Proposed Critical Areas Preservation Code Changes

First up on this Tuesday’s study session agenda, Council will hear more about the Critical Area Preservation Ordinance (CAPO) proposed code amendments. This will come up again during the public hearing scheduled for this week’s Council meeting.

“Critical Areas” refers to environmentally sensitive areas such as acquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, flood hazard areas, geologically hazardous areas, streams, and wetlands. The Critical Areas Preservation code is designed to protect and preserve these spaces within the city. It has traditionally done so through regulations that direct new development to be done in environmentally friendly ways. In recent years, however, interest from citizen groups and individuals wishing to take action towards restoration and enhancement of critical areas has increased. The existing CAPO code is not written in such a way as to encourage that kind of effort.

The proposed amendment would change that. The amendment would encourage such citizen-initiated stewardship projects by streamlining permit processes for small-scale projects, and eliminating permit requirements altogether for very small projects. According to the Planning Commission letter of recommendation, a few other changes have been added to improve the ordinance’s effectiveness.

While this is not a comprehensive update of the code in its entrirety, it significantly improves the predictability and clarity of the permit process and adds proportionality between the permit review process and the size and scale of the proposed project.

A major change to the ordinance would be the creation of a three-tiered system for assessing projects. The three tiers would categorize activities as allowed, allowed with staff review, and activities requiring a new “minor development permit.” Activities falling into the first two categories could include invasive plant removal, replanting, and even the installation of some “minor site amenities.” While they were at it, the Planning Commission recommended a couple other code amendments including a refinement of wetland buffer table requirements, changes to mitigation options (mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs), and other minor changes and code clean-up.

Read more at www.cityoftacoma.org/Planning, including Planning Commission Recommendations (pdf).

It seems that the ideal here would be to find a good balance between protecting sensitive areas, and lowering barriers to citizen engagement. How’d they do? If you have concerns, Tuesday you have a chance to voice them to the Council.