I write to you today in opposition to the proposed amendment to allow so-called mid-rise housing at the waterfront. Others have no doubt told you how this proposal offends their very souls -- that they are shocked and amazed that it's even being contemplated. I agree with these sentiments. The prospect of this great loss makes me heartsick and angry. If nothing else persuades you that it is the wrong thing to do, in fairness to the community the sheer numbers in opposition should carry the day.

My purpose in this letter is to inform you why I believe the proposed amendment violates both the letter and spirit of the Shoreline Management Act, which Act of course binds the City Council as well as all other local governments. Since some members of the Planning Commission evinced no knowledge of the purpose and directives of the Act, I will provide some background.

Washington's Shoreline Management Act was passed by the legislature in 1971 and adopted by the public in a 1972 referendum. Despite the later passage of the Growth Management Act, the policy of the Shoreline Management Act remains a goal of the Growth Management Act. More important, the Growth Management Act specifies that regulations affecting shorelines must be consistent with the Shoreline Management Act. RCW 36.70A.481. The Shoreline Management Act establishes a broad shoreline policy giving preference to uses that protect the quality of water and the natural environment and preserve and enhance public access or increase recreational opportunities for the public along the shorelines. Cities and counties are the primary regulatory authorities under the Act, but the State Department of Ecology has authority to review local programs and permit decisions. Consistent with this authority, Ecology reviews any amendment to a local shoreline master program, deciding whether the proposed changes are compatible with the policy and provisions of the Act and the State master program guidelines.

The Act also regulates uses and development of the shorelands, defined as "those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark." RCW 90.58.030(2)(f). All development of shorelands must be consistent with the policy of the Act. RCW 90.58.140. And courts are bound by the Act to construe it broadly to "protect the state shorelines as fully as possible." Buechel v. Dept. of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196, 884 P.2d 910 (1994). The provision setting forth the policy of the Act, RCW 90.58.020, specifies:

Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location or on use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state.

Notably absent from this list of preferred developments are multi-unit condominiums and non-water-related businesses. Plainly, the proposed change to the Olympia Master Plan violates the stated policy of the Shoreline Management Act and should be rejected on that basis alone. But the proposed amendment also directly violates the height limitation provision of the Act. RCW 90.58.320 specifies that no permit shall be issued "for any new or expanded structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served." (emphasis added). Leaving aside the fact that the proposed buildings will block the views of residents around Capitol Lake and in the West Bay area, the City cannot claim or even suggest that overriding considerations of the public interest will be served by the proposed amendment. Indeed, given the public interests protected by the Act, quite the opposite is true.

Finally, I believe the policy statement of the Act, RCW 90.58.020, instructs you on how to proceed:

In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally.

Please vote this down.