXI, Under Transportation/Circulation, Par. 1: The Public Works Department reserves authority to determine locations 0 that warrant left turn lanes for safety reasons. 3) Page XXIII, Par. 2: The phrase " . , . . an area to drive or walk through . . . 11 contradicts the statement in the previous paragraph indicating increased 0 activities. Increase activities implies more local use of the "specific activities". The linear corridor concept itself does not imply Ruston -Way would have I'movement emphasis" -and that increased through traffic can be anticipated" over any other concept or plan. The speed limit would be established at the mst reasonable level to allow the various motorists the best safety and mobility possible and should not be discussed in the EIS. The majority of the existing 3,500 to 5,800 vehicles per day (average) are through traffic and there will be increased through demand as the North-E--nd-clevelops further. This mixture of local and through traffic must be recognized and dealt with. 0 0 jM 002 f2176i A06 George A. Hoivik October 17, 1980 Page Two 4) Page XXIII, Par. 3: It is reasonable and most likely that there will be an increased traffic flow on Ruston Way, no matter how it develops. Less restricted traffic flow at the northwesterly end is desirable at the present time, let alone the future. A certain volume of traffic that "necessitates" these improvements is not consistent as there are money and environmental constraints that will be difficult to deal with. This paragraph should be stricken or softened in tone by striking "would necessitate" and "severely". 5) Page 6, Par. 2: To state at this point that the Ruston Way roadway will remain a two lane roadway with one moving lane in each direction, simply because this is in accordance with the Master Program for Shoreline Development, is neglecting the environmental issues at hand. Thus far, alternate roadway sections and alignments, and the resulting social, economic and environmental impacts associated with those alternates have not been identified. Without examining these alternates, the intent of the EIS process has been avoided. An adequate analysis of alternates in the Ruston Way Plan EIS is especially critical since the E.I.S. for the Master Program for Shoreline Development was so limited in scope. 6) Page 53, Environmental Impacts, l.a., Par. 1: The terms "limited, concentrated, high use, excessive and continuous" are subjective and can be expected to restrict the Public Works Department from making an objective decision based on safety. (See Comment 2) 7) Page 54, Par. 1: The phrase 11 . . . the needs of the Shoreline user rather than the commuter." should read " . . . the need of both the Shoreline user and the commuter." Emphasis can be placed on local use but commuter and through traffic must accommodated. (See Also Comment 1) 8) Page 54, Par. 2: Elevating the roadway to provide scenic views could cause safety problems and access problems to adjacent properties. R. M. Button, P.E. Director RMB:KM:sl File: Program Development 2/0 7 c/ Ask METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT OFTACOMA 10 Idaho Street Tacoma, Washington 98409 BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS: HOWARD W. ASHLEY NED P. KRfLICH DAVID E. MORRIS September 29, 1980 JOHN E. O'LEARY JEROME M. THORPE City Planning Department Attn: Ms. Donna Kinkela 740 St. Helens, 9th Floor Tacoma, WA 98402 Re: Ruston Way Plan-Draft Ruston Way Plan EIS-Draft Dear Ms. Kinkela: The Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma has reviewed the dr aft of the Ruston Way Plan and the accompanying Environmental Impact Statement. We have found both to be consistent with our planning and service efforts in the park and recreation field. The plan was well written, organized, and complete. We commend the Plann-' ing Department Staff on its efforts and product. The plan included a number of vital park and recreation areas and opportunities. We are.most satisfied that the plan and design considered the diverse needs of the citizens of the City. The inclusion of a boat launching facility is greatly supported. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. 0 Sincerely, METROPOLI AN A A TV Andy 4Gbins, MPD Planner AG:dw co T_ RECEpiEE, 0C 198 "co- RECEI OC T, C C,t ity of'icomd-- 14Y CITY OF TACOMA INTER - DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION To: George A. Hoivik From: W. W. Perrett Acting Director of Planning Chief of Police Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: September 15, 1980 FOR RUSTON WAY PLAN Our department has reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement for the Ruston Way Plan and no potential police problems were noted. W. W. PERRETT Chief of Police WWP:MJM:pd v@ -4. U) Armand L. Labbe September 19, 1980 Manager City of Tacoma Planning Department Medical Arts Building, 9th Floor 740 St. Helens Avenue Tacoma, WA 98402 Gentlemen: Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement For the Draft Ruston Way Plan We have received your transmittal letter of September 4, 1980, and reviewed the di@aft of the Environmental Impact Statement and the Ruston Way Plan. We respectfully submit the following comments: We are supportive of the City of Tacoma in their efforts to revitalize the Ruston Way shoreline. The plans for the north area of Rtiston Way considers three alternatives, one of which includes the 1200 feet of shoreline property owned by Asarco, and is adjacent to the existing.plant. In 1974, Asarco pro- posed filling this property, which covers approximately 12.48 acres, for both ore storage and for the future construction of possible pollution abatement facilities. The urgency of utiliz- ing the filled area at that time was diminished due to regulatory relief, and the request for a Shoreline Permit to the property was withdrawn. In considering this fill, time was spent with the City of Tacomals Planning Department working out an arrangement whereby Asarco would provide a berm at the south end of the filled land which would be landscaped. Asarco considers the 1200 feet of the shoreline a necessary part of its current and future operations. The present con- figuration of land and water provides a transition area be- tween the plant operations and related activities and the public. Future utilization of all or part of this property should provide for a similar transition area which with any change would be compatible with the criteria outlined in the .Draft of the Ruston Way Plan. ASARCO Incorporated P.O. Box 1677 . Tacoma, Wa 98401 (206) 759-3551 2 We suggest that our comments are made not to be anti-proposed Ruston Way Plan, but rather to be constructive with respect to the interests of the public and Asarco. We, therefore, suggest that your considerations for the north area be along the lines of your second or third alternatives. Yours truly, A. L. LABBE ALL.cg ED WbAk PlanninT, Department CJ gda= Medical Arts Bldg., 9th Floor 740 St. Helens Avenue Tacoma, Washington 98402 (206) 593-4170 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TRANSMITTAL LETTER September 4, 1980 TO: Washington Natural Gas 3130 South 38th Street Tacoma, WA 98409 FROM'- Tacoma Planning Department Medical Arts Building 740 St. Helens Avenue, Ninth Floor Tacoma, Washington 98402 SUBJECT: Ruston Way Plan, Design and Development Guidelines for Waterfront Revitalization The Ruston Way Plan will guide public and private development in the Ruston Way shoreline area. Emphasis is on policies that address design elements common to all developments such as lighting, signs and graphics. LOCATION: Approximate two-mile stretch of shoreline between the Old Town Community and the Town of Ruston bordering on Commencement Bay from the outer harbor line to the railroad tracks. Your review of the enclosed Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the draft Ruston Way Plan is requested. Comments or information should be forwarded to this department no later than October 17, 1980. A fifteen (15) day extension may be granted a consulted agency with jurisdiction if additional time is required to develop and complete new data on the proposal. (Ref er to WAC 197-10-040, 197-10-465, 197-10-510 and 197-10-520 for provisions that define a consulted agency with jurisdiction). A written request for such an extension must be received by this department prior to the deadline date cited above. Extensions may not be granted for any other purpose. ASS& Aft@ September 4, 1980 Page Two Your comments, if any, should be (1) concise and specific, (2) confined only to those areas of the environmental impact statement which fall within your area of jurisdiction or expertise, (3) stated in a form that indicates what actions should be accomplished to correct any deficiency, and (4) numbered sequentially for convenient cross reference. If written comments are not received either by the deadline date or within the extension period that may be granted, this department will assume that you have no objection to the potential impacts of the draft plan as described in the impact statement. A copy of the draft Ruston Way Plan is included for your reference in reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Comments concerning the Plan document, if any, should be separate. These comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their consideration when reviewing the draft plan. Very truly yours, JACK D. CRtIGHTON Director of Planning (Responsible Official) by GEORGE A. HOIVIK Acting Director of Planning JDC:GAH:vg BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE October 24, 1980 Chairman and Members of the Tacoma Planning Commission: At its October 15, 1980, meeting the City Beautification Committee reviewed the Planning Department's Ruston Way Plan. Bart Alford and Donna Kinkela of the staff explained that the draft Plan is consistent with the Master Program for Shoreline Development and will not affect the use regulations of the document. Ms Kinkela also described the three main purposes of the Plan which are to encourage continuity along the shoreline and establish a sense of place for the Ruston Way area, to provide guidance for private development in incorporating details into their developments to be consistent and compatible with the character of the area, and to provide development concepts for the three large public properties along the shoreline. In their review, the Committee expressed concerns over the parking situation along Ruston Way and in the Plan. They felt that the proposed parking within the Plan document is far too domi.nant however, they recognized that parking will be a necessary item as the Ruston Way area develops. The Beautification Committee is in support of the efforts as documented in the Plan. They feel that the emphasis for the continuity of design in the tying .together of certain marine elements along the shoreline is a logical and appropriate element to the document. In conclusion, the Beautification Committee recommends approval of the Draft Ruston Way Plan and commends the Planning Staff for a job well done. Very truly yours, Ken T. Heany, Chairman Beautification Committee 0 KTH:KH:lw -57 TACOMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9TH FLOOR, 740 ST. HELENS AVENUE, TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402 FHQNE (@96) 52a:4170 city NATURAL SYSTEMS CITIZEN& CJ 9dwmd ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 3, 1980 TO: Planning Commission, City of Tacoma FROM: Natural Systems Committee SUBJECT: Draft Ruston.Way Plan The Natural Systems Committee has reviewed the Ruston Way Plan and is in general agreement of the Plan. The introduction is very eloquent, and the plans for the public segments certainly look beautiful. A minor concern of the Committee was the use of the work "criteria" and its re-definition in the Plan. We found iit very confusing and felt that it was used in varying ways throughout the Plan. We feel that they can find either one or perhaps several other terms to make the intent more clear. We were more concerned, however, about the lack of any regulations or specific guidelines within the private segments. We realize that the Shoreline Master Program serves to regulate development along Ruston Way, but we feel that in order to attain the goals of continuity, etc., that the Plan is striving for, some stronger language is necessary. For example, why not make it required to post signs wherever there is public access to the beach? Why hot have some regulations regarding pedestrian and bicycle paths vs. car traffic and parking? What about,some regulations regarding maintenance of both property and beach? There must be many more ideas similar to these that could enhance the shoreline and people's use of it. We feel that it would aid the Hearings Examiner in his job and help to better attain the aims of the Plan if it were strengthened. TACOMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9TH FLOOR, 740 ST. HELENS AVENUE, TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402 P 1 -1 n NT F 12 8 61 r, f 11 -a I -z n 4508 11 Chevenne Tacoma, WA 98407 September 24, 1930 Mr. Joe Quilici City of Tacoma Planning Department medical Arts Bldg. 40 740 St. Helens Ave. Tacoma, WA 98402 Dear Mr. Quilici, on behalf of the Pierce County Sportsmens' Council I would like to commend you and the entire staff of the City Planning Department on the Ruston Way plan. it is obvious that there has been a great deal of work and insight involved in this project. This type of planning has been needed for many years and will benefit the people of Tacoma and Pierce County for many generations. The Pierce County Sportsmens Council would like to go on record at this time as being in total support of this Plan. I am looking forward to working with you in the future on these projects. Sincerely, .Jim McAfee President, Pierce County Sportsmens Council CHAPTER VII RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RESPONSES TO COMMENTS This chapter contains excerpts of specific comments from -the letters re produced in the previous section. A response to each comment is also included. Response Page FEDERAL AGENCIES Department of Interior,, Fish and Wildlife Service 67 Department of Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service 67 0, United States Army, Corps of Engineers 69 National Marine Fisheries Service NR STATE AGENCIES Department of Ecology 72 Department of Fisheries 72 Department-of Game' NR Department of Natural Resorces 73 Department of Transportation NR Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 73 Parks and Recreation Commission NR REGIONAL AGENCIES Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 73 LOCAL AGENCIES Tacoma Department of Community Development 76 Tacoma Department of Human Relations 76 Tacoma Department of Public Utilities 77 Tacoma Department of Public Works 78 Tacoma Metropolitan Park District 81 Tacoma Police Department NR PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS -1 American Smelting and Refinery Company 82 Washington Natural Gas Company NR Beautification Committee 82 Natural Systems Citizens' Advisory Committee 82 Pierce County Sportsmen's Council NR NR-No Response 65 LETTER FROM UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND A WILDLIFE SERVICL, October 14, 198P Comment: "We recommend that filling of shorelines be limited and examined on a site-by-site basis." Response: As stated in the Environmental Impact Statement, a limited amount of fill may be necessary and 01. apropriate in some instances. The small amount o dry land significantly impacts development potential. However, any fill must be consistent with all locall state and federal regulations and will be examined on a case-by-case basis as part of the permit review process. Comment: "The slope of the shore should be 1 1/2' : 1' unless this would require excessive filling." Response: As stated in both the Plan and EIS documents, all fill activities will be subject to local, -0 state and federal regulations. The above ratio is the recommended standard for fill. Comment: "...we,suggest that any changes in the present shoreline be accompanied by proper considera- tions of migrating salmonids." Response: The importance of Commencement Bay as a migra- tory route for salmonids, is recognized. Throughout the Plan and EIS, consideration and protective measures for migrating fish are re- commended including proper sloping, the use of rough textured materials for the face of the slope, avoiding dredging activity during periods of migration, spacing pilings six feet or more apart so as not to impede migrating fish and avoidance of direct lighting on the water's surface. LETTER FROM UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE, October 17, 1980 Comment: The discussion of bicycle paths on page 58 and in the Summary on page xviii needs to be expand- ed in the final EIS as does the public boat launching facility, on page 58." Response: The following paragraphs were added to the "Bi- cycle" section on page 58. The proposed bicycle path will be separated from vehicular traffic and from pedestrian 67 travel, where possible. A separate bicycle path would provide the greatest amount of safety. However, because of the small amount of available land, a combined 'bicycle/pedes- train path may be necessary. The combination path will be of sufficient width to allow safe passage of both pedestrians and cyclists. Wherever possible, the combined path will be located along the water's edge. A less pre- ferable location but in some cases, necessary location is between the roadway edge and newly developed parking areas. Where sepa- rate paths are possible, the pedestrian path will be located near the shoreline edge. The recommended design speed for the bicycle path is 18 m.p.h. with a ten foot vertical clearance. Asphaltic concrete composition is recommended. The path will be well-landscap- ed to help define the path's edge. Amenities such as human scale lighting, seating fix- tures, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, and bicycle racks will be provided to satisfy human comfort needs. As stated in the EIS, a public boat launch as proposed in the draft Plan is a conceptual use of the shoreline area. A boat launch develop- ment may or may not take pl ace. Prior to con- struction of a boat launch, more detailed in- vestigation will be necessary to determine the feasibility and engineering of such a facility. Comment: "Plans for park development on page 62 are not detailed and should be expanded in the final EIS." Response: A more detailed explanation of proposed public 0 improvements can be found in the "Description of the Proposal" pp. 3 - 7. Comment: "We note from the distribution list on page xiii that the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission received a copy of the draft EIS. We recommend consultation with the Commission on planned recreation development of the project area.01 68 - '40 Response: The Parks and Recreation Commission has indica- ted that the Ruston Way Plan "will have no ef- fect on properties under the management or con- trol" of the Commission. (See comment letter, page 29). Comment: "The statement on page 69 indicates that the City of Tacoma has consulted with the State OR Historic Preservation Officer. Documentation of this consultation is required in compliance with 36 CFR 800, as amended, (Federal Register, January 30, 1979) if any Federal action is involved." Response: If Federal monies or licenses are involved in any project that will impact any designated historic property, the City of Tacoma will com- ply with 36 CFR 800. Comment: "The statement: 'The head saw is on both the City and State Registers of Historic Places' indicates only that these registers have been reviewed but ' does not comply with the require- ments of 36 CFR 800 respecting the National Register of Historic Places." Response: The Dickman Head Saw is listed in the Tacoma Register of Historic Places and comes under chapters 1.42 and 13.07 of the offical city code. The Tacoma Landmarks Preservation Commis- sion sits as a Board of Review for changes to designated historic properties. The Secretary of the Interior has certified the Tacoma Land- marks Ordinances. The Head Saw must be moved from its present location because the Dickman Mill property has been sold. The State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation is holding the nomination for the National Register pending de6ision on a new location for the Head Saw. Should the new location, when found, be approved by the state office, the nomination will be forwarded to the Keeper of the National Register for considera- tion. LETTER FROM DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, October 7, 1980 Comment: "The Commencement Bay Study, which is being conducted by the Seattle District, should be referred to in this EIS.11 69 Response: The following has been added to "Relationship with Existing Comprehensive Policies, Plans and 46- Regulations," p. 7: The Plan document and the Environmental Im- pact Statement have been forwarded to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for their use in the Commencement Bay Study. The .0 Study is in progress and Phase 1, Data Col- lection will be completed by 1981. Comment: "Pa?e VI, item titled 'Licenses/Permits Requir- ed: Although the EIS addresses the overall plan for Ruston Way, each development in the area that involves work in navigable waters of the United States or their adjacent wetlands, would require a Section 10 and/or Section 404 permit." Response: Thank you for your comment. Although no permits are required to adopt the draft Plan, specific public and private development activities may require local, state and federal permits. Comment: "Page 16, second paragraph, first sentence: Limiting beach nourishment to the 'leeward side of promontories' may be unduly restrictive. Many beaches, both natural and artificial, are located on the updrift (windward) side of pro.;. montories." Response: The statement has been revised as follows: Beach nourishment should primarily occur at existing beach sites and generally be limited to areas above 0.0 tide level. Comment: "Page 29, last paragraph: We suggest expanding this paragraph to clarify the basis for the assumption that if Commencement Bay water qual- ity is 'good' and suitable substrate is avail- able, then biologic productivity would likely increase." Response: The paragraph has been revised as follows: The condition of the Ruston Way shoreline can be described as "substrate limiting," as indicated in the "Aquatic Survey and Assess- ment of Ruston Way Shoreline," a recent re- port commissioned by the City of Tacoma. According to the report, past industrial uses and abuses have degraded the natural habitat and therefore the diversity and abundance of 70 marine fauna. However, the waters near the Ruston Way shoreline are of high quality accord- ing to the same report and the Washington State Department of Ecology classification of waters. The surface waters are replaced by upwelling nutrient-bearing waters from depths beyond the shelf. The report states that water quality is generally not a limiting factor in biological productivity. The report further states that because the quality of water is high that "if suitable substrate were available, the biologi- cal productivity in the intertidal zone would be greater than that existing. Comment: "Pa es 29 and 30: Potential impacts due to dr2ging and placement of fill on typical inter- tidal habitat and resident benthic faunal popu- lations along Ruston Way shoreline are not given adequate treatment." Response: The "Fauna (Wildlife),, Environmental Impacts" section, pp. 29-30, was revised to address the concern above. Cutting and dredging, if properly done, will not have any biological impact above mean high water, according to the same report. (Aquatic Survey and Assessment of Ruston Way Shoreline) Below mean high water, such activities may be appropriate if they are accomplished during periods of non-migration of salmon and the material is deposited on land. 17 The report also indicated that past uses of the Ruston Way shoreline have had two primary detrimental impacts: (1) the narrowing of the intertidal areas by fill for industrial, railroad and road purposes, and (2) the de- grading of the intertidal substrate with sawdust, wood chips and other wastes. The lack of suitable intertidal habitat has limi- ted the biological productivity of the area. The removal of the undesirable substrate and replacement with more suitable material or the covering of unproductive and poor sub- strate with suitable materials will serve to enhance marine life. Such activities must comply with all necessary regulations 'and be accomplished in an appropriate manner. 71 LETTER FROM DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, October 16, 1980 Comment: "The discussion in the Population/Housing se c- tion of the EIS indicates single family houses will predominate. We are aware of a multi- family development on Ruston Way which is pre- sently being considered by the Tacoma City Coun- cil. It would be helpful to know how the pro- posed project relates to the Ruston Way Plan." Response: The reference to single family housing in the EIS pertains to the Wat ,erview Street area and not the Ruston Way shoreline. As stated in the EIS, the Waterview Street residential area is located at the base of the slopes and parallel to and above the grade of the Ruston Way road- way. The neighborhood is beyond the 200 feet jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. The RUSTON WAY PLAN will not affect the uses nor use regulations of the MASTER PROGRAM FOR SHORE- LINE DEVELOPMENT. The document is a guide WiTch -@i@illassist the design and development of public and private properties regardless of use. LETTER FROM DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, October 17, 1980 Comment: "We concur with the statement on page 13 of the Aquatic Survey and Assessment of Ruston Way Shoreline that 'filling should be allowed where necessary for enhancement purposes if precau- tions regarding migrating salmon are taken and if highly productive areas are avoided.' Depending on the habitat types which are involv- ed, the placement of riprap may or may not in- crease the numbers and diversity of food organ- isms or otherwise improve the nearshore waters utilized by the juvenile salmonids migrating through the area. It is therefore necessary for us to review these proposed fills along Ruston Way on a case-by-case basis." Response: Development proposals will continue to be re- viewed individually and must comply with all local, state and federal regulations. Comment: "A mitigative measure suggested on page 30 is the creation of tide pools. We believe that these pools could entrap juvenile out migrating salmonids during periods of low tide and suggest their deletion from the plan." 72 Response: Thank you for the information. Plans for tidal pools have been deleted. LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, September 25, 1980 Comment: "...the harbor area's (sic) in the State of Washington have a constitutional mandate to provide for conveniences of navigation and com- merce. ...It is not the Department's intent to discourage the City of Tacoma's plans for the development of Ruston Way. However, we do want the City to understand that plans for the use of the harbor area that fronts Ruston Way, must take into account the restrictions which are placed on. these waters by the State Constitu- tion." Response: The City is aware of the regulations governing uses in harbor areas. The proposed public uses identified in the draft Plan generally do not extend into the harbor areas. A lease for use of the harbor areas will be finalized shortly for the proposed public fishing pier. LETTER FROM OFFICE OF A RCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, Uctober 16, 1980 Comment: "The draft (EIS) notes the limited potential for the existence of largely undisturbed prehistoric archaeological sites. There is, however, poten- tial for the existence of important historic archaeological data relating to the period of early historic settlement and development. This potential should be considered when specific projects are proposed." Response: The City understands that should any evidence of historic archaeological data be found, the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be notified in compliance with state and federal legislation. LETTER FROM PUGET SOUND AIR.POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY, October 16, 1980 Comment: "Since no new traffic projections have been included as part of the statement, we are assum- ing that no significant increase in traffic resulting from implementation of the plan is 73 anticipated by the City of Tacoma. It should also be noted that the area served is well north of the Tacoma carbon monoxide hot-spot area, for which special transportation control measures are now being considered as part of our commit- ment to carry out terms of Washington State Implementation Plan for obtaining ambient air quality standards." Response: An additional paragraph was added to the Air Quality section, page 20. The Ruston Way area lies outside of the car- bon monoxide "hot spot" area for the city, i.e., the downtown-port industrial area. Special transportation control measures are now being considered to carry out terms of the Washington State Implementation Plan for obtaining ambient air quality standards. Comment: "Text on page 18 states that fog is a particu- late. While finely dispersed liquids are clas- sed as particulates, an exclusion is made for uncombined water, and therefore fog should not be included in this classification." Response: Thank you for the information. The sentence has been revised as follows to delete the reference to fog: Particulates include dust, smoke, fumes, mist and spray. Comment: "Ambient air quality standards are listed on page 19. Since changes have been made recently to ambient air quality standards both by the State of Washington and by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, standards shown are no longer current. We are enclosing a page listing correct standards which should be used as a replacement." Response: Thank you for the information. The chart has been replaced with the one supplied by your organization. (see page 35) Comment: "A statement at the bottom of page 18 requires modification. The statement is that 'carbon monoxide and oxidants are normal by-products of incomplete fossil fuel combustion.' The state- ment is correct for carbon monoxide but oxidants are produced as a result of a secondary reaction between nitrogen oxides (which frequently are a 74 product of good combustion) and volatile organic compounds, in the presence of untraviolet radia- tion. In the Puget Sound area, the foregoing factors have limited the occurrence of high ozone concentrations to (the) months of June through September." Response: Thank you for the information. The paragraph has been revised to incorporate the new informa- tion: Carbon monoxide is a normal by-product of incomplete fossil fuel combustion. Oxidants are produced as a result of a secondary reac- tion between nitrogen oxides, a frequent product of good combustion, and volatile organic compounds in the presence of ultra- violet radiation. Ozone is the oxidant found in the largest amounts. Comment: "On page 20, and in the summary, there is a discussion of -mitigating measures. Mitigating measures would include efforts to provide public transportation to the parked areas and other attractions of the central waterfront and to provide an unimpeded bikeway along the water- front. We understand that these measures are being contemplated and would encourage their implementation." Response: The following paragraph has been added as a mitigating measure on page 21: The Ruston Way Plan encourages alternative forms of transportation. The Plan proposes a continuous bicycle/pedestrian path along the waterfront. The need and desirability for this type of improvement has long been recog- nized. In addition, the design concepts for public properties include provisions for transit pull-outs. It is anticipated as development occurs, transit service will increase to serve the public. The following paragraph was added to page xix, "Summary, Air Quality" as a mitigating measure: The Ruston Way Plan encourages alternative forms of transportation. The Plan proposes a continuous bicycle/pedestrian path along the waterfront. In addition, the design concepts for public properties include provisions for transit pull-outs. 75 MEMO FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, October 17, 1980 Comment: "The listing of major public expenditures and waterfront development projects on page 66 of the Draft Plan could be clarified. The degree of overlap between the two lists is uncertain." Response: The "Implementation" section of the PLAN docu- ment was revised to incorporate new information and clarify the content. Comment: ... we recommend using the word Historic rather than historical as written in the caption on page 6 of the Draft Plan." Response: The word has been changed as recommended. Comment: "Perhaps under the category of Aesthetics in the Draft EIS or under Purpose and Intent in the Draft Plan some language could be added regard- ing the need to maintain scale and proportion so that the waterfront development will be lower and the other buildings may be planned or- step- ped into the hillsides and gulches so that the maximum view is preserved for all." Response: The thrust of the Ruston Way Plan is the design of both public and private developments. To that effect, policies stress and encourage structure designs that reflect form, scale, color, materials, and texture that are compat- ible with the intended marine character of the area. An entire section of policies was developed to address view concerns. Stepped development is one way to preserve views and is a recommended practice for hillside construction. MEMO FROM HUMAN RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, October 10, 1980 Comment: "Page XXi, Transportation/Circulation, Page 56, Mitigating Measures 1.a paragraph 4 The development of bus service to the Ruston Way area has potential human rights impact. Such transportation systems, which adequately address the needs of citizens without available private transportation, should be developed." Response: The necessity and desirability of public transit service is recognized. Provisions for transit pull-outs are included as part of the design 76 proposals for public park developments. As noted in the Draft Environmental Impact State- ment, it is. anticipated public transit service will be provided as development increases. MEMO FROM DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES, October 15, 1980 Comment: "The Draft Ruston Way Plan- contains several errors or misleading assumptions. Page 65 of the Plan displays a photograph taken along. Waterview Street. This photo includes three pole lines, the roadway and railroad. The center pole line consists of medium size wood poles each with three cross-arms and numerous electrical wires which create a high level of visual pollution. The obvious implication is that this line serves power to the local resi- dents and undergrounding the electric utilities will remove this cause of visual pollution. In truth, it is a railroad communication line and has no connection with the electrical utility." Response: Thank you for the information. The photograph has been removed. Comment: "The $2,813,000 quoted on page 66 of the Plan is the estimated cost to underground the Ruston Way lines only. An additional $100,000 would be required tounderground the Waterview feeder." Response: Thank you for the information. Comment: "The Draft. EIS for the Ruston Way Plan also contains errors. On Page xxii and on Page 67 under the paragraph on 'Energy, 'it is stated that electrical service on both Waterview Street and Ruston Way is scheduled for upgrading in 1985. These distribution feeders are not plan- ned for conversion to 12.5 U unti 1 1990 or 1991. At the same time, the sub-transmission line on Ruston Way is planned to change from 52.5 kV to 115 kV as it has previously been reconstructed for use at that voltage." Response: Thank you for the information. The "Energy" and "Summary" sections will be revised to reflect the new dates. Comment: "Page 67 of the Draft EIS states that electrical service on Waterview Street is on poles along the northerly side of the roadway. As discussed 77 0 above, the distribution feeder serving this street is on the southerly side of the roadway. ... Contrary to the final paragraph on this page, undergrounding of this feeder is not scheduled." Response: Thank you for the information. The sentence has been revised with the word "southerly". The 'reference to undergrounding of utilities under "mitigating measures" does not presume that such activity will occur or is scheduled to occur. The statement merely indicates that undergrounding utility wires is one way to miti- gate visual impacts from overhead wiring. Comment: "Page 96, a reference list of elements of the environment, indicates that communications is not applicable. It is recommended that more research be done with respect to the railway communication system along Waterview Street. Also, telephone and cable TV lines are not men- 60 tioned but may be affected on both Waterview Street and Ruston Way." Response: Thank you for the information. Policies con- tained in the Ruston Way Plan encourage the undergrounding of utility wires and service lines to better utilize the available land and enhance the scenic views on both Waterview Street and Ruston Way. Comment: "Should the undergrounding or the relocation of Light Division facilities be required, funding should be accomplished under the Ruston Way Plan." Response: The RUSTON WAY PLAN has no attached funding. Several funding sources and methods Of imple- menting the PLAN's proposals are indicated in the document. Further investigation is neces- sary to determine the appropriate funding ap- proach. MEMO FROM TACOMA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, October 17, 1980 Comment: "Page XVIII, First Complete Par.: The term 'low speed' should be removed as it is purely a subjective description and may be used -as a lever to force lower posted speed limits than warranted. ...Speed limits on public 78 streets are set by City Council action based on, '...the findings of a traffic engineering in- vest" ation'...A discussion of speed limits does not be1ong in a land use plan. The character- istics and use of a street will determine the safe speed limit and it is the responsibility of the Public Works Department to study and recom- mend those limits." Response: The characteristics and use of the Ruston Way area, on ice developed, will determine the safe speed limit as recommended by the Public Works Department. Comment: "Page XXI, Under Transportation/Circulation, Par.I: TFe-Public Works Department reserves authority to determine locations that -warrant left turn lanes for safety reasons." Response: The Ruston Way corridor, general alignment and two-lane concept has been firmly established. The Planning Department and the Public Works Department. jointly signed a "Memorandum of Un- derstanding" concerning design details of the Ruston Way roadway in 1978. The draft Ruston Way Plan incorporated the concepts of this agreement between the two departments. Comment: "Page XXIII, Par. 2: The phrase '...an area to drive or walk through ... I contradicts the statement in the previous paragraph indicating increased activities. ... The linear corridor concept itself does not imply Ruston Way would havF-Imovement emphasis' and that ' ... increased through traffic can be anticipated' over any other concept or plan. The speed limit would be established at the most 41k, reasonable level to allow the various motorists the best safety and mobility possible and should not be discussed in the EIS. The majority of the existing 3,500 to 5,000 vehicles per day (average) are through traffic and there will be increased through demand as the North End deve- lops furth_er_.___TFis mixture of local and through traffic must be recognized and dealt with." Response: The linear corridor concept emphasizes vehicular and pedestrian movement. To accommodate this emphasis, an enlarged roadway configuration 79 A could be necessary. Such an enlarged roadway could make the Ruston Way roadway more attrac- tive as a commuter route and therefore through traffic could increase. Comment "Page XXIII,. Par. 3: it is reasonable and most likely that there will be an increased traffic flow on Ruston Way, no matter how it develops. ...This paragraph should be stricken or softened in tone by striking 'would necessitate' and 'severely'." Response: The paragraph has been revised as follows: The increased traffic could result in more pressure for less restricted traffic flow and access at the northwesterly end of Ruston Way. An enlarged roadway configuration at the northwesterly end would result in consi- derable impact to the environment of the shoreline slope areas and nearby residential area. Land acquisition and/or displacement of existing homes might be required to obtain sufficient right-of-way. Such improvements would be very costly. Comment: "Page 6,_Par. 2: To state at this point that the Ruston Way road- way will remain a two lane roadway with one moving lane in each direction, simply because this is in accordance with the Master Program for Shoreline Development, is neglecting the environmental issues at hand. Thus far, alter- nate roadway sections and alignments, and the resulting social, economic and environmental impacts associated with those alternates have not been identified." 40 Response: Subsection 13.10.175.B.14.d of the Official Code of the City of Tacoma states that in the Ruston Way "S-611 Shoreline District: "Roads shall be limited to one moving lane in each direction." Further, "The Memorandum of Understanding" jointly signed by the Planning and Public Works Departments also stipulates that the Ruston Way roadway will remain two lanes. Alternative concepts have been previously discussed and decided with the adoption of the MASTER PROGRAM FOR SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT. - 80 Comment: "Page 53, Environmental Impacts, I.a, Par. 1: 4b The terms 'limited. concentrated, high use, excessive and continuous' are subjective and can be expected to restrict the Public Works Depart- ment from making an objective decision based on safety." Response: The Planning Department will continue to work with the Public Works Department in determining the most appropriate location and necessity of left-hand turn lanes. Comment: "Page 54, Par. 1: The phrase ' ... the needs of the Shoreline user rather than the commuter' should read '...the need of both the Shoreline user and the commuter.' Emphasis can be placed on local use but commuter and through traffic must (be) accommodated." Response: The sentence has been revised as suggested. Comment: "Page 54, Par. 2: Elevating the roadway to provide scenic views could cause safety problems and access problems to adjacent properties." Response: An elevated grade is one way to provide views of the water for the motorist. The final design of the Ruston Way roadway has not been establish- ed. Safety, access and other concerns will be addressed at that time. LETTER FROM METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT, September 29, 1980, Comment: "The Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma has reviewed the draft of the Ruston Way Plan and the accompanying Environmental Impact State- ment. We have found both to be consistent with our planning and service efforts in the park and recreation field. ...The plan included a number of vital park and recreation areas and opportun- ities. We are most satisfied that the plan and design considered the diverse needs of the citi- zens of the City. The inclusion of a boat launching facility is greatly supported." Response: Thank you. The above comments do not affect the environmental impacts of the proposed Plan and 81 were forwarded to the proper decision-making bodies for their consideration. LETTER FROM A. L. LABBE, ASARCO, September 1�, 1980 Comment: "The plans for the north area of Ruston Way considers three alternatives, one of which in- cludes the 1200 feet of shoreline property owned by ASARCO, and is adjacent to the existing plant. ... ASARCO considers the 1200 feet of the shoreline a necessary part of its current and future operations. ...Future utilization of all or part of this property should provide for a ... transition area ... compatible with the cri- teria outlined in the Draft of the Ruston Way Plan. ... We, therefore, suggest that your con- siderations for the north area be along the lines of your second or third alternatives." Response: The above comment refers to the Plan document. The letter was forwarded to the proper decision- making bodies for their consideration. , The development concept was revised for publicly owned property only. LETTER FROM BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE, OCTOBER 24, 1980 Comment: The Committee had several comments concerning the draft plan which do not affect the environ- mental impacts of the proposal. These comments were forwarded to the proper-decision making bodies for their consideration. LETTER FROM NATURAL SYSTEMS CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE, NOVEMBER 3, 1980 Comment: As with the Beautification Committee, this letter is concerned with the draft plan document. The letter was forwarded to the proper decision making bodies for their consideration. 82 Chapter VIII SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY RUSTON WAY PLAN DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION Planning Commission Public Hearing December 15, 1980 Summary of Oral Testimony Bruce Steel 725 Stadium Way Mr. Steel stated'that he represented himself and the Crown Pacific Corporation. He explained that he owns a significant amount of property and has made a substantial investment along the Ruston Way waterfront. He noted that, he has one restaurant development in progress and an office redevelopment project underway along this shoreline. Mr. Steel said that he was in agreement with the Ruston Way planning effort and that his projects were fully in compliance with the intent and objective of the draft RUSTON WAY PLAN. He indicated that although the PLAN was not yet '4k adopted, he was using the policies for his projects. Mr. Steel questioned the Commission about a statement in the draft PLAN which says that private investment will play a major role in the growth of the Ruston Way area. If this is so, queried Mr. Steel, what type of private commercial investment is desired? He suggested that the draft PLAN should recommend the types of uses that are desirable and feasible. He stated that as it now stands because of the limitations of regulations and economics the area is becoming proliferated with restaurants. He.testified that the private sector is willing to invest but needs more specific direction on what types of uses are permissible. He further suggested that if uses other than restaurants are wanted then they should be made permitted uses (in the MASTER PROGRAM FOR SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT). Leslie J. Disney 3001 South 12th Mr. Disney testified that he owned property in the Ruston Way plan area. He disclosed that he owns a building on the land side of Ruston Way located across the street from the Cummings Boat Company on property leased from the Burlington Northern Railroad. Mr. Disney stated he agreed that private investment is necessary for the improvement of the Ruston Way area. He indicated that he intends to improve his structure and asked that he be given adequate consideration for the needed permits to do so. He also declared that he was not in favor of any development that would remove his building to make a parking lot. .Beatrice Allen 2018 North 30th Ms. Allen explained that she owned property along the Ruston Way shoreline. She stated that she agreed with the prior testimony of Mr. Bruce Steel questioning what types of private development can occur along the shoreline. 85 However, her main concern was with vandalism and litter. She voiced concern over the lack of police enforcement. She stated that her property was repeatedly vandalized and covered with garbage. Mrs. Allen agreed with the draft PLAN but felt that it needed to address the problem of policing and enforcement. 86 -0 4 0 PUBLIC HEARING WRITTEN TESTIMONY .0 I /I I 0 CITY OF TACOMA INTER- DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION To: George Hoivik, Acting Director From: Patricia A. Sias PLanning Department Historic Preservation Officer Community Development DepartmE Subject: Ruston Way Comments Date: December 1, 1980 Tacoma Landmarks Preservation Commission Attached are comments on the Rtiston Way Plan from members of the Tacoma Landmarks Preservation Commission; one.frnm the Chairman of the Commission, Gene Grulich and one from Commission member,Bamuel B.B. Carleton. At the regular meeting of the Commission.Wednesdav November 26, 1980, the Members discussed the Ruston Way-Plaa.. It was noted that some comments went beyond the realm of historic preservation, open spaces. natural area and aesthetics. Commission Members, however, felt they should be noted. Comments from the Historic Preservation Unit from this Department were submitted earlier this fall.. Also attached is the synopsis Of the information presented by Donna Kinkela with attendant slides at a previous Landmarks meeting-The summary was orepared by Karie Kayashi and distributed before the NoVember 26 meeting started. ARIk To reiterate Ms. Kinkela's presentation of the Draft Ruston Way Plan, the purpose of this draft plan is three fold: 1. to encourage continuity along the shoreline and establish a sense of place for the Ruston Way area; 2. to provide guidance for private development in incorporating details into their developments to be consistent and compatible with the character of the area; and 3. to provide development concepts for the three large public properties along the shoreline. The draft Ruston Way Plan is consistent with the Master Program for Shoreline Development and will not affect the use regulations of that document. Once adopted the Plan will become an element of the Cityls Land Use Management Plan and a component of the Master Proqram for @horeline Develocment.- qj @, -@@ ": tv @ , -17 0 lip 26 November 1980 Coments to the " RUSTON WAY PLAN page I I, Limited and Area? Would the City consider reducing the 100 foot wide right of way along some sections of Ruston Way?, thereby allowing potential private developments in some areas. page 12, Is privately owned waterfront property restricted to "water- related/water dependent" activities? page 17 & 65, Waterview Street is zoned R-2 prohibiting Multi-Famtly Cim 1,UL1mCU9m residential development. Does this plan intend to change this zoning? page 19, A complete list of existing and potential "historic places" within the plan area should be included in this plan. page 19, The Dickman Head Saw is a designated historic object. Plans for its siting should be included in this plan. page 19, With the possible exception of the Old Town Dock, the new development of Commencement Park has not responded to the historic" character. page 23, Depending on the situation, some fill may be the best solution... Would the proposed fill be limited to public development or would private Interests be allowed to use fill material? page 23, Fences; Under what situations would "transparen,t" fences be utilized? page 25, There should be a formula established for the view corridor be- tween buildings. page26, On-street parking should not be allowed along Ruton Way. page 31, The proposed "Tratt System'! should make significant improvements in design and in construction over the existing trail system at Schuster Parkway. page 43, Tree plantings can enhance views and vistas and should not be completely excluded. page 58, Marine Park & Fireboat Station Plan: The picnic area is located too far from the parking area. This may cause difficulties with 'the Restaurant to the east. page 59, Is the entire North Area privately owned ? Will City acquire site? page 67, Is the " Vacated Str t R' ht of Way Fund" city wide or is it re- sFretlct@Y to the area near the vacated street? Department of Modern and Classical Languages PACIFIC LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY Tacoma, Washington 98447/ (206) 531-6900 23 November 1980 Mr. August Gene Grulich, Chairman Landmarks Preservatin Commission 615 N. Starr St. Tacoma, Wa 98403 Dear Mr. Grulich: The comments that follow concern the Ruston Way Plan Draft published by the City Planning Department, Tacoma, 30 June 1980. 1. Page 17: the statements "The Waterview Street area is a shelf of single-family housing" and "...duplexes, triplexes, and small garden-court apartments may be permitted" seem contradictory. If Waterview St. is single- family, then is it zoned at least R-2, and multi-family development is not permitted. If that is the case, then the statement about multi-family use should be deleted. 2. Pages 19, 23 & 26: the statement (p.19) concerning the "marine character" of Ruston Way is to be commended, but it is nullified by statements (23 & 26 #9) suggesting the use of land-fill in certain un- specified situations. Either fill should not be permitted at all along Ruston Way or situations allowing for full should be specified. 3. Page 32: the statement "and occasional sheltered areas that protect from winds and rain" should be deleted entirely. No shelters should be provided. Experience of the Schuster Parkway shelters shows that they become graffiti-filled lairs for the sexually sick and for drug pushers. Any sort of public shelter should be discouraged unless there is a hired attendant on duty at all times. (Cf. also p.34, #8.) 4. Page 32: I do not understand why concrete "is the preferred material" for a pedestrian path. In addition, the combining of a bicycle with a pedestrian path seems unsafe, especially when the bicycle path, if concrete, is likely to become a raceway for motorcyclists. 5. Page 49: delete, after the statement about wooden signage, the statement "although other materials may be used." 6. Pages 58-63: parking for automobiles and other motorized vehicles should be on the railway side of Ruston Way, not on the Bay side. Parking on the Bay side is disadvantageous because (1) it will impair the view of the Bay from the roadway, and (2) it will encourage disturbances by loutish elements (I think of radios blaring noisily from automobiles). Traffic can be controlled, as it is now at the Old Town park, by zebra stripes in the roadway, by speed bumps, or by cobblestone paving. Because N. 21st to Steele To Yakima to Carr will be affected by the proposed Ruston Way, the Planning Department may want to give some "Quality eduation in a Christian context" 92 consideration for traffic control on those streets, especially the corners Steele/Yakima and Yakima/Carr. Here again, repaving with cobblestone (and thereby continuing the cobblestone paving of Steele onto Yakima Ave.) may be a possible solution. One correction: page 1, paragraph 3, sentence 1 -the subject of the last part of the sentence is "cost"; the verb, therefore, should read "soars. Sincerely, Samuel Carleton, Member Landmarks Preservation Commission 93 RESPONSE TO ORAL AND WRITTEN PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY The testimony received, both oral and written, concerned the draft plan document. These comments were forwarded to the proper decision-making bodies for their consideration in possible plan revisions. 94 CHAPTER IX REVISIONS TO DRAFT EIS REVISIONS TO DRAFT EIS The following are revisions to the Draft EIS in response to comments received. SUMMARY Page xix: The following paragraph was added to "Air Quality, Mitigating Measures": The Ruston Way Plan encourages alternative forms of trans- portation. The Plan proposes a continuous bicycle/pedes- trian path along the waterfront. In addition, the design concepts for public properties include provisions for tran- sit pull-outs. Page xxii: The "Energy, Mitigating Measures" Section has been revised as follows: The existing electrical service on both Waterview Street and Ruston Way is scheduled.for upgrading by 1991. Page xxiii: The third paragraph was revised as follows: The increased traffic could result in more pressure for less restricted traffic flow and access at the northwesterly end of Ruston Way. An enlarged roadway configuration at the northwesterly end would result in considerable impact to the environment *of the shoreline slope areas and nearby residen- tial area. Land acquisition and/or displacement of existing homes might be required to obtain sufficient right-of-way. A, Such improvements would be very costly. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Page 7: The following paragraph was added to "Relationship with Existing Comprehensive Policies, Plans and Regulations." The Plan document and the Environmental Impact Statement have been forwarded to the United States Army Corps of Engi- neers for their use in the Commencement Bay Study. The Stud is in progress and Phase I, Data Collection will be compTeted by 198 EARTH Page 16: The first sentence of the last paragraph was revised as follows: Beach nourishment should primarily occur at existing beach sites and generally be limited to areas above 0.0 tide level. 97 AIR QUALITY Page 18: The second sentence of the third paragraph was revised to delete the word, "fog". Particulates include dust, smoke, fumes, mist and spray. Page 18: The last paragraph was revised as follows: Carbon monoxide is a normal by-product of incomplete fossil fuel combustion. Oxidants are produced as a result of a secondary reaction between nitrogen oxides, a frequent pro- duct of good combustion, and volatile organic compounds in the presence of ultraviolet radiation. Ozone is the oxidant found in the largest amounts. Carbon monoxide is a highly toxic gas and is harmful even in small quantities. Automo- biles are the primary source of carbon monoxide and oxidants. Page 19: The Ambient Air Quality Chart was replaced with an updated version. Page 20: The following paragraph was added: The Ruston Way area lies outside of the carbon monoxide "hot spot" area for the City, i.e., the downtown - port indus- trial area. Special transportation control measures are now being considered to carry out terms of the Washington State Implementation Plan for obtaining ambient air quality stan- dards. Page 21: The following paragraph was added as a "Mitigating Measure". The Ruston Way Plan encourages alternative forms of trans- portation. The Plan proposes a continuous bicycle/pedes- trian path along the waterfront. The need and desirability for this type of improvement has long been recognized. In addition, the design concepts for public properties include provisions for transit pull-outs. It is anticipated as development occurs, transit service will increase to serve the public. FAUNA(Wildlife) Page 29: The last paragraph was revised to read as follows: The condition of the Ruston Way shoreline can be described as "substrate limiting", as indicated in the "Aquatic Survey and Assessment of Ruston Way Shoreline", a recent report commissioned by the City of Tacoma. According to the report, past industrial uses and abuses have degraded the natural habitat and therefore the diversity and abundance of 98 or marine fauna. However, the waters near the Ruston Way shoreline are of high quality according to the same report and the Washington State Department of Ecology classifica- tion of waters. The surface waters are replaced by upwell- ing, nutrient-bearing waters from depths beyond the shelf. The report states that water quality is generally not a limiting factor in biological productivity. The report further states that because the quality of water is high that "if suitable substrate were available, the biological productivity in the intertidal zone would be greater than that existing." Page 30: The first paragraph was revised as follows: Cutting and dredging, if properly done, will not have any biological impact above mean high water, according to the same report. Below mean high water, such activities may be appropriate if they are accomplished during periods of non- migration of salmon and the material is deposited on land. 17 The report also indicated that past uses of the Ruston Way shoreline have had two primary detrimental impacts: (1) the narrowing of the intertidal areas by fill for industrial, railroad and road purposes, and (2) the degrading of the intertidal substrate with sawdust, wood chips and other wastes. The lack of suitable intertidal habitat has limited the biological productivity of the area. The removal of the undesirable substrate and replacement with more suitable material or the covering of unproductive and poor substrate with suitable materials will serve to enhance marine life. Such activities must comply with all necessary regulations and be accomplished in an appropriate manner. Page 30: The sixth paragraph was revised as follows: The addition of artificial reefs and the covering or removal of undesirable substrate and replacement with more suitable material (beach nourishment) can create a more desirable habitat for marine plant and animal life. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Page 54: The first sentence was revised as follows: The proposed roadway will be a low speed, scenic parkway designed to serve the needs of both the shoreline user and the commuter. Page 58: Thefollowing paragraphs were added to the "Bicycle" sub-section: The proposed bicycle path will be separated from vehicular 99 traffic and from pedestrian travel, where possible. A sepa- rate bicycle path would provide the greatest amount of safe- ty. However, because of the small amount of available land, a combined bicycle/pedestrian may be necessary. The combi- nation path will be of sufficient width to allow safe pas- sage of both pedestrians and cyclists. Wherever possible, the combined path will be located along the water's edge. A less preferable location, but in some cases necessary location is between the roadway edge and newly developed parking areas. Where separate paths are possible, the pedestrian path will be located near the shoreline edge. The recommended design speed for the bicycle path is 18 m.p.h. with a ten foot vertical clearance. Asphaltic concrete composition is recommended. The path will be well-landscaped to help define the path's edge. Amenities such as human scale lighting, seating fixtures, drinking fountains, trash receptacles and bicycle racks will be provided to satisfy human comfort needs. ENERGY Page 67: The first paragraph was revised as follows: Electrical energy is adequately provided by the City of 41 Tacoma's Department of Public Utilities and can accommodate existing development on Ruston Way. Electrical service is above ground on wooden poles on the land side of Ruston Way. The existing distribution feeder is proposed to be upgraded to 12.5 KV (Kilovolt) by 1991. At the same time, the sub-- transmission line of Ruston Way is scheduled to change from 52.5 KV to 115 KV. Page 67: The date in the second paragraph was changed as follows: The system is anticipated to be upgraded to 12.5 KV, also by 1991. Page 67: The first sentence of the second paragraph was revised: The electrical service or Waterview is above ground on wood- en poles along the southerly side of the roadway. SOCIAL (Note: Pursuant to a recent Washington State' Supreme Court decision, the City Attorney's office has advised that all en- vironmental impact statements must address social impacts.) - 100 SOCIAL Existing Conditions: The Ruston Way area is an approximately two-mile stretch of shoreline located between the Old Town community and the Town of Ruston bordering on Commencement Bay. With the exception of the Waterview Street area, the area lies be- tween the railroad tracks and the outer harbor line. The nearby slopes and gulches are also considered in the Ruston Way area. Presently, the Ruston Way shoreline area is comprised of mixed industrial, commercial,, public recreation and public and private open waterfront uses. No residential us.es are present along the shoreline. The Waterview Street neighborhood which lies within the Ruston Way Plan area is an isolated residential community situated at the base of the steep slopes. Approxi4ately 30 single-family homes all located above the southwest side of Waterview Street. Waterview Street is a 25 foot wide, oil mat roadway that runs parallel to Ruston Way for approximately one mile. Roadway width is restricted by the existing topography on the uphill side and mainline railroad tracks on the downhill side. The small Waterview Street residential area although in close proximity to Ruston Way is relatively unaffected by what occurs along the Ruston Way shoreline. However, the area strongly identifies with the Ruston Way waterfront. The residents have panoramic views of the shoreline, Com- mencement Bay, Brown's Point and Port of Tacoma. These magnificent views make the area a very desirable place to live. Very little new construction has occurred in recent years along Waterview Street. Several various-sized vacant par- cels are present, with a total of approximately three acres of potentially developable land. Existing property depths are only about 80 feet which will encourage most new deve- lopments to be oriented in a lineal manner. Although the resident population of the Ruston Way plan area is small, the shoreline is used by a large segment of the City's population. The waterfront attracts visitors from within the city and areas beyond for water-related recrea- tional pursuits and for scenic viewing. Population characteristics are not available for such a small area. 101 ?1) is, Environmental Impacts: The proposed Ruston Way Plan discusses opportunities for private and public development along the Ruston Way shore- line, recommends preferred development proposals for public properties, and discusses methods of implementing public improvements. The Plan will direct future public policy and actions and will assist public and private developments by setting forth policies and guidelines concerning common design and development elements. These common elements will unify development and foster continuity along the shoreline. It is expected that the resident population of the plan area will remain at or near present levels. Some limited resi- dential development may occur along Waterview Street and in the steep slopes. Physical constraints will limit the ex- tent of such development. The Ruston Way Plan proposes the creation of additional public parks and recreation facilties. Such development will increase opportunities for citizens and visitors to participate in marine-related recreation activities. In- creased recreational use of the shoreline may result in increased traffic, noise and litter. Some of the citizens anticipated to use the future facilities on Ruston Way are currently utilizing existing facilit.ies elsewhere. This switch should relieve some facility demand and congestion at these other sites. Mitigating Measures: Policies in the GENERALIZED LAND US'E PLAN will govern resi- 4P* dential development in the Waterview area and adjacent steep slopes. According to these policies, overall density will be up to 8 units per acre for the Waterview area and about 3 units per acre in the slopes. Residential developments will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as to their potential impacts on the environment during the normal land use review process. The Ruston Way Plan proposes orderly development of the Ruston Way shoreline. It is intended that the necessary amenities will be provided to accomodate users visiting the area. 102 DATE DUE GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTEDINUSA 3 6668 14107 4270