Olympia Planning Commission 4/15/2002

Testimony on Comprehensive Plan Amendment #1

Rebecca Christie, Olympia Heritage Commission Chairman

A longer letter has been submitted, so these remarks will be brief. Opposition is based on 3 issues:

One: Wilder and White’s Capitol Plan and its considerations of the public’s view of the Capitol and its setting.

Two: Design incompatibility with historical downtown properties and streetscape continuity and context.

Three: The potential loss of archeological resources at the proposed sites.

The proposed redevelopment also endangers three buildings on the Olympia Heritage Commission register and five buildings on the inventory of historic resources.

I skip down to recommendations, skipping about 4 pages. The Olympia Heritage Commission recommends that: Potential impacts to historic properties be addressed… supplemental environmental impact statements including the effects on the existing register and inventory of historic sites, effects on potential archeological deposits, streetscape compatibility issues and infill design, any proposed project be designed to incorporate compatible inspired by existing historic properties in the downtown core, a physical and contextual connection be clearly established between new development and existing structures that demonstrates how the new housing will be a part of the larger community and a clearly designed public comment process similar to the 1994 comprehensive plan.

Mary Lux, 316 22nd Ave

Thank you for hearing us. My request to the planning commission and eventually to the city council is that they plan their vision with a long-range view. You can’t do that always–maybe alleys or some such –but Olympia is a seaport, our children should learn to swim and sail in that water of Puget Sound. The area where Olympia Yacht Club boat houses are located is state property leased by DNR. Those covered moorage boat houses are filled by boats belonging to the well to do–frequently from Idaho and Oregon.

Please keep the waterfront for the broad majority of the people of Olympia and the county, The county as well as Olympia look to this as their touch to the seaport. Please don’t raise height limits or plan for anything other than water related activities on this short shoreline. Thank you.

Phyllis Booth, 2509 Olympia City Resident

Thank you members of the Olympia Planning Commission for the many beautiful projects enjoyed by all. I would like to see the beautiful waterfront continue to be enjoyed by all. As a 12 year resident property owner , downtown shopper who pays higher prices to keep businesses operating, I’m opposed to the rezoning height limits. Rezone is to get high incoming people to walk, shop and provide eyes for Heritage Park.

I find flaws with this rezone for the rich. High incomers do not ride the bus. So more traffic.. Middle and low incomers ride the bus.

City official Ken Black told me that housing development is already occurring downtown in the past 3 years. 284 low income apartments, l6 other units were built and a possible development for a city-owned parking lot, so the senior exemption for downtown housing is working, .providing more shoppers, walkers and providing more eyes on downtown for l8 hours a day. Middle and low-income people tend to spend more than high-income people. That’s how they get in that bracket So (?)…. increases business as these people do without cars and spend their money locally as they have fewer options.

I’ve sat in on several city council study sessions where developers said "As real estate values increase downtown, businesses such as Les Schwab on waterfront property will be displaced by higher income businesses Are we to displace longtime loyal businesses using government money that they provided and using zoning regulations to make downtown Olympia a playground for the rich., creating sprawl for the rest of us?

According to The Growth Management Act section on affordable housing, we need to help lower and middle-income people with housing. and this is a quote, "The underlying assumption, is–and this is from the Growth Management Act– that the market will guarantee adequate housing for those in the upper income brackets but some combination of financial subsidies etc. will be necessary for middle and lower income persons. Should not the planning commission be continuing focusing on where the massive housing need really is? In this rezone, you are offering 10-year tax exemptions to developer and residents. In Washington State, we have a regressive tax system. We lose 1 billion in sales tax money in exemptions for service industries. Example: Roofers pay taxes but engineers and lawyers and beauticians do not.

Do not current economics force blockage of waterfront views. Let’s try other options.

Finally, I have handed out opposition flyers to 435 people in Olympia. Only 3 wanted the rezone. Let’s listen to the people as we plan for our future.

And, thank you for the work in your town.

Sue Lean, 3355 S Quince, Olympia

I have been an exhibit planner for the State of Washington and have done permanent exhibits at the Capitol Building , the Temple of Justice and other buildings. As such, I have come to care a great deal about the idea of this city as a capitol city. "A capitol city", Wilder wrote, "expresses the dignity of the state. Its characteristics are different for an inland city, a coastal city or a mountain city.

Olympia is wonderfully expressive of the State of Washington. Its location at the head of Puget Sound with the combination of water and mountains make it distinctive beyond most capitol cities. And what is true of the city is particularly true of the site selected for the capitol building itself". 1915

I’m very much opposed to forgoing sections of The Shoreline Management Act in this proposed housing zone, and I’ve read the study and I notice that view blockage and impacts on views are given very little attention.

We have prepared some boards that show the impacts that may occur and we freely admit they are not scientific. Come with me in your minds and take a tour and visualize what will happen if tall buildings are built on the waterfront. Starting at l4th and Columbia, by the capitol as if you’ve come from the Capitol or off the freeway, by the traffic light there: Looking across the capitol campus, you can see the Olympics. If the building at 9th and Columbia is built, that view will be lost.

If you go on downtown and come back up and around, that building will block the view of the capitol. And if you are down by the lake in the area of Dechutes Parkway, you will find that the building sticks up into the view and the buildings down at True Value hardware and between Columbia and Water Street, 6 story buildings, intrude into that view and the panorama–that beautiful panorama of Mt. Rainier and Capitol–will be impaired by vertical intrusions that will take away from the peacefulness and worse, ever so much worse, Mt. Rainier will appear smaller and so will the Capitol.

These are very serious matters, very serious–to diminish the majesty of Mt. Rainier and to take away the grandeur of the Capitol with close up tall projections.

Continuing, in your mind as if you were a walker around Heritage Park and coming to the trestle, you can see the Olympics there. But if the waterfront is walled off with 5 and 6 story buildings, that view will be gone. And coming down across the 4th Avenue Bridge and the 5th avenue bridge. Well forget it! On the 4th avenue Bridge, you will not be able to see Mt. Rainier and the Capitol reflected in Capitol Lake.

And boaters coming into the harbor will have their views impaired. And the views all the way down from Percival Landing all the way down to the Park Plaza Tower will be impaired.

I ask you to have the courage to put the brakes on this project and put them forcefully now to protect the views for all of us, not just for the people who live in high-end condos on the waterfront. It is not part of the public values. It is not part of the public vision for the waterfront, and I beg you not to go forth with the waterfront zone.

 

Mr. David Dressel 3535 Friendly Grove Rd NE, Olympia

I too am opposed to this waterfront rezone. I have owned a business in downtown Olympia for over 20 years. I should stand behind this but I just don’t.

I do think these views will be ruined. I think that if you think that future growth will not have then taller buildings behind them to ruin the view–it’s totally insane for anybody to think that. I think you are forcing an issue way too soon. We have no medium income housing in the downtown area. We could start in that area first. We also do not have any additional housing in the downtown core that is medium to upper income. There is the entire peninsula that is not developed which would connect our strongest pedestrian core from the farmer’s market up to the Capitol.

And I think this is going to ruin the waterfront area and the view from the capitol. Thank you.

Joan Machlis, 516 Flora Vista

I’ve owned a business downtown for 9 years. I am also a member of the downtown association which recently voted overwhelmingly in support of the proposed Comp Plan amendments. I’ve also had a prior career in commercial lending and residential redevelopment in a number of areas so I took a particular interest in this issue and have been involved in the steering committee on the Percival Park property and have studied the various consultants’ reports.

I really want to thank the planning commission for what I think is their excellent staff work on this issue. I think that this has been on the table for over twenty years–trying to get market rate housing–we’ve had a number of consultants give their recommendations on how to achieve this and as far as I can determine these studies do support the Comp Plan amendments and were done by highly credible reputable consultants who’ve had experience in other cities. I think that what we are really trying to achieve is about l500 units of market rate housing downtown in the next decade or so and we haven’t made any progress on that. We have made a great deal of progress on low-income housing but that’s the only neighborhood where we really do not have an income mix and the studies–and I think my own experience–really verified that if we are sincere about that goal–and I’m not denying that there’s other goals–we really have to think about where we’re going to designate that housing to occur and two of the reasons that I’m in favor of the amendments on the proposed sites is that there’s every indication if we are going to ask people to spend it looks like up to $200 per square foot to move downtown that we’re have to off them some high amenities.

The other reason is that we have to create…? district. I think people are very reluctant to buy into high-end housing or higher-end housing if there’s not the protection of a district with surrounding compatible uses. The proposed height limits I see as very moderate– 5 and 6 stories – as I understand it, that’s the minimum heights that we need to get structured parking. And when I walk around downtown, the thing that bothers me the most is the huge amount of land we devote to surface parking and I think that the design elements in developing the alternative appears to be squat commercial buildings with surrounding parking and to me that would be a very poor corridor effect, to have more monotonous buildings on our corridors. Many cities that are trying to get housing are really envious I would think for the huge public investment we’ve made in parks, we’ve protected our waterfront on Percival Landing. We have view corridors on the streets, butting up to the waterfront and I think that we can really enhance the future vitality of our downtown – our retail district–as if we now build on those huge public investments by committing ourselves to achieving our Comp Plan goals.

Darrell Bullington, 610 S Milroy

Can Olympia increase its tax base without giving up our open space within 500 feet of the .shoreline, high buildings, that depress the spirit and drive out local enterprises? I think it can..Hundreds of artisans are attracted to Portland’s Saturday Market to sell handcrafts in an outdoor area where stalls are available at reasonable rates once an artistic standard of quality is met as judged by a standard set by a panel of members of the cooperative. This unique sales area does not attract sophisticated patrons seeking Renoir’s and Rembrandts. It attracts artisans anxious to sell beautiful handmade carvings, sculpture, clothing and paintings for $20-$150 that students and retired persons can afford to buy and enjoy. Portland’s weekly trade fair attracts a host of fast food venders and a wide variety natural foods and healthful drinks.

Public transportation is served by MAX, a fast rail system extending approximately 20 miles from Gresham on the East to Raleigh Hills on the West.

The area identified on the regional planning map called City of Olympia Urban Waterfront Housing Zone as l A, 2 A 3 B, extending from Percival Landing to Heritage Park is uniquely suited for the kinds of activity that occur in Portland’s Saturday market. It does not require structures over 2 stories in height nor building standards required for buildings subject in an area subject to intensive earthquake motion.or potential tidal wave action. Artisan stalls do not require extensive expenditure of capital nor financial risk to either the lease provider or the lease holder.

Such activity is uniquely suited to the entrepreneurial spirit that drives our Art Walk and Procession of the Species and compliments the life stye and vocational goals of the existing residents and local students. Structures in excess of 2 stories on blocks l, 2 and 3 will create a canyon corridor on 4th avenue that will immediately impact traffic in the vicinity of the new bridge.and truly create an undesirable living area due to the traffic and pollution. Tall buildings will adversely affect the ambiance of Heritage Park and Percival Landing. The view of Capitol from West Bay and Priest Point Park are scenic treasures in our county and state. Equally important is the magnificent view north up Budd Inlet from the pocket Park by the TC courthouse over the isthmus and linking the rest of Olympia downtown. For years this view has been impared by the garish red and white roof of Kentucky Fried Chicken and the ill placed 12 Capital Center Building. To further degrade this view.in other locations for combination business and residential housing. Near the bus terminal.exist we foreclose opportunities, perhaps forever. We can keep Olympia vibrant commercial downtown without changing its character by by attracting affluent tenants who demand a lifestyle which is in conflict with existing businesses and the artistic sensitivity of persons living here. Other cities, such as Pittsburgh and San Francisco now attract thousands of national and international tourists who come to enjoy and buy art which is displayed out of doors, within the downtown corridor. The Pittsburgh festival has been an annual event since l962. Such an annual event could attract thousands of visitors and artisans and could rival the annual Bellevue art fair which has outgrown its facilities. I urge members of the Olympia City Council and Planning Commission to keep our options open for locations 1 2 3 and to support existing businesses and residents by limiting heights of structures in these areas to 2 stories or less. Thank you.

Chris Goudy 516 ?, Olympia

I’m here as a? resident of Olympia, as well as co-owner of a downtown business which has been there approximately 9 years. I’d first like to thank the planning commission for having these hearings. I really appreciate the passion that everyone has to come out to these hearings and express their viewpoints.

I’ve had opportunity to follow this issue for a couple years now, having been involved in a Charrette that had to do with the block in front of the community center. Several years ago I served on a task force the city established studying this issue and also ? study that took place in the last year or so and I really feel like I benefited from those experiences…?...some of the issues and some of the factors that affect the creation of market rate housing downtown. But I must say that my benefit has led to a different vision from some of the others here this evening. I too support the adoption of these amendments to e be able to create market rate housing downtown.

I guess I have a vision that is based on having a really vibrant downtown one where the public access is preserved to Percival Landing, but people are walking on it–a lot of people are walking on it. And the other parks that we have downtown–Heritage park, the new park to be created by the community center, the trails that will be created on West Bay.

I think that my vision has to do with having people involved in all those public assets that we are creating in a very thoughtful way. I do believe that we need to preserve our waterfront for the public and in fact I think that we have very thoughtfully in terms of the park council has done that

.

I guess my vision is somewhat related , and the best analogy to that is the waterfront park in Portland where there has been very thoughtful designing and very good architecture in my personal opinion and very varied architecture that’s created a great new area for people in close access to downtown, ability to commute by walking rather than by car and has created has a neighborhood aspect in that area. So my vision simply has resulted in one opinion that this would be a very good thing for the city to go forward with. I must also say that I am not a rich person–I keep forgetting to buy my lottery ticket–but I am also a potential buyer .I think that what’s being proposed is something that would actually serve medium income individuals as well as people that have higher incomes.

And I would also say that those higher income people are people that we do

need in our downtown, as well as medium as well as low income people. So again, I do support these changes not only for the specific reasons that have already been stated But my one other comment is that the alternative to these proposed amendments are what is existing in terms of an alternative and that is lower rise office buildings and surface parking and to me that isn’t an acceptable vision for our downtown anymore. We have a lot of that already, we’ve created the spaces. I don’t think we need more office buildings or surface parking in the downtown.

Keneth Guza 2949 Quince Street SW

I am a twenty-five year resident of Olympia, and also a former President of the Wildwood Neighborhood Association. I think Olympia is blessed with a unique waterfront that would be the envy of many cities around the state just because of its natural wonderful amenities–views of mountains, views of the Capital, views of Mt Rainier. I think the City over 20 years has made a significant investment in protecting those assets, parks, Boardwalk, Percival Landing, the Boat s on both sides of the bay That’s why I think it is so striking that the planning commission is recommending something that goes in the face of 20 years of commitment to enhancing and protecting the waterfront assets that we have. I don’t think rezoning those lots for 5, 6 and 7 story buildings brings any benefit to the city. I think it takes away benefits. I think you really need to look at that corridor redeveloped at that scale, past canyons of building and if you’re walking on sidewalk, even though you have set backs 25 feet up you’re looking at that virtual building wall. It’s like walking around the Dot building in downtown . You are going to have 3 or 4 blocks of that on the fine isthmus between the lake and South end Puget Sound. And I think we have choices, I am not sure why the planning commission was motivated by such dubious assumptions in terms of the best place to build housing is on that isthmus of land when there’s other properties available. And kind of building on that location also for Economic reasons that unless you go 5,6 and 7 stories it won’t work out for anyone to develop it. I think we started out with the wrong assumption and Iwe should look elsewhere in the city to build housing and I’m thinking that down toward the Farmer’s Market or the east side of the bay or the east side of Columbia or east of Capitol Bldv. Thank you...

Marjorie Yung, 3436 Sunset Beach Drive NW

I am a resident of Thurston County. Since Olympia is my county seat,I have an

interest in its planning, development, traffic patterns and vistas. .Beyond this,

I have financial interest that the city has imposed upon me since every time the

City of Olympia gives a permit for multi-unit housing in the downtown or its East

or West Access corridors, it gives a 10 year property tax exemption for the

improvements. This shifts the government service funding burden–for 911,

schools, the port etc. to the other taxpayers of the county–all throughout the

county, not just in Olympia.so what you’re doing in Olympia has a direct impact

on my old age because for the foreseeable future–well into my dotage–I will be

paying for government services in order to achieve goals that are unachievable by this route Because there are 4 general purpose governments going their separate ways here,

this effort can do nothing to reduce sprawl or change growth patterns in our

urban area as long as we have these government structures.

Now this whole process has been driven by the GMA’s requirement that you

plan for certain numbers of people and so I think you’re feeling forced to do

some rather radical things, but in fact, you are not being forced to do this at all, because the decision to accommodate this growth in Olympia is simply a decision made at the county level to apportion the growth according to the population of the various areas.

There is absolutely no reason why this is a requirement, so the

whole thing is based on a premise that need not exist.

Also, it is being said that the only place you are going to get this kind housing is on the waterfront and I don’t know what rule says that because the planners that wrote the consultant studies were doing planning for a variety of cities that had no waterfront and somehow they found places to put people in other housing.

I am a Washington State Resident who gathered signatures for the shoreline initiative, and when it went on the ballot, I participated in a speakers bureau that explained the two complex options. and, in several ways, at the local level, worked for the implementation of The Shoreline Act of 197l. I also spoke extensively in support of The Washington Futures Bond Issue that same year which has funded such projects as Percival Landing. And believe me, when we worked on those issues in the ‘70’s, we never believed we were working on amenities for the wealthy people–to use to attract them to the area. So I feel this is a very serious issue, and it deserves long-term consideration and close coordination with the state, especially with the committee for Capitol Lake, so I ask that you give a year’s thought to this before any action is taken.

Thank you very much.

Bob Jacobs 720 Governor Stevens, Olympia

This item # l before you represents a very difficult assignment for the planning commission. The city council has asked you to take a product you developed, and look at it freshly and critically from an entirely different perspective. You spent most of the year answering the question you spent most of the year answering the question of how market rate housing could be fostered on 9 specified blocks on and near the downtown waterfront. I assume you have some

pride of authorship in your work. But now your assignment is to step back and look at this proposal for its total impact on the community. That’s very different.

You’ve said that this proposal would attract the development of market rate housing downtown faster than the current zoning would. That would be of benefit to the entire city. But what would be the other benefits and costs to the entire city of this proposal? As I speak to people in in the community of this proposal, the most common reaction I hear to this proposal is bewilderment. Housing, yes, of course, they say, but not that way. I believe this reaction is predictable. The statewide Shoreline Management Act, passed by initiative by an overwhelming majority of the people in the state, makes it crystal clear that our waterfront areas are of special public value. And we all know that cities across the state and county have been reclaiming waterfront areas for the public. We know too that Olympia has shared in this movement, in fact is considered a model.

As mentioned earlier we rejected a proposal in the early ‘70’s to replace Bayview Market with a 4 story SeaFirst office building; we built Percival Landing

And then built two extensions to Percival Landing. We built our Heritage Fountain block and it helped mightily achieve the North Campus Heritage Park concept for the State. We built the Olympia Center facing the water, not facing Capitol Way, which was a very, very big decision at the time. We purchased the UniCal Block, adjacent to the Olympia Center. And we are now working on the Port Plaza, which has a great of public support. The proposal before you flies in the face of all of that. Instead of continuing to acquire waterfront open space and to maintaining low building heights in the area to protect the (?), the proposal would appropriate significant portions of the area to relatively few, relatively well off people.

I hope you will agree, that at the very least, this is not just a simple rezone that is proposed here. Rather, it would represent a stunning reversal of major proportions to the city. Movement in a clearly established and widely approved direction would not just be halted, it would be reversed. I hope you will agree that a change of this magnitude affecting the very heart of our community, our downtown waterfront, would not be made without fully involving the public in a formal re-visioning process. That’s what good planning principles require

Please recommend that the city council not make any zoning changes in the waterfront area until a community re-visioning process is completed. Our entire downtown will be far healthier in the long run– as our county’s population is expected to double in the next 50 years–if we focus on keeping a waterfront that focuses on serving public interests first,

Vance Yung, 3436 Sunset Beach Drive NW,

Thank you Madam Chairman for this opportunity to quibble with the amendment to the Shoreline Master Program

I would like to ask three rhetorical questions and to place them in context, I’d like to make a comparison of the Olympia waterfront today and 44 years ago when my child bride and I passed by on our honeymoon on our way north. We stopped at the Olympia Oyster House for lunch. After lunch we went for a walk along the waterfront–we were parked in a lot at the Olympia Oyster House–and marveled at the dismal atmosphere there and watched the yacht club boathouses there rise dramatically with the tide and block the view. We quickly climbed in my MG and raced for Port Townsend.

Today, of course, we’d probably be tempted as we often are, to linger on that waterfont.

So now I will ask my questions because I don’t trust myself to quote me correctly:

Why does this Commission seek to reverse the efforts of the City of Olympia to give its people and its visitors waterfront access and unimpeded view of Capital Lake, Budd Inlet and the distant hills and mountains?

Why does this Commission support relaxing height restrictions on construction which blocks a view of vistas presently enjoyed by the whole community when the changes will burden the whole community and benefit so few?

An aside–I heard someone say about the Capitol Center Building that it stuck out like a sore thumb. and the appeasing remark was that if we build other buildings around it will make that sore less visible.What I saw was 4 crushed fingers and a sore thumb. Were the crushed fingers supposed to be diverting my attention from the sore thumb?–

Why does this Commission support housing development on a very narrow, busy traffic corridor with its accompanying threat to public health and safety due to noise, air pollution and traffic dangers when a more appropriate use would be for parking and amenities related to waterfront activities?

I think the commission generally.does agood job. I have never made a mistake myself– at least not that I can recall–and I presume that the commission also has not made mistakes and if they want to keep their record in good shape , I propose they may do so by tabling this issue. Thank you.

Bonnie Jacobs, 720 Governor Stevens, Olympia

I’m going to speak on two things tonight:Community values and Community involvement. Two specifics in the Growth Management Act: Community values. Community involvement.

I’ve been in town here for over 27 years, and reclaiming the waterfront as a public asset was a value then and is a value now.Reclaiming the waterfront for the public, reclaiming the waterfront for the commo good–sort of an old fashioned phrase I guess, the common good–we in Olympia have made a statement to the people we’ve elected, based on their positions on reclaiming the waterfront. We’ve supported them with the use of our tax money for the UniCal Site, the clean-up, the building of Percival Landing. We’ve re-elected officials and we’ve elected new ones based on their feeling and their relationship with the waterfront. We came out in force and testified, as was mentioned earlier, when Bayview Market was about to be sold for a 4-story bank building. We bragged about our good fortune, the foresight, when our community leaders thought not just 10 or 20 years into the future, but 50 or 6o years into the future for our children and grandchildren.

Now, to speak for a little bit about recent history: A Charrette was mentioned that was held in 1999, four years ago, in a series of 4 evening when the community was invited in to discuss the use of a park downtown, Catty-corner from the Community Center, and a resounding cheer went up for maintaining that piece of property as a park. The community said, "We want our views, we want our access, we want a place to bring our children to fly kites. This was done in a series of 4 meetings.

The following year, in 2000, there was again a study that was held by the city that talked about our vacant lot that was straight across from the community center. The public became a little bit more involved in that, and a little bit louder. We had petitions and picketing. We wrote letters. We made phone calls We held up banners and signs, all saying we love our waterfront our views, our access. Keep it for the people. The vision hadn’t changed then, it hasn’t changed now.

The very next year there was the West Bay Development. Again, there were petitions passed, there were e-mails, thee was a team of people that went to the stakeholders meetings and testified loyally at every stakeholder meeting where there was public comment, and again it was the same thing: We love our waterfront, our access, our views,.our esturaries, our fish. We want walkways for our people. We want parks.

Again and again, we’ve been involved for 27 years that I know of, in expressing our love of the uniqueness of Olympia, which is our waterfront. Again, the Port Plaza, you’ve just heard testimony of that. Heritage Park has been supported with funds from the State, because it’s a State Capital.

Of course we want housing downtown. But we do not want to sacrifice our waterfront to get it. We do not want to urn away from what has been a policy–again, reclaiming the waterfront–for over 27 years–for the common good. Sacrificing the waterfront is out of the question. So please, consider what you are doing, as has been asked before, very very carefully community values

Community involvement. Thank you

Sandy Dezner 114 E 4th Avenue ,Suite 204, Olympia

I think it is kind of hard to top Bill and Bonny Jacobs articulate praising of the vision of downtown. I too am fairly mystified to even see this on the proposal list. As a developer who has been involved in multiple projects in the downtown core and have been intimately involved in the revitalization of Olympia’s downtown over the last l9 years, I’ve got to tell you that this ordinance is not the way to go. First off, it is not going to create the effect that a lot of folks.say it will create. The economics of it will not work

. In our town, in the downtown core there’s been no property that I know of in the last decade that has sold for less than $l5-20 a square foot and that’s raw land. When you look at these blocks that you’ve selected, vision is lacking, because I completely concur with what Bill and Bonnie have said. I feel this is antithetical to 30 years worth of council decisions, and I feel that rather than looking at the question of why are we not achieving the Comp Plan goals, what is the problem that is not creating the development of downtown housing that we want to have occur. What we’ve done is gone down this other path. It is really hard to look at what has been created in terms of the regulatory morass we have in this community. As a developer who has worked all over the state, I have got to tell you that Olympia has become one of the most difficult places in the state to do a project. It rivals Seattle and this is really a pity, because when I started working here in 1983 l984, the city was really an active participant who made projects happen . But over the last decade, the city has layered regulation on regulation and in essence what they have done is make it uneonomic to develop in Olympia. The answer is not these blocks. Yes, waterfront amenity is important to development, but it is not the reason why you are not getting that type of development happening right now There’s a block right next the community center and across from the Boardwalk apartments that has been vacant since Yardbirds moved out. It has adequate height, it has adequate density. It doesn’t work–the economics don’t work. And unless the city starts looking at the environment it has created in terms of business environment, it is not going to projects.

All of these blocks have a built-in market value. What that means is that even if I can get the buildings to five and six stories, I can’t get a project to pencil and be financable when I have to buy a building that’s already existing to tear it down to build something new So, if you adopt this ordinance, what you will do is change 30 years worth of council direction. first off. Secondly you will have created an ordinance that will not yield any result in the next decade because it will not be economically feasible to develop any of these blocks in the next decade.

I have a long list of additional comments that I will be happy to provide for you before the close of the record. As a past president of the Olympia Downtown Association, and a current board member, I know the organization has voted to support this amendment I personally would have no problem supporting development at the levels you’re talking about on the lots are identified as 6,7 and 8 .i think adopting the other blocks and adopting this ordinance would be a great travesty and would be doing our community a real disservice. Thank you

 

Tim Trohimovich "1000 Friends of Washington"

In the early ‘90’s I too was a resident in the city of Rent…, excuse me, the City of Olympia and I saw that to have a great city –in 1000 friends of Washington our mission statement is to encourage great communities in Washington State while protecting our forests for this and future generation. You know, to have a great city it take both a natural and a built environment. You’ve got the natural environment but unfortunately in this area you do not have the built environment. What you’ve got is one and two story office buildings with surface parking, and that’s it. It is not a great environment. What you need to build here is a human scale residential community and I support the urban Waterfront Housing District that’s been proposed. I think it’s based on solid economic analysis and it’s also based solid analysis on what it takes to get a human scale community. A human scale community needs downtown housing, it needs

interesting streetscapes. It doesn’t need buildings with large set-backs. It needs buildings that are close to the street that have interesting things that you can look at as you walk along the street. That’s what builds the human scale. When you look at some of the great cities of the Northwest–When you look at cities like Vancouver BC and Portland Oregon, both of which have been much more successful in containing growth, what we see is that they have green spaces along the water as you do too in this area, but they also have buildings and housing nearby that take advantage of that green space and that water. You have the opportunity to build that sort of vision for this area, and if you do, what you’ll do is you’ll create a walkable downtown. People will be able to walk to work into the Capital Complex, they’ll be able to walk to shopping. It will be human scale. It’ll support transit You’ll get the density you need to have transit which will reduce automobile dependency and in addition to that, more important than that, is that you’ll have a good mix of incomes which is what you need downtown. What you want for downtown is a good mix of housing, a good mix of business, a good mix of income which we believe this will provide for. You shouldn’t sacrifice your views and I don’t believe the proposal does. The proposal keeps the existing green spaces that are out there, the proposal calls for view corridors that people can see through. Overall, I think it is a good proposal and I hope you will adopt it.

And thank you very much for giving me the time to talk

And before I leave I want to thank all of you people who came to talk. That’s one of the things that l000 friends strongly supports, that’s public involvement. I’m glad to see a full house. Thank you for coming regardless of which side you are on. I’d also like to thank the Planning Commission. People often don’t realize that planning commissioners are unpaid. They’re volunteers. They’re people like you that have jobs, that have families, that have other life interests. And what do they do? Well, usually on Saturday and Sunday they read their planning commission packets and on Monday night, they come to planning commission meetings and I’ll tell you, it is really hard to go to a planning commission meeting when it is beautiful at 9 o clock on a July or June evening. Again, on behalf of 1000 Friends of Washington I want to thank all of you and thank the Planning Commission. Thank you very much.

Walt Jorgensen: 3439 l4th Avenue, NW

I can’t see the waterfront from my house–that’s one of the reasons I go there very very frequently. It is absolutely my very favorite place in the entire county.

And I’m going to just take a couple minutes and remind you of general policy and invite you, or rather entreat you to apply it in this specific instance and it is simply the policy on parks and the acquisition of park land. There is some language–I couldn’t find it today but it is in the park plan–that does a good job of articulating the strategy of acquiring park land somewhat aggressively– doing it now while its affordable, while it is there, while it is not built on. And I think that’s an excellent policy. Where, if anyplace in the county should that policy be applied, and vigorously, but in the most unique land that we have–right at the bottom end of Budd Inlet? So I realize we’re not talking tonight about the acquisition of land, but I think the policies and the proposals that are being put forward are not consistent with maximizing the potential, the kind of land we have for parks, especially this kind of land which simply cannot be substituted any place else.

I note you have a full house. I want to make room for somebody else, but I do want to end with one observation: and I just want to say I noticed at the last planning meeting for the first time that someone had enticed Dave Kent back up into public service, and I appreciate the time and I know that he will serve you well.

Wanda Hedrick 400 17th Avenue, SE

I’ve lived in Olympia for a very long time and so I remember when the Olympia waterfront was rotting piers and was derelict warehousing so I really appreciate what it has beome.. I appreciate the planning and hard work over the last 25 years that has made Olympia the lovely city that it has become. We should not lose our views and public asccess for the sake of a few floors of prime waterfront housing. We have a duty to protect and save something for our grandchildren. I believe we have a duty not to sell their birthright

Barbara Gooding 1952 Orchard NW, Olympia

We don’t have sidewalks so I can’t use the bus–in case you want to work on it sometime. This is my first appearance at a planning commission meeting since l987 when my five year term on this body came to an end. I really didn’t care too much about coming tonight, but I knew jay Butts would haunt me forever if I didn’t. He was vice chair and I was chair of the planning commission when we wrote the downtown l986 plan and the l987 Comp Plan. But backing up, I’m a 32 resident. My husband, my family and I arrived in Olympia April l, 32 years ago. under the assumption that the house we bought would be ready for us and I won’t worry you with all the details, but it wasn’t. So I ended up living downtown for one month in the Hotel Olympian, with four children, and I won’t bore you with that either– it was terrible. But during the afternoon that I had free I wanted to walk on the waterfront which I’d been used to in Seattle and San Francisco. And I couldn’t find anyplace and that led me to volunteer activism–a meeting at Garfield School on Parks. It sort of took over my life.

So in 1986, when I was chairing the planning commission–I’m going to start all over again–I ruled out some of this last night–I thought I’d furnish you some background about the make-up of the committee, which illustrates my thesis which is: Community Values Determine Economic Strategy. That is not an original concept. You can read all about it in the Growth Management Workbook on Economic Development, which also tells you you need to include all community stakeholders in the process as the first step. If you haven’t seen the book, I strongly encourage each one of you to get ahold of it. It is the economic development book, put out by the Community Development Department 1993, Making theVision Real where it talks about stakeholders, 1 and Community Values, 2.

In l986 The City Manager came to me, as chair of the planning commission, to say the city had gotten RUDAT to do a study of to make recommendations for downtown. He wanted us to do a downtown plan as a follow-up. Prior to that, we hadn’t been dealing with downtown at all. There had been a committee made up mostly of business people and they were getting nowhere. So I agreed but requested it be separate from our other work k that we include downtown owners, business representatives, the port, neighborhood groups–anyone interested. There were 22 people, plus planning commission members. We met once a week all Summer. Not everybody came to every meeting, but we came to consensus about what the community value was. One, we valued downtown housing, but how to make it happen? Regional Planning asked me to do a study of the downtown second stories to determine the feasibility of housing. I went to every second story, did all the tax records, everything, which led to federal grants to upgrade some of those apartments given that its low income. After a certain period they could revert to market rates. . The next thing we did was re-zone for housing, including land adjacent to the Port property. That was not an easy feat. The Port vehemently opposed. It. But subsequently a condo was built on the building across from Budd Bay, which you see now, that graduated building. A …editorial about the plan said, "Every time you make a zoning law, it benefits some at the cost of others. This is the case with the City Council decision to adopt a new development plan for downtown Olympia. The plan has been in the works for over a year and its benefits outweigh any economic hardship. The new plan protects community features important to most residents. Views of the water and the Capitol campus are protected by height limits.

The first sentence begins with who opposes this plan and who benefits?

Not whether building heights should be changed but, have community values changed. Have you heard from enough people to be certain? Community values should determine economic’s development strategies. Sometimes it isn’t all about money. Given the decision of Lacey not to site Walmart, as an example here, and of Mercer Island not siting inaudible

I’m curious of your current proposal about what is market rate. I began to think about living downtown and should I sell my house.so I looked in the classifieds

last week and came across this ad, "Fourth floor condo overlooking Budd Inlet and Famer’s Market, $425,000. That is same condo that in 1987 the Port told me that no one would live there because of the LOTT smells, and I argued that the views would sell it. So at $425,000…..time called by chair

The summarizing for me is for you to tell the Council for you to tell the City Council what you believe the community values are. Condo’s for those who can afford them and a perceived notion of revenue that would bring downtown or views of mountains, water and Capitol for those who live here and those who visit.

Elizabeth Tabbutt 3224 Cove Lane NW

I am here this evening as the co-President of the League of Women Voters of Thurston County, and I’m speaking on behalf of the League.

The League opposes increasing the building heights limits to 5 or 7 stories on certain parcels as part of the amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Board agreed, by consensus, that such a change would create a barrier for public access to the waterfront, and the public’s enjoyment of water vistas in certain locations. We found this change to be damaging to the city’s character, short sighted, and irreversible. Furthermore, we see no compelling reason for this change.

We do see the need for housing in the downtown core. The League values city principles including following the GMA in efforts to infill downtown with mixed income housing. Income can occur while the waterfront is not only protected, but enhanced. The value of downtown properties will increase if recover of the shorelines occurs. The Board agrees that mixed income housing is needed, but not on the waterfront. We agree with many of the environmental arguments that have been put forward on this proposal, but those arguments apply equally

if the housing is away from the waterfront. The league has identified many downtown properties away from the water’s edge which could and should be encouraged for housing. From those locations, the residents could look out not only on water vies and mountain views, but also on a lively and active cityscape. If the proposed blocks are chosen for 5-7 story housing, then the more suitable back blocks will have lost value and they will not be inaudible

With regard to the Shoreline Management Act, the League works for and supports The Shoreline Management Act to preserve the natural resources, character and ecology of the shoreline, increase public access to public areas of the shoreline and to regulate development on the shoreline in accordance with the public interest However, since it was passed in 1971, local governments have issued about 26,000 permits for development and that does not include single family houses or docks. These have had serious detrimental effects on our shorelines, fish and wildlife. Despite the shortcomings of the shoreline management enforcement statewide, the local master program has protected our downtown shoreline and has directed development such has condominiums along the waterfront. And we have been able to build some good public access such as Percival landing. Because Washingtonians are such avid recreationists, and we prefer water-related activities, access to the water is particularly important. Only 17% of the shorelines are accessible to the public, and if you eliminate the ocean beaches, that figure drops to 10%.

The League has a vision for downtown, and I do have it in my written testimony and I hope each of you will read our vision for downtown. I would also like to say that the League takes action only after study and reaching position, and I do have a list of the National League’s positions, the State League’s positions, and the local League’s positions which are the basis of our taking this action. I hope you will read those too.

· Joan Green 112 Olympia Avenue NE

I’ve been a resident of Olympia for 6 years. My husband has been a lifelong resident. I just have two comments to make: I strongly oppose the amendment and strongly support the very eloquent comments that have been made by the opposition. The first comment has to do with the Shoreline Management Act. I’m an attorney but I don’t practice in that area, but I know how to research and it occurs to me that there are going to be some very serious problems with compliance with that act because the 35 foot hight limitation is part of the state law The appellate courts in Washington, as I read the cases, are very supportive of the public’s right to unobstructed views to unobstructed views of the waterfront. That’s something that needs to be protected against the private development.

And my other comment is purely personal. When I came here 6 years ago, and my husband brought me to Olympia for the very first time, we didn’t go right to his house, we went right to Percival Landing and I was in awe, because Concord New Hampshire, which is where I come from, would kill for this view that this city has, as a State Capitol, and I beg you to preserve it.

.

· Leonard Nord 4405 Fox Avenue SE

I want to compliment the members of the planning commission. I know you put in a lot of long hard work. Having said tonight, for the reasons I’ve heard tonight in opposition to this amendment, I also urge you not to adopt the amendment I’ve lived in Olympia for 47 years. I’ve always enjoyed Olympia. The view of the water–and anything that would mitigate that I think is really a mistake, and going backwards. Thank you very much.

· Joe Hyer

I have a business at 408 Oly ave NW in downtown and I’m also marketing chairman for the Downtown Business Association, who asked me to be here tonight. First I was interested because I heard a comment that struck me. I hear the comment about tall buildings and high rises. I was born in Olympia but when I went to Washington DC to go to college they were all excited about DC and they were promoting this inaduible that they have no high rises in DC, they only have 12 stories or less, It’s true. They don’t. And it seems to me that what we’re talking about here is not tall buildings, not high rises. 5-7 stories is not high. Not when compared with the rest of the world out there. And I think if you asked the residents, "Do you support high rises in downtown Olympia?" They’d say no but that’s not what I think we are talking about. We’re talking about mid-rise.

Nd then we talk about high income and the rich people who are going to live downtown. Two years ago I was going to move. I was going to move my business downtown and I wanted to live downtown. But I couldn’t find anyplace to live downtown I looked at the Boardwalk Apartments and got real excited until someone told me I had to be a senior to live there. I found low income housing galore but I can’t qualify. I don’t consider myself rich by any stretch of the imagination. I wish but I think we all do but I also heard the prices of some of these units, some of these condos they’re going to erect. I support that. I’d love to live downtown. I’d love not to drive my car to work. I’d love not to put out air pollution. I’d love to be able to drive through the rest of Olympia and not have to look at subdivision after subdivision after subdivision that is taking up the rest of our open spaces in Thurston County and is taking up our wetlands like crazy. These we need to get rid of so that why I support housing. And people talk about the views. And to me the real views, the views that I’d like to look into downown that I don’t have to look at parking lots and derelict buildings and gravel lots I’d like to stand in Heritage Park and look at more pretty buildings. They talk about respecting the past and I’m a very firm believer in that but I also think we’re creating the past right now and we need to build beautiful incredible high quality buildings. My sister and brother-in-law moved into a new subdivision in Tumwater two years ago and it is falling apart already in two years. In 2000 years what will they think of these relics of our culture? We need to build great buildings and replace the buildings downtown and that is inaduible near the waterfront. Iand now I hear that it is as if there was this issue of buildings versus the waterfront and that’s it. It’s like jobs versus the environment–that’s never really true. We’re not fencing off the waterfront inaudible Heritage Park . We’re not fencing off Percival Landing. What we’re doing is adjacent to it. Building some beautiful pretty with the restrictions and the stuff going on that Kathy had talked about earlier and it’s great. So to me, when the downtown association talked about and we spent several meetings on this and it was a very divisive issue at times but eventually we came to the conclusion that the status quo isn’t working. Low rise buildings and parking lots is not pretty. It is not vibrant; it is not good for downtown. Kathy and all of the experts told us that this is the kind of housing we want built. This is the key to our future. So we said well, status quo isn’t working, we need to correct, we need to progress, we need to move forward. This is the best option on the table. We need to go for it.

· Jean Black 402 S Bates Street, Tumwater

I work in Olympia and I often walk down along the boardwalk and I agree with a lot of the sentiment that has been expressed tonight about preserving the views for the public. But my comments are more directed at a couple of things I find missing. I appreciate the work you have done in preparing these sheets This sheet answered a lot of my questions. When I first came in I had multiple questions, and this sheet has really been help. As I readthrough there, I didn’t see where you had a staff attorney or anyone review this. I am an attorney and I am a volunteer mediator and.I see that there might be some problem here in language of The Shoreline Management Act so that I would advise you, and maybe recommend that you take some more time think through this and to look at that issue because you don’t want the City to be subjected to lawsuits. And another thing that I see is that you–and maybe you’ve talked about it and it just not addressed in the sheet–that came to my mind is that of building residences in that area. I remember the earthquake and what it did to DeChutes Parkway and I remember reading that the whole downtown is on fill, and I think, oh boy, that’s more people to get hurt. And we do have a big one that sooner or later is going to hit, so maybe you’ve already made provision for that, maybe the city doesn’t have a liability, maybe it’s the building people that go ahead and contract for the building that are the ones to be held liable but I think of the public safety and issues like that so I guess I’m opposed. I have heard good comments on both sides tonight; I’m really impressed with the comments I’ve heard. So that’s what I came to say so thank you very much.

Frank Satseas

Good evening. I’m going to try to be very brief. I’ve heard a lot of comments on both sides–actually, most of the comments have been on one side I think we could take a formal count–and I’m sure you have too I just want to say one thing and that is that I hope you look around and see who’s speaking tonight. Most of the people opposing the amendment are just people from Olympia. We have jobs–we don’t get to come down to these meetings because we have our lives. There are people here from the Olympia Downtown Association and they have a right to their opinions. You have developers, I’m sure, that come down and speak to you a lot about what they believe is the best plan for Olympia. But most people in Olympia don’t really have a chance to come down and talk to you guys. Like I say, we have our jobs, we have our lives, we want to go home at night. You’ve got 60 people here. I think most of them are here because they don’t think this is a good idea. I hope you will listen to them.

· Sandra Worthington 4242 Sunset Beach Drive NW, just north of The Evergreen State College

The one thing I think that that goes through my mind is the image of exclusivity, and it’s a negative feeling, it’s not a positive feeling. If this development goes in with the heights that are proposed–I’ve never seen waterfront property that doesn’t sell for a premium, whether its on one of the inlets around here or whether its on Bainbridge Island. No matter what waterfront you are talking about now, it is not going to be diversified housing. It is going to be for people who have enough money to spend–I don’t know–$300,000,400,000,500,000 to buy a space and I don’t think that represents what the whole of Olympia is about.

If we want diversified housing I think what we need to do is two different things: I think we need to develop totally different areas than beside the waterfront because there is no way you are going to get the waterfront areas to be less expensive. There are places in downtown, lets say maybe between say here on Plum Street and maybe up toward where the Capitol campus starts. We’ve got lots of areas there which, if the county and the city began to think in a broader way how you can support housing for people who have low incomes and middle incomes, we could do that. Maybe we could build smaller and maybe 4 units instead of 40 in a building, and maybe use a house that is renovated and able to do that because you’ve given them help with their permitting or that you’ve given breaks with their fees but you would say we want you to do this kind of building that it makes accessible to more people. I don’t want an exclusive area. I think it goes against what this town is about.

The second thing: The view, I think, has been amply mentioned by people. If you

were to drive North on the 4th or 5th avenue bridge right now and look at what’s planned for this area–you’re going to be in a tunnel area. The street you’re going to be on is going to have buildings on both sides and no matter how you say that to me, that isn’t a gorgeous view. This is a building See? And that will look like a city, not a waterfront. I think what you need to keep in mind is something that will not be an exclusive move and I think it would be a restrictive act in both ways–both in view and income.

Gary Worthington : 4242 Sunset Beach Dr NW. Olympia

We’ve been in the community about 30 years. I’m speaking against the proposed amendments. I won’t repeat what others have said, due to the lateness of the hour. I just want to make a couple of comments. First of all, I think that the idea of another visioning process, a pre-visioning process–is a good one assuming there is strong support for going ahead with ideas such as this, and the reason I say that is because the tail may be wagging the dog here and it may be time to look at the tail. It seems there are other ways of having a vital downtown. Housing is one component of it, but using the housing to drive the everything especially with a major change like this on the waterfront, I think is just shortsighted.

The second point has to do with one of the studies. The point’s been made that it would be a good idea to have beautiful buildings here to compliment the beautiful natural environment. My concern is that I’ve seen a lot of new buildings lately that I don’t consider particularly esthetic, and there’s no realistic way to impose esthetics on the developers that will be building the buildings. I know there are reviews built into the process but from what I’ve seen, they don’t work particularly well, and we may end up with a lot of ugly mid-rise buildings just as easily as we’d end up with a lot of attractive ones.

Sandy DeShaw 5045 Laura Court, Olympia

I have worked at the Capitol and lived in the state for l5 years..I have worked in the visitor bureau at the Capitol during that entire time. I’m appearing here tonight strictly as a private citizen. During that time I’ve had the complete privilege of meeting visitors that have come from all over the world to see what is truly one of the most amazing buildings in this country. Not only are they in awe of our Capitol, but they are in awe of the beautiful city that surrounds it. They speak so highly of the mountains and the ocean like you all have discussed tonight. We speak from a personal perspective living in the city, but I think thee’s a great testament to be made by people who visit here about the great physical beauty of the place that we live.

After listening to everyone’s discussion tonight, the things that are on my mind most tonight are my son and my daughter, who have also lived here l5 years They’ve had the privilege of growing up on, around, under and on top of the Capitol but most importantly they’ve grown up in a place that has open space, beautiful view–they can see Mt. Rainier, the ocean, the rivers. It’s a real privilege for them to grow up here, and I’m so happy that they have that sense of nature and the environment in a really neat community. Tonight I stopped to think that any of their kids–any of our grandchildren, whatever are going to miss that opportunity if the concept of high-rise, mid-rise, whatever you want to call them, high density sort of takes up some of that space.Thank you very much.

Thad Curtz ll3 l7th Street

I’ve lived inOlympia 20-some years, up by the Capitol. In the time I’ve been in town I guess the ome comment I’ve head most frequently is how much people hate the Capital Center Building sitting right there in the middle of the view and how much they wish it were gone. I have myself much less objection to this proposal at Block 5, 6,7.8 and 9 . They seem to me like part of the current urban edge. But I do dislike the development on blocks 1,2,3and 4. In my view, the long-term status is more park and what I would really like the Commission to do is urge the city to take steps to allow the preservation and ultimate conversion of that area to park space. It seems to me that now this discussion is now being driven by the notion that our alternative is two and three story office buildings and parking lots which I do not think is a desirable long-term fate for that area either. I think we ought to be thinking about something that will preserve that land for open space for the long run. In 25 years, the city is going to be very different, there’s going to be a much larger number of people who want to be in that downtown open space on special occasions and we’re going to need that space for the city of the size that it’s going to be then. I also think that we’re seeing the beginnings of the kind of development we’d like to have around the Farmer’s Market in the new buildings that are going up there. And the amenities that you’re thinking about this development as requiring–the beauty of the city that needs to be there in order to get middle and upper income people to move downtown, will in the long run be better provided by saving that open space rather than by offering that space in the sort term as views out windows for a small number of people. Having the downtown beautiful in general is what will lead people to move downtown and developments in other places besides these, I think. Thank you.

Steve Hyer 1326 Carlyon Avenue, Olympia

Senior. There’s a junior. I’ve lived in Olympia since 1972–longer than many but not as long as some of the folks here and I’ve raised 3 kids here, 2 Tumwater Students, l Olympia Student and they’ve all graduated and still live in the area. My son Joe spoke a little while ago. He speaks his mind, I speak mine. We’re proud of the fact that all of our kids have grown up here. I’m a property, business owner downtown My daughter’s a school teacher. They’ve all grown up in Olympia, it’s a good place to live. My background: I used to be a city planner. I moved here in l972 and sat in this room for about 3 1/2 years with Planning Commission and City Council involved in such stuff as Olympia Highlands–it used to be called– up by Evergreen Park and Capitol Mall and I was on the front lines between some of those developers. But I’ve also seen a lot of really good ideas put away because people didn’t want to see change, didn’t want higher densities. I remember a project tat was very very beautiful called The Nut Tree that Dan unintelligible over on 22nd Avenue wanted to build. But the neighbors didn’t want that kind of development, those kind of people in the neighborhood even though it was high quality. So there’s a bunch of single-family houses there, taking up the land.

Some of the comments about preserving the quality of our land, preserving our streams, our views, everything else and the only way you can do it is to build some high density. I really encourage Kathy and the planners for doing some long range planning. Most of planning is a very negative business. You are always having to say no to somebody. You get meetings like this–it is great that you people have come to discuss and I encourage you to take the time to do it. I agree with the people who spoke earlier. I agree with the change, so I won’t try to reiterate them, I’ll just give you a couple of m comments. As you walk down Percival Landing you see some wonderful pictures of Olympia back in the early 1900’s. I think there are a lot of people who are glad we didn’t preserve that because I think it is pretty ugly. I think Olympia has gained and grown tremendously over the years. I think we’ve got to have the vision to look out and see what’s going to happen in the next 40-50 years, how to make it change. I think the mid-rise and the condo residential stuff you’re talking about is wonderful. If you can create 1500 people living downtown of all diverse backgrounds–you don’t want just rich people, just poor people, just middle income people, and I think the stuff we’re talking about is just rich people. It is easy to throw out that term. I would like to live downtown, My wife and I would inaudibl we have a place across from Olympia High School. We’re getting tired of yard work. I think that happens with a lot of property owners. With l500 people–1500 units,3000 people just think of the friends and family that would come to enjoy those views also. Just look at East Bay Drive. If they were on the table they’d probably be opposed to today. As you drive by, just look at how many people are able to enjoyt he waterfront, as opposed to l or 2 houses being built there. That’s one thing the Shoreline Management Act, as I’ve watched it over the years has done, is make the shoreline exclusive for single family residences. If you can’t afford one of those, you can’t live on the waterfront, so I think this offers a lot to it. The view blockage, somebody says it wasn’t stressed, I think Kathy covered it in her remarks and I think that was very good. I think this kind of housing will offer diverse housing for all types, not just the rich. The uh I am an existing resident and I’d like downtown also I think we do need to add incentives to get housing downtown. We own a business downtown, but that’s not the reason I’m here. I’ve sort of had this vision for many years. I think the way to have results for the downtown issue is to have people down there l8 hours a day . I was a the Olympia High School for a forum there a month or so ago and one of the group asked why don’t businesses have longer hours down there because they’d like to go down there and have a cup of coffee or something but they can’t. The traffic won’t support it. I gotta go. I appreciate your views and a lot of luck

· Doug DeForrest Master Builders Representative

I’d like to start by complimenting the staff on the work they’ve done on this and complimenting the staff for all the work they’ve put in. I think this is one of the best and one of the most detailed proposals I’ve seen in a very very lng time

And a lot of the comments that have been addressed tonight the staff has talked in here. They’ve talked about how you preserve view corridors, they’ve talked about setbacks, they’ve talked about how to prevent the canyon look. They’ve talked about a lot of things to make a real downtown area come alive.

We’ve heard about what the planning commission did a number of years ago, but quite frankly wha tthey did has resulted in exactly nothing in downtown housing. We don’t have it. You have the chance before you to set a new direction for Olympia while preserving all of the good things that have been done. Nobody’s talking about getting rid of parking, parks. Nobody is talking about getting rid of Percival Landing. All those things are there. We’re talking about building buildings on the other side of the street. It doesn’t matter if that building is a one story building or a 7 story building, when you’re standing on the ground it blocks the same amount of view. What you need and what you have before you is a carefully thought out plan to take advantage of the waterfront to start to fill some of goals spelled out in the Growth Management Act such as infilling downtown and the staff has a very good analysis of your role in doing that. The Growth Management Act says whether we like it or not, that we do have to infill, that we do have to have more people living in a closer area and that means downtown. When you start making decisions such as you did and say okay we’re going to downzone places like Green Cove, that building has to go someplace and that logical someplace is downtown so this place to start and I think you have before you a good tool to do it.

A couple of red herrings have been launched here tonight. One deals with seismic conditions. The problems people had with the recent earthquake, this was not new construction. This was all built to the new seismic code The problems were, quite frankly in older construction–lots and lots of older houses and lots and lots of buildings that weren’t built to that code Those were the problem, the newer buildings did not have that. It is simply a red herring–a non-issue.

We have this issue of this is housing for the rich. This is what we’re talking about is mixed housing where medium income people downtown. Quite frankly, we’re building lots of housing for the rich in the suburbs. We build almost no spec housing in Olympia for those people who can afford it and there are some of them.. This simply is a chance for this planning commission to set a new direction for the city urge you to adopt it. I think it is one of the best proposals I’ve seen for a long time

Emily Ray 2622 Buker Street, Olympia

I’ve lived at this address for a long time and in Olympia for 32 years in all. I’ve looked carefully at the supplemental EIS and I think the proposed Urban Waterfront Housing District represents a major change and it along a shoreline of statewide significance. In such an area an overriding public interest much be articulated. The proposal lacks sufficient justification to override the public interest. Further the proposal has not had the benefit of wide public involvement

and scrutiny. It creates conflicts with the city’s Shoreline Master Program and it misrepresents the potential impact of such a proposal. It should be rejected.

I will give you the comments I have about the table on cumulative impact. They are too lengthy to go over here. The document also includes your shoreline Master Program and the proposal is inconsistent with the existing parts that are not suggested for change. Under section l6, Residential Development: the proposal is inconsistent with C, General regulations residential development shall be designed to protect views, vistas, esthetic values and to protect the character of the shoreline environment and views of neighboring the property owners and l4: New residential development shall provide pubic access to and along shorelines that have historically been used for public recreation.

I wrote here tonight on the issue of high density housing. We heard an eloquent statement here today from Mr Peeple about how housing was not happening along those corridors. It seems to me that you have a marvelous opportunity to devote the very hard effort you’re putting into putting housing on the isthmus to creating opportunities for putting housing along the high density corridor. You can find as many incentives, I’m sure, to make housing along those areas work, and not impede views. The downtown waterfront area is our collective front yard, not just for city people but for the county and the state, and something we all want to preserve. I know it is hard to define what is the public interest because there are so many public interests, but I urge you to really think about what is the public interest in this piece of property.

E. L. Johnson 2221 Water Street, Olympia

I have a prepared speech, but everybody has co-opted all my good remarks, so I’m going to build on some of the things that other people have said. For one thing, it is amazing to me that when you look at what the scale says down here, that’s 200 feet. 200 feet is halfway into the block from 4th Avenue and it is halfway into the block from the sound. It appear that the actual build able thing, if you’re going to have a 200 foot buffer is teeny corridor right on either side of 4th avenue. It seems to me that the height of the building is very important and a gentleman said something about Washington DC and indeed, the rules there are the same as here and that is that the Capitol Building should be visible from anywhere in our Capital and that’s the rule they made here in Olympia. That no matter where you are, you should be able to look up and see the Capitol Building and this will not be possible if we have these buildings along the waterfront. And a very nice young gentleman who unfortunately has left, made these digital proposals, and this shows what the houses will look like if they are put on there, and how they will obstruct the views–the before and after and I would like them back but I thought I would let everyone take a look at them.

The core of the city is a major asset and people living there is a major asset. We all want people living downtown, that’s a given. It is one of the glories of big cities like San Francisco and New York. But also, the city waterfront is an asset in cities large and small. It provides the glory of the city, its economics and it provides a tourist attraction. The person who came and talked about the tourists–I called, and they told me that 500,000 people a year come to the Capitol and then come down to our waterfront. This is an economic asset we are about to give away. Do we really want to give the most treasured economically esthetically property to a few people so that they can make a profit at the expense of the rest of us. We are one of 50 capitols in the nation. This spot is unique–it is the confluence of the fresh water and the salt water, it has magnificent views as has been discussed before. In towns all over the country–In Chicago, over a hundred years ago, when they had a fire, they saved the whole Lake Michigan waterfront for the people of Chicago, for the people of Illinois, for the whole country. In Portland, they’ve taken down their elevated highway. In Kirkland, in the Tri-cities, even Walla Walla, are building on their waterfront a people’s place In Fairview, in Port Townsend, it’s become the economic center of their community. Citizens should be able to take part in the discussion and they have. Over the years they’ve been a part of the discussion. Many city planners, many city councils have arrived at the kind of plan you have now and it should not be lightly dismissed. In Mr Wilder’s —Mr Wilder, who developed the Capital Campus, in 19l3, warned us "Olympia being the State Capital, the people of the state are vitally concerned in its development. Public opinion should be aroused to the necessity of protecting their property from defacement by selfish interests." This property needs protection, not exploitation.

Tom Howdershell 719 Sawyer Street SE

I know that my statement will be unpopular with some in the audience, but I’m speaking in favor of raising the height limits in the proposed areas. Olympia is rapidly running out of land. There is certainly enough parking lots, if you want to look at that, they are certainly not glamorous to me. The options.are, One, do nothing the next is to go to expand on the Westside either expand on the Westside or let all the development go out to Lacey and Tumwater. I feel we are losing an opportunity if we do not start raising height limits in certain areas of the City of Olympia. Business and Housing will be lost and I see a viable future if even those building are there in the port area and the Percival Landing area.

George Kerman 15l7 San Francisco Street

I own a business in downtown Olympia. I understand that Olympia needs housing and I understand the need to make that housing pay for itself through the amenities and through views but however, putting up them on the isthmus defeats its own purpose If you keep the housing low on the absolute front waterfront places, then if you allow higher heights behind those, the higher-priced apartments will have views that go clear over the restricted height limit that was on the waterfront, so you have such a beautiful benefit without the cost of eating up views for the rest of the community. Especially if you are going to put parking under some of these buildings. If you do a lot higher densities and higher heights inland from the waterfront, you will, by the nature of the architecture, end up with penthouse views which will bring higher income people into the downtown. This will allow for more open space and allow for more medium income housing as well.

Bonnie Jacobs:720 Governor Stevens

I want to talk about parking lots. I rely on parking lots.when all those detested state workers go home, that I hear people referring to: I rely on parking lots. I rely on them for going to the Washington Center, I rely on them for eating at the Olympia Oyster House. I rely on them when I take the kids down to Heritage Fountain to play, I rely on them when I want to walk around town. You start putting parking lots in downtown housing and it will be gated and carded and nobody will be able to get in. And then, of course, we’ll have to build a parking garage some distance from where we want to go with l6 old babies or two year-old children. The parking lot by the Olympia Center is an example beautifully landscaped parking lots with trees and flowers. I don’t think they have to be eyesores. We rely on parking lots for the Procession of the Species, for Lakefair, for all the vendor activities–wooden boat fair is downtown–for the monthly events that are sponsored by the city and in part, are subsidized by our tax money. So before we eliminate all our parking lots for parking in enclosed buildings that will be locked and carded, I know perhaps I should get out of my car and take the bus and then make a change. That isn’t always feasible, for me or people. I just want to give a little different perspective. I find people really angry about office and parking lots and I find them very helpful. That’s another point of view! Thank you.