Comments Received Following the Public Hearing January 10, 2018 – January 12, 2017 by 12PM
Commenters supplying comments within this packet include: 1. Janet Jordan 44. Peter Reid 2. Alex Kistler 45. Peter Reid 3. Andrea Sehmel 46. Sue Hedrick 4. Anne Buck 47. Allen Miller 5. Barbara Smith 48. Barbara Ogle 6. Becky Thomas 49. Bob Van Schoorl 7. Brian Jensen 50. Bruce Botka 8. Carol and Jamie Rainwood 51. Carol Richmond 9. Cynthia Zujko 52. Chris Reitz 10. Davenport Moore 53. Dave Cundiff 11. Edward West 54. Deschutes Estuary Restoration Tean 12. Gretchen Williams 55. Dick Binns 13. Jim Kainber 56. Dorthy Gist 14. Jim Randall 57. Erica A. Cooper 15. Laura and Warren Westrup 58. Fred Macinnes 16. Lawrence Jacobson 59. Frederick Adair 17. Michelle Harriage 60. Gary Wiles 18. Oly Babs 61. Gay Gordon 19. Paul Knox 62. Gretchen Christopher 20. Rich Bakala 63. Stephen Pruka 21. Rick Panowicz 64. James Legenfelder & Emily Ray 22. Robert Ahlschwede 65. Janet Murr 23. Robert Sands 66. Janice Arnold 24. Stephen Segall 67. Jeff Wagnitz 25. Sue Lean 68. Jim Montecucco 26. Troy Bussey 69. John Bay 27. Allen Hettinger 70. John Montecucco 28. Bev Skinner 71. Kathleen Callison 29. Andrea Sehmel 72. Kelly Thompson 30. Anne Buck 73. Lee Montecucco 31. Edward West 74. Linda Gallagher 32. Maureen 75. Lorree Gardener 33. Paul Knox 76. Maggie Reardon 34. Bev Skinner 77. Margaret Clifford 35. Carol Horner 78. Mary Miller 36. Donn Lawrence 79. Michael G. Jackson 37. Ed Zabel 80. Paul Williams 38. Farrell Arnold 81. Rachel Newmann 39. Kim and Ken Adney 82. Ralph Munro 40. Linda Lentz 83. Robin Vaupel 41. Martin Redston 84. Roger Grieb 42. Mikki Lawrence 85. Ruth Shearer 43. Nicole Floyd & Jerry Reilly Correspondence 86. Sandy Montecucco
1
87. Stanley Crossman 88. Steve Whalen 89. Tom Culhane 90. Wanda Hedrick
2
Nicole Floyd
From: Janet Jordan
Olympia City Council and City Administration,
I am Janet Jordan, 6702 Garrett Court NE, Olympia 98506. These are my views on the project being considered for the isthmus.
Others have written about the dangers of creating another tall building on the isthmus – the loss of important views from the Capital down to the water, and from the arteries between East to West Olympia up to the Capital; the fact that sea levels will rise (every new scientific report gives us a new reason to believe the rise will be higher that previously thought); and the dangers of building with a foundation of unstable fill material. These are important reasons and should be enough to remove the Views on Fifth project from consideration.
I would add that the majority of Olympia residents have shown their disapproval of the project, in the City Council votes of 2011: after a vigorous controversy about the removal of the existing 9-story building, all councilmembers favoring development on the isthmus were voted out. We, the citizens, expect that our preferences should be decisive in policy matters. For us, development on the isthmus impacts quality of life. It is important, and we have told City Council. We don’t want an anomalous building there, suddenly rising nine stories high out of a background of two-story buildings, no matter what its architectural features. The fact that it is there at all is an offense. Please pay attention to citizen wishes.
Thank you for listening to my concerns.
Janet Jordan
1 From: Alex Kistler
Hi, I am a resident of Olympia and want to express my concerns about the potential development of the tower near Capitol Lake. I feel that downtown needs more housing and business development. However, I feel that it should be done in a place that does not impact our precious space and views at the north end of the lake. There are many other places for development that could have views and benefit our city without impacting the pleasure of so many people who would like to look up Budd Bay and see the Olympics. The current building is in a very unfortunate place and I am in favor of having it removed. The decision we make now will likely impact this area for the rest of our lifetimes and I think it degrades the potential to have a fantastic park in the center of our city. It is amenities like this that make a city attractive. In the case of this building it benefits the few at the expense of the many. I encourage you to deny this development and return this area to the people for use as a public space. I think it would have a positive impact on the property values and vitality of our downtown.
Thanks for your consideration,
Alex Kistler
360.754.1105 Kenneth Haner
From: Andrea Sehmel
Dear Ms. Floyd & Team –
Thank you very much for the opportunity to hear comments regarding the exciting prospect of the Views on 5th development. Like others, I want to thank you for your analysis of a complex situation.
I listened carefully to all the comments and agree that in a perfect world, the isthmus could have been left alone ‐ to be just a busy, gray, cold roadway. However, it’s been developed for 50+ years and, judging from the mock‐ups, the proposed development actually blends into the view from the Law Enforcement Officer plaza quite seamlessly, and certainly more attractively than the current building. Further, the idea of bringing 200+ new jobs to the City is a breath of fresh air.
My main point in writing is that I wanted to suggest that perhaps a couple of ground floor office areas could be devoted to an Olympia region museum. This would entice even more people into the downtown core and honor the city’s history. Perhaps if the project was seen as more serving of the community, it would be more readily accepted by the nay‐sayers. Such an opportunity would only draw more people to the complex.
I applaud the Brogans and their development team, in particular Mr. Thomas, who compellingly presented a vision of hope and change for Olympia’s downtown last night. After living here since 2000, and with two teenage boys who need a reason to stay in what has felt like a dying city, it is sorely needed.
Very truly yours,
Mrs. Andrea Sehmel, R.N., M.N.
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Anne Buck
Please remove the building on Fifth that many call the Mistake On The Lake and all of the small empty buildings as well.that surround it. It was built just before we moved to Olmpia by just a few men that ran the town and I remember at that time they were telling us that Mr. Lynch their lawyer finagled the law in order to build The Lemon family (whose house we purchased) was one of the instigators. Please, lets respect the original plans for that property. Anne Buck
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Oly Babs
Dear Ms. Floyd,
I am a resident of Olympia, and I want to express my concern about the development known as "Views on Fifth."
The last thing we need in Olympia is more over-priced housing. We are dying for affordable housing, and instead, we plan to build "market rate" housing, in a vain attempt to lure the wealthy.
Trust me - the wealthy don't want to live in downtown Olympia.
I'd like to see the stats for the supposedly "market rate" apartments that have already gone up downtown. Are they fully occupied? And who is this market that can afford these apartments?
I work for the State of Washington. I make a comfortable wage. But I can't afford $3,000 a month. Heck, I barely take home that much a month! But here you're planning to put in more high-end housing? When we are inundated with people like me who make $45,000 a year or less who can barely afford to live in Olympia?
I managed to secure the apartment I live in ONLY because I got lucky and saw it for rent 4 hours after it was posted online and was the first person there with a check. Many people are not so lucky. And with the lack of housing, landlords (including mine) are being overt about not renting to people who smoke, not allowing pets, demanding exorbitant up front fees, pet rents, etc.
I know one retired couple, who weren't employed, so the landlord thought they were shifty because they didn't have an employer or monthly income, who were required to pay a year's rent in advance, to secure a house last year.
I'm not talking about housing for homeless street people. I'm talking about the huge number of state workers in this town who make less than $60,000 a year, who are doubling up with family members because they can't find a place of their own that they can afford. Used to be getting a State job meant some kind of financial security. Not with the way the housing costs have skyrocketed. And forget about buying a house. Who can afford $4500 a month house payments?
Please. This building is an eyesore. It should be torn down. Building on that isthmus with the rising sea levels is simply not smart.
But if you insist on renovating that property, then let's be reasonable and demand the developer include at least 50% of the rental units be priced in the affordable range, and not at "market rate".
Many thanks, Barbara Smith 1322 Prospect AVE NE Olympia, WA 98506 (253) 439-8293
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Becky Thomas
Nicole, I attended last night’s meeting with the hearing examiner for Views on 5th and I believe this will be a beautiful addition and much needed one for downtown Olympia.
It is my understanding that this is privately owned land and the applicant has followed all the requirements for the project thus far.
Things have gotten out of hand when individuals believe they can control what is built on someone’s private property for their own personal gain or desires. The applicant has met the city’s codes and requirements, with success, and should be able to move on to the next phase of the development process.
If this were public property then it would be more appropriate for the “nay sayers” to speak their desires, but this is privately owned property and the applicant should have the right to develop it as he/she desires as long as they meets all the codes and requirements of which they seem to doing this quite thoroughly.
I have a difficult time understanding how this has this been allowed to be carried on for so many years over private not public property.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my opinion.
Becky Thomas
Sent from my iPhone
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Brian Jensen
Ms. Floyd,
Please accept this message as my public comment on the development known as Views on Fifth. My hope is that the hearing examiner will approve the project.
I have rented a one bedroom apartment near downtown Olympia for 20 years. It is important to me that new apartments continue to be built in the area. As I am sure you understand, apartment rents are a function of supply and demand. Greater supply will help to keep rents down and benefit me as a renter.
I also frequently walk in the area downtown, particularly around the capitol campus and capital lake. I am sympathetic to those who see the Capitol Center as an eyesore and would like to see it torn down. It is certainly an ugly building; indeed the blocks near it are also an ugly mass of decrepit buildings and concrete‐covered lots. But rather than tear down the building and develop a park, I would prefer to see additional apartments, restaurants, and retail in that space. (Although, and this doesn’t appear to be in the developer’s plans, I would have preferred that the top floor of the building be used for a restaurant and/or viewing space open to the public.)
I respectfully ask that the hearing examiner approve the Views on Fifth development.
Brian Jensen Olympia, WA
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Carol and Jamie
Olympia City Council January 10, 2018 Attention: Nicole Floyd Lead city project staff
We are not in favor of allowing development of the building on 5th Ave aptly nicknamed “The Mistake on the Lake”. This project would not serve our community as a whole, but rather provide view property for a few who can afford it, while reinforcing a message to the rest of us that only those with money deserve to access beauty. We have added concerns about the impact extra cars downtown would have on parking, as it's really hard to find adequate parking now, and we don't believe that the developers' parking plan will really be sufficient. Working towards acquiring the land for a park would be more appropriate here, and generations to come will be able to enjoy this jewel on the waterfront, and a View for All! And yes, we would support a bond measure to provide funding for this park.
Thank you for your consideration, Carol and Jamie Rainwood 1214 20th Ave SE Olympia, WA 98501
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Cynthia Zujko
Dear Ms. Floyd:
Like many concerned citizens in Olympia, I oppose the "Views on 5th" proposal. The "mistake by the lake" should be removed and not replaced with another mistake. I concur with the points made by Ralph Munro and with the views of the Capitol Park Foundation.
Thanks for your time, Cynthia Zujko
it is not about making great art ~ it's about art making life great - cynzu
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Davenport Moore
Nicole,
I appreciate the careful, by the book attention to the proposed project. I am a supporter of multiuse, high density housing in Olympia with mixed income access. I like the live work units and the high density parking that saves ground around the building. It is somewhat ostentatious and out of character for Olympia - with an eye toward high end renters, but so is much of the waterfront around here. It is changing the character of our 'quaint' town and making us move into the 'Seattle area' look. So sad. I agreed with the testimony of the fellow that also asked if there was a provision to keep it from turning into high end spaces for lobbyists and PACs as has happened to nicer homes in the south Capitol neighborhood. I heard in your presentation how hamstrung the planners have been for not being able to require obvious, common sense aesthetic modifications that would comply with the newer regulations for the lower height limit. I was shocked by how the building squeaked by legal boundaries and avoided the Shoreline management requirements. The fact that the existing structure is just ugly and an eyesore and the current design is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear can not be ignored. If the design could be done with the eyesore modified, I think many people could live with it, including me. The bump out design is well done and has great ideas - and is ruined by that horrendously oversized box. It is just in the wrong place for our town as that 'wart on the Queens face'. I think some historical internal research should be done to track what waivers, and crooked dealings were done to allow that building in the first place. Locals have talked for years about the bribes and underhanded dealings of developers and council members in the 60's and 70's that allowed that travesty. I've lived her since 1974 and my former husband grew up here. The stories about rampant Council corruption were a regular aspect of conversation about Olympia politics in local social circles. I hope there is a way for the design to be modified. I am a pragmatist and agree that housing and attractive business space are needed for revitalized the downtown. I just think the design process should not have been allowed to get this far. It is apparent planners feel over a barrel to approve it soley because the developers are highly invested and have elbowed their way past the City's process for developing the new regulations and so the project is being considered prematurely. I have commented prior to this about the East West transportation corridor being impacted. I can not believe that all that parking will not be filled and each unit will be pumping at least one additional car into the traffic. I am not convinced that bikes and bus will be used by high end renters. As a culture we have not made the shift away from cars yet. Lets be real about that. It is difficult to get from Westside Oly at peak traffic times to downtown and unpleasant to walk with the volume of traffic, as it is. Thank you for another opportunity to vent, however ineffective it may be. Susan Davenport 115 Sherman St. NW Olympia, WA 98502 360-970-6302
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Edwards, West
My feedback on this project would be to save our beautiful downtown views and add to the attractive tourist attraction of our state’s capital by buying that horrid structure, tearing it down and replacing it with a no‐more than three story restaurant/shopping/park/public meeting area in it’s place. Do the right thing for our community! I just came back from NYC where Central Park has fought off developers for many years and endures as a priceless resource for that community. We don’t need a short sighted, ugly eyesore of a building in the center of our lovely town. We need another improvement to our state capital and hometown!! West Edwards, Long time Olympia resident.
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
Public records are available upon request under the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. Unless exempt from disclosure, email communication is a public record that may be disclosed to a third party under the Act.
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Gretchen Williams
Dear Ms. Floyd,
I am a high school science teacher and a transplant from Missouri. While I went to school for my Master in Teaching at TESC, I lived in Olympia. From the very beginning I was awestruck with the beauty of downtown Olympia. There are very few cities in Washington that can boast such a beautiful view of the Olympics and Sound. Why would you want to destroy that view? The "Mistake by the Lake" was a mistake in the 60's when it was erected. Why would you allow this mistake to continue? We passed, with a 60 percent vote, the Metropolitan Park District and taxing authority because we believed that this would help the city to buy and remove this building. Why would you vote against the desire of the people? With a meeting that lasted for almost 6 hours, it is obvious that there is a mass majority of people who oppose this proposal. Everything we see and read about in Washington DC is filled with politicians motivated by greed doing what they please and not what the people want. Please do not be that type of politician. Please be the one who does the right thing.
Sincerely,
Gretchen Williams National Board Certified Science Teacher Clover Park School District
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Jim Kainber
Ms. Floyd,
Please add my name to the many people who support reconstruction of this blighted area of town. I think the project would be outstanding, though I wish it would look a little more "classic" by using brick and more traditional, less trendy, materials.
Regardless, a mixed use building will continue the great work the City has done driving market rate housing into downtown to balance the many low income, senior, and social services which often appear dominant.
Not to mention, I am appalled at the thought of the waste of such a significant amount of building materials and energy that would be re-purposed by this redevelopment plan, rather than be sent to a landfill. Bravo to this developer for his foresight.
Jim Kainber 5741 Boston Harbor RD NE Olympia, WA 98506
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Jim Randall
I write in support of the proposed project. I think that the City of Olympia needs and deserves to have a thriving downtown and this project is a critical step in the right direction and could serve as the catalyst to make that occur.
I grew up in major cities, primarily New York, and believe in the concept of the city as a place where we have great concentrations of art, commerce, and culture. Great cities require density. And they need housing to encourage people to live in the city rather than the surrounding areas.
Density, height, downtown housing, these goals are consistent with Olympia’s comprehensive plan and what we should all hope will happen in downtown Olympia.
This project will bring more market rate housing downtown which will mean more people living and working and spending money downtown. It will encourage more downtown businesses and provide support for the existing businesses.
I also think that renovating this structure‐ essentially recycling it‐ makes a great deal more sense than tearing it down, which seems a terrible waste.
I have heard people object to this project on the basis of height and because they contend it will negatively impact views. First, the building is already there. Second, great cities have tall buildings. They can still be beautiful and have beautiful skylines. And Olympia will still have a beautiful vista and the the plans for this project are an extraordinary improvement over what is presently there.
Thank you for you consideration.
Best, Jim Randall 1104 Carlyon Ave SE
Sent from my iPhone
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Laura Westrup
Ms. Floyd, we were not able to attend the Tuesday evening public meeting to testify but wish to submit and register our opinion of the proposed Views on 5th development proposal.
When we drive by the building we think how sad it is that the city allowed the building to be constructed in the first place. It interferes with precious public open space, is a visual eyesore and will place unnecessary impacts on existing traffic patterns. In addition, it is in a high hazard liquification zone and with global warming will be very susceptible to sea rise. The development proposal would bring in needed downtown core housing but at too great of a cost to those that value the beautiful lake and park facilities. We are not favor of the development proposal and urge community leaders to not approve the project.
Sincerely,
Warren and Laura Westrup 5738 58th Lane NW Olympia, WA 98502
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Lawrence
Hello,
I am a property owner in Olympia. The Capital Center bldg should have never been built where it is blocking the view of the waterfront.
However, it would be better to have an improved site than 20 more years of the building being derelict. There will be lots of traffic and parking issues. I once worked in the building and the views are wonderful. If approved, mitigation could include a free public viewing area both north and south on the building's top floor.
So, if the money is not there to tear down and make the area open space - better to have an improved site.
Sincerely, Lawrence M. Jacobson 2628 113th Way SW Olympia, WA 98512
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Michele Harriage
To Whom It May Concern,
I understand that comments about the future of the derelict building on the isthmus downtown are to be sent to you. I oppose any regeneration of that structure that has been known by so many as the “ Mistake on the Lake”. I do not have any additional technical support of why it should be removed other than what was said at the meeting. I have lived here for over thirty years. Soon after I arrived here, I walked around the lake and still remember seeing and thinking how much of an eyesore it was and is. I vowed to myself that if there was ever a way to change it or be part of a movement to remove it, I would be active in doing so. I have never met anyone who did not think that the building did not detract from waterfront and the Capitol. I have visited most of the Capitols of the United States. We have a chance to have one of the most beautiful and memorable ones because of the majestic view. The view is what people will remember. This is not just the city’s legacy but it is our state's legacy. No one will regret preserving the view, but we and future generations will regret it having been destroyed.
Sincerely, Michele Harriage [email protected]
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Oly Babs
Dear Ms. Floyd,
I am a resident of Olympia, and I want to express my concern about the development known as "Views on Fifth."
The last thing we need in Olympia is more over-priced housing. We are dying for affordable housing, and instead, we plan to build "market rate" housing, in a vain attempt to lure the wealthy.
Trust me - the wealthy don't want to live in downtown Olympia.
I'd like to see the stats for the supposedly "market rate" apartments that have already gone up downtown. Are they fully occupied? And who is this market that can afford these apartments?
I work for the State of Washington. I make a comfortable wage. But I can't afford $3,000 a month. Heck, I barely take home that much a month! But here you're planning to put in more high-end housing? When we are inundated with people like me who make $45,000 a year or less who can barely afford to live in Olympia?
I managed to secure the apartment I live in ONLY because I got lucky and saw it for rent 4 hours after it was posted online and was the first person there with a check. Many people are not so lucky. And with the lack of housing, landlords (including mine) are being overt about not renting to people who smoke, not allowing pets, demanding exorbitant up front fees, pet rents, etc.
I know one retired couple, who weren't employed, so the landlord thought they were shifty because they didn't have an employer or monthly income, who were required to pay a year's rent in advance, to secure a house last year.
I'm not talking about housing for homeless street people. I'm talking about the huge number of state workers in this town who make less than $60,000 a year, who are doubling up with family members because they can't find a place of their own that they can afford. Used to be getting a State job meant some kind of financial security. Not with the way the housing costs have skyrocketed. And forget about buying a house. Who can afford $4500 a month house payments?
Please. This building is an eyesore. It should be torn down. Building on that isthmus with the rising sea levels is simply not smart.
But if you insist on renovating that property, then let's be reasonable and demand the developer include at least 50% of the rental units be priced in the affordable range, and not at "market rate".
Many thanks, Barbara Smith 1322 Prospect AVE NE Olympia, WA 98506 (253) 439-8293
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Paul Knox
Hi Nicole,
As a community resident , property owner and lover of our downtown, I strongly support the Views on Fifth proposal as a crucial step in creating a vibrant downtown. Olympia desperately needs more and denser housing downtown for all income groups. This project will encourage a more walkable community in our downtown that may even use the large expanse of park grass around the lake. In no way should the City spend multi millions to buy and demolish this building – there are plenty of views from the ground and hills. Olympia is a city that needs to grow up to support its downtown and do our part to ward off climate change.
We are fortunate to have private investors willing to take on this creative re‐use housing and commercial venture. This will open the way to more activity in the isthmus area that can serve our community and city well. Thanks!
Paul Knox KnoxWorks Consulting 360.790.4464
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Rich Bakala
Please accept this as a vote for my opposition to the Mistake by the lake
Rich Bakala [email protected] 360.790.3413
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Rick Panowicz
I am very much for the approval for the redevelopment of the old Capital Savings Building on 5th Avenue ( now titled views on 5th). Olympia desperately needs market rate housing and this property is ideal for that type of development that will attract more people to live and work down town. My wife and I are looking forward to relocating to the downtown core where we can walk instead of drive. Thanks, Rick Panowicz
Sent from my iPhone
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Robert Ahlschwede
Nicole-- I have submitted a comment much earlier but I find it necessary to add one more note. So:
One thing I neglected to speak to in my earlier comment is that when the Design Review Committee dealt with this development, two things occurred that brings a question about the validity of their decision. First, the chair recused himself because "he had very strong opinions about the redevelopment" which led to the vice chair leading the committee during the process. The vice chair also have "very strong opinions" concerning the redevelopment, which effected the outcome of the decision. If the chair had recused, the vice chair should have do so also.
Second, when the staff presented the community comments to the committee the staff deleted many--as many as half I understand--of the public comments that the staff decided "on their own" were not related to the question. I do not feel that staff should be able to effect the committee's decision making process by controlling what the committee sees. The Design Review process should be free of staff control and the findings concerning this project should be dismissed and the process began anew.
The may be some violation of law in the staff's handling of this process.
1 Thanks again for allowing input on this project. A shame that the community's desires are being subverted by a narrow minded position from the Planning Department.
Rob Ahlschwede 3726 Wesley Loop NW, Olympia, Wa 98502
--
---- Rob Ahlschwede 3726 Wesley Loop NW Olympia, Washington 98502 360-866-1935
2 Kenneth Haner
From: Robert Sands
I was at the hearing last night and was struck by the emphasis on "view purification" that seemed to be an extension of the Capitol Campus visionary development concept. I have lived through many view conflict debates and do not "see" the view degradation that is suggested by those in opposition. Sometimes a flagpole within a view can be deemed objectionable. From the distance of the Capitol campus site, the project, as portrayed, is a great improvement over the existing structure. Additionally, if looked for, many other "view distractions" (from the purified, idyllic view sought) are present. While I am capable of idealization of numerous architectural venues, I am against the imposition of idyllic standards from above (literally and figuratively) beyond the citizens desires expressed through the city planning process. The down to earth community will be greatly enhanced by the completion of the project. And the onlookers from the Capitol campus will have their pick of view distractions (impurities) or they will look beyond to the natural beauty and be undistracted. To each his own?
The second point promoted at the hearing had to do with a "displacement" theory that community improvement is contraindicated because improvements in any city raises property values and rents thus displacing some citizens all the while rising the standard of living for most citizens. This thesis is absurd as it would prevent or retard any development that would enrich or advance the quality of any city's building codes or projects that enhance or improve values Advancements in building quality have been in the natural order of things for hundreds or thousands of years. There are American cities that have experienced a marked reduction in values and living standards which lower rents and makes for less expensive living accommodations attracting more low income individuals. I do not want Olympia to follow that path, nor do you! Let's encourage and legitimize projects that improve the quality of our city, especially at the ground level.
I was impressed by the city's presentation, which addressed the substantive issues thoroughly.
Robert Sands Olympia, WA
1 Kenneth Haner
From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 6:29 PM To: Nicole Floyd Subject: Views on 5th File number: 17-2528
To the Hearings Examiner:
Please accept my written testimony against approval of the above project. The building in question is located on "fill" that is subject to the very real effects of sea level rise and liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. The former, although a more gradual process, is occurring at a much faster rate than predicted and locating this project so close to the waterfront will either require the abandonment of the building or the spending of extensive public resources to protect this private property. The latter may occur in a catastrophic manner and result in extensive loss of life and injury. It is irresponsible to approve this type of residential project in an area susceptible to extreme earthquake damage. The City should not be complicit in putting large numbers of people at risk of their lives and safety. Approval of this project would be reckless, irresponsible, and would also put the city at risk for liability should this occur.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments and I trust that you will make the right decision.
Sincerely,
Steven Segall 3110 Red Fern Dr NW Olympia, WA 98502
1 Kenneth Haner
From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 5:51 PM To: Nicole Floyd Subject: Comments: Views on Fifth
To the City of Olympia,
Regarding Views on 5th File number: 17-2528
It seems to me to be folly. indeed, to approve the proposed project or any other involving a large number of people living on the only narrow strip of land to connect east and west Olympia.
-
The priceless views will be forever compromised to and from the monumental Capitol and the Olympic Mountains.
The setting for our capital city is of national geographic significance. Its prominence should be preserved for all.
-
Planning should put public safety first. The congestion certain to occur in an emergency whether people need to get from one side of the isthmus or to the other will be seriously aggravated by a resident population.
-
Worse, perhaps, would be the tragic polluting effect on the southernmost tip of Puget Sound should an earthquake cause the proposed parking machine and multiple cars parked within it to topple or sink into the sea. Should this project be approved, what mitigating considerations for such an event be required?
-
The public is not at all keen on the thought that the City would be expected to protect the proposed structures against sea level rise. Have liabilities been cost estimated?
-
It is time for the City to embrace our magnificent waterfront setting with views of two national parks and the Capitol, architecturally the culminating achievement of the style known as the American Renaissance, by creating a park for the enjoyment of all. Please find for the greater common good.
-
1 Sincerely,
Sue Lean
Olympia, WA
-
2 Kenneth Haner
From: Troy Bussey
Nicole -
I am in favor of the Views on 5th and all other projects that increase residential housing and density in downtown Olympia because they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan vision of creating a vibrant and livable downtown, increasing environmental and economic sustainability, and preserving natural and undeveloped areas.
Respectfully, Troy Bussey
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Suki Bell-Sullivan
The City of Olympia has issued the following Hearing Examiner Staff Report and Agenda for the project known as:
17‐2528 Views on 5th
See attached hyperlink for further details: City of Olympia ‐ Meeting of Hearing Examiner on 1/9/2018 at 6:30 PM
Please forward questions and comments you may have regarding the above projects to the staff contact listed below:
Nicole Floyd, Senior Planner, 360.570.3768
Suki Bell‐Sullivan
City of Olympia
PO Box 1967 | 601 4th Avenue | Olympia WA 98507
1 Phone: (360) 753‐8331
Email: [email protected]
2 Kenneth Haner
From: Allen Hettinger
Dear Nicole Floyd
I support the development. We do not need to tear down one of the best built structures in Olympia. This project would provide more housing and amenities downtown. This would increase the tax base for Olympia. I will vote against any elected official or tax that supports removal of the building. The Olympian has consistently given negative press to the project. Let us proceed to redevelop and have a nice useful building. I have driven or walked by the building nearly every day for 44 years.
Sincerely, Allan Hettinger 1236 Rogers CT SW Olympia, WA 98502
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Bev Skinner
Good morning Nicole Floyd,
Thank you for the opportunity to express my opion on the debate regarding the Capitol Center Building. This is the first time I have weighed in what I believe is a critical matter to the vibrancy of our town going forward.
If indeed 5,000 more people will move to Olympia in the next two decades they will need somewhere to go other than shopping. I remember when the “Mistake by the Lake” was built and it took away from the open feel and space that was available. Having lived my entire 69 years in Olympia I have experienced the joy of coming to town and having a public place to go to relax, socialize, or swim in Capitol Lake. If tourism is truly what the city wants, tourists are more likely to shop after they have had a place to relax and reflect on the beauty of our city.
As has been stated the climate change issues must also be addressed, but I believe before it is too late, it is possible to bring open spaces and the uniqueness that always was Olympia. Anyone can build a building but it takes forward thinking to preserve what we once had for future generations to enjoy what I once enjoyed.
Thank you, (please tear down that building and create a masterpiece of a park)
Beverly Skinner
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Carol Horner
Consider what happened to the old Fourth Ave Bridge.
Should an earthquake or ocean level rise damage the proposed development, (and it will) it is very easy for the developer to go into bankruptcy and leave the city with a derelict building: a second, bigger Mistake By The Lake.
Many local people walk around the harbor, around the lake and up to the Capitol. The grand view designed by the Olmsted Brothers is a treasure like no other state capital. It is a treasure to us. I believe that wealthy people who will buy into the Views on Fifth will get into their cars and go elsewhere for fitness centers and recreation and spend their money on deliveries from internet shopping (It is the growing trend). I believe that the lake and the view with bring more families who will spend their money downtown.
Please disseminate this letter to all interested parties making the final decision.
Carol Horner, resident since 1976
1 Kenneth Haner
From: DONN LAWRENCE
Hello,
Please add my voice to the reasonable ones advocating for the remodel of the Capital Center Building. I strongly support saving the building and turning it into something beautiful and useful. Downtown Olympia doesn't need another park costing taxpayers $30 million and requiring perpetual maintenance. Olympia does need more housing so it would be a shame to tear down an existing structure with such potential. I am a resident of Olympia and a retired electrician. I have actually worked in this building and I believe some who oppose this remodel would change their minds if they could see the view of the bay and the surrounding area from the upper floors of this building. It is spectacular! Saving green space is one thing, but tearing down much needed housing is counterproductive. Thank you for your consideration.
Donn Lawrence
1714 22nd Ave SE
Olympia
1 Kenneth Haner
From: ed zabel
I vote to have it renovated for commercial use. There's a huge park right across the street, and it doesn't make sense to eliminate a source of tax revenue for the community.
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Farrell Arnold
Dear Ms. Floyd, I am a lifetime resident of Olympia. I turn 90 in March. I remember when Hal Woolf built the building 51 years ago, and it is a shame that it has sat empty for so long now. It is ridiculous that one of the complaints about the building is that it blocks the view from Capitol campus‐ they should all be working anyway. We have plenty of parks. Why spend 3 million dollars to tear it down to build another park?! I agree that Ken Brogan's project would revitalize downtown. I have in fact attempted to contact Mr. Brogan many times to invest in a penthouse apartment. I believe there could be many solutions to the alleged environmental issues, and that it is simply lazy and unimaginative to just get rid of it.
I just wanted to way in on this subject. I have trouble getting to the meetings but this issue has been a "wart on my posterior" for quite sometime.
Thank you for your attention. I will be watching the progress or lack there of very closely.
Please feel free to contact me.
Most sincerely, Farrell Arnold
Sent from my iPad
1 January 11, 2018
Mayor Shelby and Council members,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Views on 5th project. We have read the Project Overview and Highlights #2 and agree with the analysis that this will replace blighted buildings, have a beneficial effect from market rate housing downtown, may decrease single occupancy vehicle traffic, have negligible effects on view corridors, add outdoor amenities. The architectural plan for this building to reflect the water and green landscape of our beautiful Budd Inlet is exceptionally sensitive to environmental impacts and establishes a beautiful long‐term City Scape design plan.
As both business and building owners downtown, we commend the city on the increase in market rate housing downtown and look forward to seeing our capital city more attractive and livable.
Thank you.
Ken & Kim Adney Kenneth Haner
From: Linda Lentz
City Of Olympia, I want to write in strong support of the development known as Views on 5th. This is exactly what our community needs to make downtown Olympia more vibrant. This unused area is a perfect anchor for the west side of downtown to bring in more housing, retail space and restaurants. Please approve this project and let our city more forward with positive development.
Sincerely, Linda Lentz
Sent from my iPad
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Martin Redston
Dear Ms/Mr Floyd.
I am a UK citizen liviing in London and I have just read a report in the Olympian newspaper about the recent public meeting relating to the future of this building. When I visited your lovely city of Olympia last year, I was amazed to see this 100 ft high building in such a sensitive location. I am not surprised tbat it has been dubbed 'the mistake on the lake' as it is an incredible eyesore.
I would like to add my voice to those who would like it to be demolished or reduced to the current heighr limit of 35ft. I write as a Londoner who has watched such planning excesses take place in my own fair city and I believe you should preserve your own Olympian identity by keeping your buildings low rise and to a human scale.
Regards
Martin Redston BSc CEng MICE Chartered Civil Engineer. Principal
Martin Redston Associates 4 Edward Square London N1 0SP
Tel: 020 7837 5377 [email protected] www.redstonassociates.co.uk
Martin Redston Associates is the trading name of Martin Redston Associates Ltd. Company number 09990582. Registered in England.
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Mikki Lawrence
I wholeheartedly support the proposed ‘Views on Fifth’ project. For years I’ve thought that such a mixed‐use rehab of the Capitol Centre Building would be the best use of that particular site. We DO NOT NEED another park downtown! Give people a reason to live in the downtown area, and other development will follow...this is one of the first steps in revitalizing a dying city centre.
Margaret Lawrence Olympia, WA
Sent from my iPhone
1 The following exchange of emails occurred on 1/10/18, following the Hearing on the land use application, where Senior Planner, Nicole Floyd, answered a question from the Hearing Examiner regarding whether the isthmus area was within the City's Downtown Strategy planning area. She answered in the affirmative, but Mr. Reilley believes that a 2015 correspondence from Community Development Director, Keith Stahley, asserted that the isthmus was not in the Downtown Strategy area. This submittal attempts to clarify that the geographical isthmus area is within the Downtown Strategy area and the action items described within the Downtown Strategy are applicable. One of those action items is for a future planning effort tailored to the isthmus area. The City is providing the email exchanges as a comment so that it is received and so the applicant can respond to it.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Keith Stahley Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 1:25 PM To: Nicole Floyd
Hi Nicole,
Thanks for clarifying. At this point, there are no plans to initiate a focused planning process until the current land use application for the Views on the Fifth project is resolved. k
From: Nicole Floyd
Jerry,
In response to our discussion, I asked Amy Buckler to help me understand where the confusion lies. She explained that the City intends to prepare an isthmus specific planning effort. I have added some sections from the action plan below that show the clear intent for further planning on the isthmus. I believe this future planning effort is what Keith is talking about in the email you provided. This does not mean that the isthmus and/or capitol center building are outside of the Downtown Strategy boundaries. The map below shows the boundaries of “downtown” and includes the properties in question. This map indicates that the subject property is within the boundaries of the “waterfront character area”. The waterfront character area is further defined on page 12 and includes the following: There are a few areas within the strategy that directly speak to the future planning efforts desired on the isthmus that I have highlighted below. I believe the confusion may lie in the two things being exclusive. The site is well within the boundaries of the downtown strategy area and is planned for future study. It is not one or the other.
I hope this helps clarify. Please let me know if you have any other questions,
Nicole Floyd, AICP
Senior Planner|City of Olympia 601 4th Ave E.|Olympia, WA 98501 Ph: 360.570.3768|Fax: 360.753.8087 Web: olympiawa.gov
From: Gerald Reilly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 7:47 AM To: Nicole Floyd
Hi Nicole, Below is the exchange I had with Keith Stahley that was the basis of my comment last night that I believed that planning for the isthmus was not part of the Downtown Strategy Process. Jerry
From: Keith Stahley
Hi Jerry,
I agree and here is my recommendation for anyone who is interested.
Isthmus: A decision regarding a specific plan for the Isthmus will require a special and focused planning effort, and will not occur as part of forming the Downtown Strategy. During the DTS, we may conduct some analysis (e.g.: viewsheds), as well as outline implementation steps to get to a decision if this shakes out to be a clear priority for the 5‐6 year implementation strategy, but we will not provide a recommendation for what should happen on the isthmus.
Hope this helps.
Keith
From: Gerald Reilly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2015 10:10 AM To: Keith Stahley Cc: Steve Hall; Jay Burney Subject: RE: Downtown Strategy
Hi Keith, Thank you for sending list of the members of the Downtown Strategy (DTS) policy advisory group. I am very concerned that no one on the list, as far as I know, can articulate the views of the Olympia Capitol Park Foundation or Friends of the Waterfront with regard to the isthmus. This is especially troubling since the draft park plan appears to subordinate planning for the isthmus to the outcome of the Downtown Strategy (DTS) effort. I was not able to attend the DTS policy group meeting this week because I participated in Park Plan workshop at the Olympia Center. I, and others, commented at the Park plan workshop that the isthmus planning should go forward now and not be required to wait for the DST. I heard second hand that DST consultants (Makers) stated at DTS meeting that they would be preparing alternatives for the isthmus. This sounds very odd to me since the isthmus area, including views, appeared to be consciously excluded from DST workshop exercise I attended several weeks ago. I strongly support the DST effort, but it should steer clear of isthmus planning. We already have a clear plan for the west parcels of the isthmus as park. Any backsliding from this position could embroil the DST in controversy that will not be helpful to the downtown plan. I understand that decisions with regard to the Capitol Center Building still need to be made, but these involve overarching issues that go well beyond the scope of the DST and are best handled separately. If you do not agree with this, it is urgent that you add some people to the DST policy group with a deeper understanding of the isthmus vision as a great civic space. Best regards, Jerry
From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Downtown Strategy Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:29:39 +0000
Hi Jerry,
Here’s the list. Let me know if you have questions.
Thanks
Keith
From: Gerald Reilly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 3:34 PM To: Keith Stahley Subject: Downtown Strategy
Hi Keith, Well done on Saturday. A downtown strategy policy group was mentioned. Can you send me a list of the members? Thanks, jerry
Kenneth Haner
From: Peter Reid
Dear Ms. Floyd:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal to develop the property on 5th. To allow the proposal to proceed would mean the end of the opportunity to make the Capitol view corridor one of the most outstanding in the world. It is these kind of sites which draw visitors to Olympia who will contribute money to our economy through sales and donations. While housing is important in Olympia, there is no reason to place it in this site.
We urge the City to deny the proposal and to work with the proponents of turning this property into one of the loveliest parks in the State.
Very truly yours,
Peter Reid
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Sue Hedrick
I am strongly opposed to the proposed Views on Fifth development. I agree with others who have voiced their concerns about this project, and I strongly support the comments by former Secretary of State Ralph Munro, that the Capitol Center Building must be demolished.
It was a mistake for it to be built in the first place and it does not enhance the beauty of Olympia in any way ‐ even before it deteriorated to the current eyesore it has become, it ruined the view from the Capitol campus of Puget Sound and the Olympics.
As other housing developers have recently shown, there are many more appropriate places in Olympia that would be better suited for new housing such as the properties on 11th Ave and above Three Magnets and Darby’s Cafe.
I am concerned about the risk of flooding and earthquake damage on the isthmus as well as increased traffic on 4th and 5th Avenues.
I find it very hard to believe that the project does not require an environmental impact statement under the Shorelines Management Act.
There are much better uses for this property than what is currently proposed. I would like the City Council members to reject this proposal and consider other ideas that would benefit the residents of Olympia and the state, and visitors to our beautiful city.
Sue Hedrick 400 ‐ 17th Ave SE Olympia
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Allen T. Miller
Niccole:
Please pass this on to the Hearing Examiner as further testimony regarding that the Downtown Strategy does not include planning for the isthmus. Thanks.
Allen T. Miller Law Offices of ATM, PLLC 1801 West Bay Dr. NW Suite 205 Olympia, WA 98502 [email protected] www.atmlawoffice.com Office: (360)754‐9156 Fax: (360)754‐9472 Cell: (360)402‐3376
Hi Amy,
Hope you had a great holiday season, and the New Year is going well for you and your family. 2017 was an intense year with my solo exhibition in SF and a lot of international travel.
I was happy to be back and able to attend the Olympia Hearing on Tuesday night for the proposed development of Views on 5th LLC.
There were several references to the DTS during the hearing and testimony.
My name was not called to testify until about 11:15pm. I pointed out that as part of the DTS Stakeholder group - it was my recollection the isthmus area was NOT included in the DTS. (In an early 2016 DTS meeting, I had remembered that with the strong public opinion of land use in that area, as well as the current CRA, the isthmus needed to be covered separately and therefore was off limits for the current DTS.)
This point was contested by someone on the planning staff- who said it WAS part of the DTS- as they had seen it included on the DTS Maps. It was so late, I apologize I’m not sure who said this.
I decided to double check my memory and called John Owens of Makers to confirm my recollection. He kindly confirmed that the isthmus was NOT part of the recent DTS, and that the Land Use of this area should be addressed in a separate process. He graciously suggested he would call you and convey our conversation. I trust you will pass this clarification on to planning staff.
1 There was a lot of great work accomplished by Makers with the DTS, and it is important that the planning department have clarification that the isthmus was NOT part of our DTS work. Therefore it is inaccurate to conclude that the current proposed development is in compliance with the DTS on any accounts - public involvement, land use, traffic, parks, view protection, etc. We have had a lot of failed plans in the past, we have the opportunity to get this one right.
The isthmus has catalyzed community involvement for YEARS, inspired ballot initiatives to create funding for parks, and inspired people to vote change of leadership in city council on more than one occasion. I’m thankful that Makers wants to give it special attention - if given the opportunity. However I am concerned that the planning department thinks it has already been included…. respecting community involvement and consensus in decisions is the bedrock of a healthy city.
I am also concerned that by the time we get around to discussing the appropriate Land Use and future of the Isthmus - something that it definitely deserves - it may already be decided! If that were to happen, the valued involvement of community that has fought and voted for open space, and view preservation over the years, with a desire to protect this land in Olympia, could become disenfranchised.
Many thanks for your time.
All the best,
Janice Arnold JA FELT Studio & Lab
Old Grand Mound Schoolhouse 20604 Grand Mound Way SW Centralia, WA 98531
360.402.3112 - mobile 360.273.8548 - studio 360.273.6991 - fax www.jafelt.com - Web JA FELT - Facebook
Janice Arnold JA FELT Studio & Lab
Old Grand Mound Schoolhouse 20604 Grand Mound Way SW Centralia, WA 98531
360.402.3112 - mobile 360.273.8548 - studio 360.273.6991 - fax
www.jafelt.com - Web JA FELT - Facebook
2 Kenneth Haner
From: Barbara Ogle
Dear Ms. Floyd,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the development of the property on 5th.
If developed, in my opinion (and the opinion of many others), it would truly be another example of a "mistake on the lake" in the way that it stands out even now as completely out of scale and interferes with the surrounding scenic and design aesthetic of the Heritage Park and Capitol Lake recreation area.
The isthmus is not a place to locate such a high-rise dense-use building. Downtown buildings and other suitable sites can be found in Olympia for needed housing and retail space and parking.
In addition, I urge you to seek a more thorough environmental study with regard to the risks of earthquake and flooding in this area.
My support is for including this isthmus property in the overall Capitol landscape design as a park and recreation area for all the people of the Olympia area and visitors and not just for the few that can afford it!
Please do not allow the proposed development to go forward.
Respectfully submitted, Barbara Ogle
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Bob Van Schoorl
Comments: Proposed development ‐ Views on 5th
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the findings of the Hearings Examiner subject to the reuse/redevelopment of the Views on 5th at the public hearing. I will reiterate my presentation comments here, expanding on some.
My name is Bob Van Schoorl. I have lived in Olympia for the past 31 years in a single‐family home within walking/biking distance of the proposed redevelopment. Our focus on recreational boating and other water front related activities bring us to the area near this project on a very frequent basis, along with other downtown amenities.
I am pleased that with the work of City staff for their excellent presentation on the project. I also wish to congratulate the Hearings Examiner for his findings, conclusion and recommendation based upon his review of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and other relevant City requirements, as well as, previous work on the former project proposed for the site and relevant court findings. I also congratulate the development team for the innovate approach to the reuse of the structure and their environmental and sustainability factors.
For several decades the City Councils have stated in their published goals a desire for more market rate housing in the downtown core. The Views on 5th full complies with this desired goal.
As noted, the City expects nearly 5,000 new residents to crowd into the downtown core over the next 20 years. This will require between 1200‐1300 new residences. The Views on 5th immediately provides more than 10% of this housing need.
This market rate housing along with the recently constructed 123 Fourth Building, the housing development behind the Thurston First Bank, and the future housing developments on the Les Schwab site and on Columbia Street across from the Percival Landing play area will contribute markedly to the safety and vibrancy of the downtown core. In addition, it provides housing opportunities to all income levels who wish, at my age, to move from our single‐family homes into residents in a downtown core. It is worth noting here that over 60% of the current downtown housing is either low‐income or subsidized. That is not our market.
But, frankly, most of us will not relocate to the downtown in its current state. We do not feel safe in the area. Though our downtown has some wonderful locally owned shops, it lacks the vibrancy, and safety that other downtown areas provide. Consequently, as it now stands, the Olympia downtown core will not be where we will choose to relocate.
Olympia citizens deserve a safe and vibrant downtown.
But this more emotional appeal does not strictly meet the criteria under which the Hearing Examiner must make his decision. Nor does the emotional appeal of the opponents which failed totally to address the planning requirements of the City. They appealed solely to the argument that the building must be removed so that their views are not hindered and so the larger site can be a park as they contend was envisioned by the Olmstead plan and the Wilder and White
1 drawings. Other opponents appealed to the other social service needs of the community. That also is not part of the process of determining if the proposed reuse meets the City’s building requirements.
And frankly, based upon the results of the past decade that the building has been vacant and the constant appeal to tear it down, funding has been not be found nor is any on the horizon. I seriously doubt if that building can be razed during my lifetime.
In conclusion, the Hearings Examiner has done an excellent review of the proposed Views on 5th project and has well‐ articulated his findings, conclusion and recommendations. I encourage him, despite all our emotional appeals, to stick to his already thorough review and uphold his current conclusion.
Respectfully,
Bob Van Schoorl 119 22nd Ave SW Olympia, WA 98501
January 11, 2018
2 Kenneth Haner
From: Bruce Botka
Nicole:
Please record my input as strenuously opposing the city’s current plan for redevelopment of the Mistake on the Lake. The latest proposal is misguided, and would actually do very little to revitalize the city’s downtown core, because it’s not part of the downtown core.
The current Mistake should be leveled, with the property ‘redeveloped’ into the open space intended in the original Olmstead plan. Then the city would be able to take advantage of a marvelous waterfront asset to promote the redevelopment of many other properties closer to the center of the city, whose improvement would have positive ripple effects in other parts of the downtown that desperately need revitalization.
Thank you for including these comments in the official record.
Bruce Botka 5130 25th Lane NW Olympia WA 98502
1
January 12, 2018
Nicole Floyd City of Olympia
Subject: Proposed “Views on Fifth” Project
Dear Ms. Floyd:
I have been a resident of Olympia since 1986 and am retired from a career in state government. Among other things, I now devote my time to thinking about how to plan for the future of Olympia – including a downtown that I feel could use a stronger sense of identity and an infusion of charm and aesthetics. I would like to offer an alternative to the current proposals (development of “Views on Fifth” project OR removal of the blighted Capitol Center building and development of “Capitol Vista” park) that I do not believe has been offered by others (though I can’t be sure, as I did not stay for the entire public hearing on January 9), and that alternative is this:
The highest and best use of the Isthmus should include both an unbroken view of the Olympic Mountains from the Capitol Campus and low‐to‐medium rise mixed‐use development. The City should offer to buy the blighted Capitol Center building for what Mr. Brogan paid for it (using the authority granted by the Community Renewal Act, designation of the area as “blight,” and a bond, rather than parks funding). The City should then sponsor an architectural design competition for the Isthmus as a whole (that would then be owned by the City) that includes a minimum of three designs and involves the entire community. o The design should include mixed‐use development (residential, plus ground floors of retail and restaurants) that is pedestrian oriented and includes wide pathways, benches, and lush landscaping. The landscaping should include street trees along Fifth Avenue that mask the new development more or less when seen from the Capitol Campus memorial overlooking the Sound. The new buildings should comply with the 35‐foot height on the Isthmus, except for the Capitol Center Building to be modified as follows: The City should then remove the top four floors of the Capitol Center building (retaining a 5‐story building), as well as the remaining blighted buildings on the Isthmus, and resell the site to Mr. Brogan for the original price, minus the City’s improvement (not design) costs. Under this proposal, Mr. Brogan should be able to build the same number of units as originally proposed, though some would no longer have the “views” originally intended – those views being reserved for the public. This is my proposal and I don’t believe that it is too late for the City to take this route, as long as it is willing to say “no” to both current proposals. First, I will explain what I mean by “unbroken view of the Olympic Mountains from the Capitol Campus” and then I will describe how I arrived at this proposal. If time is of the essence, it is not necessary to read further, as the most important part of these comments is the proposal I have described above. The rest of my comments provide justification and rationale for this proposal.
As someone who uses Heritage Park to walk around the lake, as well as up the switchback to the Capitol campus, I often see the view from the top of the switchback and believe, as anyone attuned to aesthetics would, that the view would be better if unimpeded by a 9‐story building. There was a reason that the architects of the Capitol Campus sited the campus where it is, and that reason is the sweeping view of sea and mountains offered by building the campus on the only promontory in the City of Olympia. It’s important to remember that what put Olympia on the map is its designation as the state’s Capitol. I like to say that if not for the capitol, we would be Shelton, basically a former timber town down on its heels. It’s this designation that has brought economic development, jobs, and tourism to this corner of the State, as well as institutions of higher education and other cultural amenities. I believe, therefore, that it is a privilege to be the Capitol City and that we are the stewards of that privilege. We have a responsibility to showcase the Capitol City for all Washingtonians, not just those living downtown or those interested in real estate development.
By “unbroken view,” I mean that the view of the Olympic Mountains should be unbroken, as they outline the view and delineate the Sound from the sky (they provide a better “composition”). The mountains provide a sense of distance and scale. I do not object to seeing the top of a 5‐story building and other low‐rise development on the Isthmus, provided there is plenty of landscaping and trees to provide a visual transition from Heritage Park (and Percival Landing) to the built environment, as well as a “gateway” into downtown. I am also interested in re‐purposing buildings to the extent desirable and in providing mixed‐income housing, without privatizing all of the views for the exclusive benefit of wealthy developers and residents.
I believe this transitional area would be superior to a park because grassy areas, including those of Heritage Park, are not really usable in the winter due to rainfall and the natural high‐water table, which makes lawns too wet and muddy for walking. Pedestrian use would be encouraged with re‐development.
Had it acted sooner, the City could have adopted my proposal with no controversy. In fact, I believe the entire community was expecting a proposal of this kind. Under the leadership of Mayor Buxbaum, the City put a lot of effort into developing such a vision, though the effort was focused on encouraging the development community to get involved, rather than on citywide involvement. This is because the development community had not been interested in investing in downtown Olympia for a number of years and the Council was eager to break the logjam. The Council even went through the process of becoming authorized to use the powers of the Community Renewal Act (CRA), so that it would have more tools at its disposal for addressing blight. Part of the process of becoming authorized is to designate areas of blight in the City’s
2 “planning area.” The Isthmus was designated as a blighted area. Another area of blight is the old Griswold site that is slated to become a 4‐story mixed‐use development this year.
One of the tools granted by the CRA is the ability for the City to buy real estate to clean up or to assemble into parcels of a size that developers would be interested in developing. And that’s where things stood as other planning processes, such as the “Downtown Strategy “took priority. The Downtown Strategy, which was developed in 2016 and of which I was a part, purposefully omitted the Isthmus because of how contentious the fate of the Capital Center building has been. Even though the Strategy included a “view analysis,” the most spectacular view of all was not a part of that analysis.
While the City was working on other plans and strategies, the Capital Center building was sold to a private developer, which I suspect was the outcome the City staff had been hoping for. The point is, the City knew of the community’s views of the building famously known as the “Mistake on the Lake,” as well as of the need for additional housing downtown. As far as the number of units needed to accommodate housing, my proposal does not change the number proposed by Mr. Brogan, but it would integrate housing/development with pathways and landscaping in a merger of both current proposals.
Finally, I would like to add a word about the current architectural design proposed by Mr. Brogan and his architect: While I like the idea of blue glass sheathing that looks harmonizes with the color of the Sound, I find the architecture to look more like the government offices on Plum Street, than residences. The look and feel of buildings on the Isthmus should be permeable, with large windows, balconies, step‐backs, and entryways, which would provide a human‐scale much more welcoming of pedestrians than the tall insular buildings some envision. I also believe that the project tries too hard to win over public opinion by adding “living walls” and artwork, when the only “art” needed is the water and views of the Sound, Mountains, and Capitol.
In summary, it’s in the nature of compromises to be disliked by both sides, but I believe this alternative is a “win‐win” and would result in cohesive and superior site development in which not only the whole community, but the whole State, would be proud. It’s not too late to do the right thing and to create a community on the Isthmus.
Sincerely,
Carole Richmond 3003 Langridge Loop NW Olympia, WA 98502
3 Kenneth Haner
From: Chris Reitz
My wife and I believe the unsightly tower on the isthmus should be taken down and replaced with something that has more public value, such as park space or a low building that doesn’t blight the view and the entire city. Please rule against the building and for the citizens.
Chris Reitz Sent from my phone | 202‐669‐0808
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Dave Cundiff
Importance: High
Sorry, re-sending with informative Subject line. No other changes.
***
To: Nicole Floyd From: Dave Cundiff Re: Views on 5th, Supplemental Testimony #1: Compatibility with City Planning Process
January 12, 2018
Dear Ms. Floyd:
Please submit this to the hearing record regarding “Views on 5th” as a supplement to my oral testimony on Tuesday evening 2018-01-09.
***
Of the people who testified for the Views on 5th project, a high proportion (including, sadly, City staff) stated or implied that the city hopes to increase population density on the Isthmus as part of the “Downtown Strategy”. Documents provided to Jerry Reilly and others about the “Downtown Strategy, although provided only in excerpt form, appear to show clearly that the city has NOT promulgated a goal to increase residential density on the Isthmus.
In the “Downtown Strategy” documents provided to us, the Isthmus is included as part of Downtown, but all areas west of Water Street are included in the “Waterfront Character Area”. The City’s goals for the Waterfront Character Area are stated as, “Improve upon existing attractions to create a vibrant, attractive, family-friendly destination, with emphasis on the surrounding natural environment and many landmark views. Maintain vibrant and visible gathering places for public activity and events; increase waterfront recreation opportunities; and create inviting pedestrian connections to the historic shopping district, marinas, Farmers Market, Hands on Children’s Museum, LOTT Wet Center, and Capitol Campus.”
Nowhere in the “Waterfront Character Area” description is it stated, OR EVEN IMPLIED, that residential development on the Isthmus is desirable. On the contrary! The City’s goals for the “Waterfront Character Area” explicitly propose emphasizing the natural environment and the Area’s views! The proposed “Views on 5th” development blocks many of the best of the “Waterfront Character Area” views, and impairs for generations the City’s ability to connect waterfront attractions with an attractive pedestrian area. The proposed “Woonerf”, with no water views on either side, is a pitiful substitute for the City’s vision in this regard.
When they imply that the “Views on 5th” development is supportive or even compatible with the City’s goals
1 for the Isthmus, City staff remind me of the husband who, sent to Costco for ice cream for tonight’s dinner, reports proudly that he bought not only the ice cream, but a large walk-in freezer to put it in!
As far as I can tell from staff-supplied documentation (excerpts chosen by staff who are clearly motivated to paint this project in its most favorable light), Views on 5th is incompatible with some of the City’s key Parks goals (as stated in the public-input sections of the 2016 parks plan) and not in any way required or even implied by the “Downtown Strategy”.
Regardless of the expertise, assets, or political clout of those saying otherwise, the Hearing Examiner’s report should clearly state that the proposed “Views on 5th” project is LARGELY INCOMPATIBLE with the City’s stated planning goals for the Isthmus, refuting project proponents who implied it was compatible or encouraged by those plans.
Thank you very much for your consideration!
Dave Cundiff MD MPH 904 East Bay Drive NE, #104 PO Box 7612 Olympia, WA 98507-7612 Mobile/Text 360-867-0949 [email protected]
2 Kenneth Haner
From: Dave Cundiff
Importance: High
To: Nicole Floyd From: Dave Cundiff Re: Views on 5th, Supplemental Testimony #2: Shoreline Management Act Implications
January 12, 2018
Dear Ms. Floyd:
Please submit this to the hearing record regarding “Views on 5th” as a supplement to my oral testimony on Tuesday evening 2018-01-09.
The proposed “Views on 5th” development has been exempted from Shoreline Management Act review by “spinning off” the northeast corner of the block (included in former proposed projects) to a separate entity. Leaving aside the question of whether the separate entity is in fact unrelated to the “Views on 5th” principals, the impact on the northeast corner is not currently a separate issue from the rest of the “Views on 5th” project.
Mr. Scheipmeyer noted that, in a prior ruling, he required that a proposed hotel could not use the northeast corner of the block for hotel operations. This may make sense for a hotel, which has considerable influence over where its employees and guests park. It doesn’t make any sense for a proposed mixed-use development. Apartment complex owners have no control over tenants, who can park in any legal place they wish and who can rent outside parking spaces by the month if they view those spaces as more convenient. Owners of restaurants and other retail businesses have no control over customers, who can park in any legal place they wish. Restrictions over the timing of external parking won’t work, because the proposed “Views on 5th” development will generate a mix of day-use-only and overnight parking.
Unless the northeast corner of the block is legally, permanently, and irrevocably protected from building AND FROM PARKING, the northeast corner of the block will remain functionally part of the “Views on 5th” complex — REGARDLESS of the ownership of the northeast corner and REGARDLESS of any restrictions that the Hearing Examiner may impose on the developer.
Thus, unless the northeast corner of the block is legally, permanently, and irrevocably protected from both building AND parking, it appears to me that a Shoreline Management Act review is required before the city can authorize any substantial change of the current Capitol Center property from its current non-use to any new use.
Thank you very much for your consideration!
Dave Cundiff MD MPH 904 East Bay Drive NE, #104
1 PO Box 7612 Olympia, WA 98507-7612 Mobile/Text 360-867-0949 [email protected]
2 Kenneth Haner
From: Dave Cundiff
Importance: High
To: Nicole Floyd From: Dave Cundiff Re: Views on 5th, Supplemental Testimony #3: East-West Transportation
January 12, 2018
Dear Ms. Floyd:
Please submit this to the hearing record regarding “Views on 5th” as a supplement to my oral testimony on Tuesday evening 2018-01-09.
Jeff Jaksich and Margaret Fleming both alluded to the vital and irreplaceable role of the Isthmus in meeting Olympia’s east-west transportation needs. Mr. Jaksich mostly discussed the need for east-west transportation in ordinary times. Ms. Fleming mostly discussed the need for east-west transportation in an emergency. These are related issues, vital to the City’s future, that were not fully discussed at Tuesday’s in-person hearing.
*** Transportation Issues: Ordinary Times ***
For ordinary times, we hope to add at least 5000 people in the parts of downtown that are appropriate for residential development. We also hope that more employers will locate jobs downtown. Some proportion of the new downtown workers will live in the new downtown housing. Based on my experience to date, I expect most of the new downtown workers will live elsewhere in Olympia, including West Olympia. I expect some of the new downtown residents will work elsewhere, including West Olympia. With increased density, mass transit should improve — but it seems unlikely that mass transit will improve enough to avoid a net increase in east-west traffic between downtown and West Olympia.
Barring major changes in the Capital Lake area, the Fourth and Fifth Avenue corridors (both of which adjoin the proposed Views on 5th development) are the irreplaceable connectors between downtown and West Olympia. Demand on these corridors should increase, whether the City has planned for it or not, if the city is successful in the rest of the Downtown Strategy.
The Proposed Views on 5th development will permanently constrain the width of the Fourth Avenue corridor, compared to any other scenario for the affected parcel. The proposed Views on 5th development will also permanently constrain the width of the Fifth Avenue corridor, compared to the City’s preferred alternative of demolishing the Capitol Center, unless the width of Heritage Park is to be sacrificed.
Thus, even without an emergency, the proposed development impinges on the City’s ability to meet its ordinary transportation needs in the future. All by itself, this should trigger stringent environmental review.
1 *** Transportation Issues: Emergencies ***
All areas within about 0.6 miles of the Transit Center appear to be more or less susceptible to sea level rise (likely 1-8 feet by the year 2100, but could be more depending on permafrost-trapped methane and the unpredictable rate of ice-cap melting). All of downtown’s lower-lying areas, especially the port and isthmus, appear to be susceptible to Puget Sound tsunamis (known to reach 8 feet, and clearly capable of reaching higher in exceptional circumstances) and to sloshing waves (seiches), of whose magnitude in Capitol Lake I am uncertain. In addition, in a Cascadia Subduction earthquake and possibly other earthquakes, land can rise and fall across an entire region. This magnitude can be more than three feet (and maybe much more) at the Pacific coast. It can be many feet more than that on the Seattle Fault. I don’t know how much upthrust or downthrust we can expect from local earthquakes in Olympia.
Thus, the Isthmus is very sensitive to water damage. Small areas can be protected from flooding, although the proposed “dry” flood barriers look pretty speculative to me. But, since floodwater will always go SOMEWHERE, any protection for the Capitol Center building — even if it works as designed! — will increase the risk of flooding and flood damage on adjoining streets.
I lived in West Olympia and worked downtown at the time of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. The Fourth Avenue bridge was damaged. The Fifth Avenue bridge was grievously overloaded. We are VERY lucky that I- 5 and US-101 survived the earthquake, which released much less energy than will a Cascadia subduction earthquake. Otherwise people’s access to their homes, to their families, and to medical services would have been impaired even worse than they were.
Thus, in an emergency, the resilience of Fourth and Fifth Avenue capacity will be especially important. Because protecting structures from flooding increases the risk to streets, this project needs a thorough environmental review. Independent of what happens in the courts, the City should drop its objection to such an environmental review and the public should learn all about the transportation implications of “Views on 5th”.
***
There are many places to put Olympia’s needed downtown housing. We don’t need housing, or any large- footprint building, on the Isthmus. That’s a choice. And it’s a very bad choice. Please take this into full consideration as you evaluate the misguided “Views on 5th” proposal.
Thank you very much for your consideration!
Dave Cundiff MD MPH 904 East Bay Drive NE, #104 PO Box 7612 Olympia, WA 98507-7612 Mobile/Text 360-867-0949 [email protected]
2 Kenneth Haner
From: Dave Cundiff
Importance: High
To: Nicole Floyd From: Dave Cundiff Re: Views on 5th, Supplemental Testimony #4: Fairness
January 12, 2018
Dear Ms. Floyd:
Please submit this to the hearing record regarding “Views on 5th” as a supplement to my oral testimony on Tuesday evening 2018-01-09. I am speaking for myself, and not for my church or any other organization.
***
When I was treasurer of the Olympia Friends Meeting (Quakers), we had a nonconforming building in Tumwater. Tumwater planning staff told us that if we ever ceased our nonconforming use for two years, we would lose all rights for nonconforming use. They said there was no conforming use for this building, that we would need to apply for a new Conditional Use Permit if we ceased our nonconforming use, and that City staff would oppose any such application.
Is there one set of rules for Tumwater and another for Olympia? Or is there one set of rules for small churches, and another for rich developers? Please clarify the distinction between these situations.
***
The hearing seems to be structured to give the “last word”, in the form of the ability to respond last, to the applicant and to City staff (who, contrary to public and City intentions, seem to be functioning as extensions of the applicant’s representatives).
Why is this legal? How is it fair?
Please clarify — thank you!
***
Dave Cundiff MD MPH 904 East Bay Drive NE, #104 PO Box 7612 Olympia, WA 98507-7612
1 Mobile/Text 360-867-0949 [email protected]
2
Comments on Views on 5th development proposal January 11, 2018
The primary goal of the Deschutes Estuary Restoration Team (DERT) is the restoration of the Deschutes Estuary by removing the 5th Avenue Dam and undertaking related actions necessary for a healthy estuary, including other actions to improve water quality and habitat, and to minimize costs and impacts to the City of Olympia, the Port of Olympia and local businesses. Some of these related actions will benefit water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, navigation, and sediment management, and will help to minimize damages from future floods and sea level rise. Washington State Dept. of Enterprise Services (DES), which has responsibility for managing the State Capitol structures and lands, has begun a process to evaluate restoring the Deschutes Estuary, creating a hybrid estuary/lake, or maintaining Capital Lake. The next step in that process is the development of an Environmental Impact Statement examining the environmental issues associated with each of these alternatives. Funding for the EIS is included in the proposed Capital Budget bills under consideration by the 2018 Legislative session. DERT is strongly opposed to the Views on 5th proposal for the following reasons:
• Redevelopment of this site to a park-like setting would involve removal of the hard surfaces (building roofs, foundations and paved parking lots) and would greatly reduce untreated stormwater discharges from the isthmus. In contrast, the Views on 5th redevelopment proposal will likely greatly increase the pollutants in the stormwater runoff due to increased traffic, vehicle parking, and other typical sources of human caused pollution in such settings.
• Soft surfaces such as park lands and landscaping plants and trees would offer greater diversity and higher quality of habitat for wildlife, and far higher water quality through filtering and absorption of pollutants. Parks would be more compatible with the estuary and with the adjacent land uses.
1
• Construction of the proposed additional buildings for parking, retail space and apartments and redevelopment of the existing office building into 140 apartments will inevitably greatly increase pressure on the city to protect these lands and the large financial investments from future sea level rise and flooding. Such protection will be very costly, if in fact it is even feasible or practical. If the lands are purchased by the City and converted to park lands as proposed by local citizens, flooding can be accommodated and planned for as is done in other communities at far lower cost to the City.
• If the City approves the Views on 5th proposal, it should note on such approval and related permits that there is no guarantee that this site will not be flooded due to predicted sea level rise or higher river flows than occur currently, that such flooding is outside the City’s control, and that the City is not required to undertake any preventive actions or mitigate or reimburse any resulting damages caused by such future floods; all such risk is on the project proponents and any subsequent owners and lessors.
• The project proponents have indicated they would plan and construct design elements that would take into account such future floods to protect the development and future owners and lessors from flood damages. Unfortunately, the design flood elevation is far too conservative and will not be effective, as the City’s design requirements are based on outdated climate change data, studies and projections. More recent projections have doubled the projected sea level rise in the next 30 and 80 years. And even then, climate change and sea level rise will continue for many decades and possibly centuries beyond the short planning horizon of the year 2100, reaching ever higher elevations. In addition, recent studies to verify actual climate change and sea level rise have shown the measured changes are tracking at the very highest climate projections, not the mid- level projections that many governments prefer to use for future planning. Please refer to the most recent scientific reports on sea level rise for the updated information.
• The City and the project proponents apparently use a different measurement for tidal elevations, sea level rise and flooding than is commonly used by the public, NOAA and the US Coast Guard (tide tables). Olympia already commonly has high tides of 17 feet or higher, however the project architect indicated they are only planning to protect the Views on 5th structures to an elevation of “16 feet as required by the City”. Since that would mean they would already be inadequate and could not protect the project from future sea level rise and higher flood levels, clearly the City is using a different means of measuring tidal heights and floods. That should be explained in the City and project materials so that the public can more readily understand what is being proposed and how it will be affected by sea level rise, high tides and floods.
• Future opportunities for public park lands in the downtown area are severely limited, especially unique and valuable parcels such as this that are adjacent to the shorelines and provide views of Budd Inlet, the estuary/lake and the Capitol. The site is also adjacent to Heritage Park and the Fountain Park. Future generations of Olympians will
2
be extremely grateful for the foresight shown if the City elects to create a public park on this space to complete the downtown parks area instead of allowing an extremely risky development.
• The Deschutes River, Capitol Lake and Budd Inlet are on the WA Dept. of Ecology’s list of impaired water bodies that are not meeting state and federal water quality standards as required by the Federal Clean Water Act and the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act. In response, the state is required by federal law to develop water cleanup plans (known as Total Maximum Daily Loads of pollution, or TMDLs) to bring those waters back into compliance with the standards. Ecology has developed and submitted a cleanup plan for EPA’s approval for the Deschutes River and its tributaries; it is in the process of doing the same for Budd Inlet and Capitol Lake. The technical studies for the latter plan have shown that nonpoint source and point source pollution must be significantly reduced and the 5th Avenue Dam must be entirely removed in order to attain water quality standards in Budd Inlet. The City should be doing all within its power to reduce such sources, and not allow them to expand. The Views on 5th proposal would clearly exacerbate the water quality problems, not ameliorate them.
• The project proponents have stated they will provide treatment for the stormwater runoff from the project site. Due to the water cleanup plans, such treatment will need to be far more effective than is currently required by the City. Under a recent ruling by the WA State Supreme Court, stormwater treatment requirements are not subject to vesting laws. The WA Dept. of Ecology’s water cleanup plans will require significant additional treatment for all sources of pollution to the estuary/Capital Lake and to Budd Inlet, beyond the current City requirements in their design manuals and stormwater permits. The project proponents appear to be unaware of the effect of these requirements on their future stormwater pollution treatment designs.
• Physical restoration of the Deschutes Estuary does not appear to be dependent on the site that is proposed for the Views on 5th development. However, if this proposal is permitted nothing should be allowed that would preclude the State’s future removal of the 5th Avenue dam and restoring estuarine water circulation. Demolition and construction associated with removal of the dam and building a new bridge could be a significant nuisance for those using Views on 5th.
• Seismic and liquefaction concerns -- the project proponents state they will retain the existing wooden pilings which were installed when the original building was constructed in 1965. Examining the top of a few of those old pilings as was done by the geotechnical consultant does not provide an overall assessment of the condition of those pilings from
3
top to bottom – they could be in very good or very poor shape. Driving new steel pilings to “the point of refusal or to bedrock” in not very reassuring. The depth to bedrock in this location is likely to be several hundred feet given the thousands of years of accumulated river and glacial sediments, an impossible depth to drive piling. The geotechnical consultant did not give an estimate of the depth of the “point of refusal” for pile driving. Given the nature of the sediments underlying this site, one wonders if the eventual result might be another problematic and unsafe tower similar to the now wildly leaning high rise condominium tower in San Francisco, which was built a few years ago on fill and accumulated sediments not very different from those under this project site.
Dave Peeler President of the Board of Directors Deschutes Estuary Restoration Team
Citations and Links: Deschutes Estuary Restoration Team: http://www.deschutesestuary.org/ DES Long-Term Planning for Capital Lake/Deschutes Estuary: https://des.wa.gov/about/projects-initiatives/capitol-lake Washington’s Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-quality/Water-improvement/Assessment-of- state-waters-303d Total Maximum Daily Load Process (aka water cleanup plans): https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-quality/Water-improvement/Total-Maximum- Daily-Load-process Deschutes River and Tributaries TMDL: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-quality/Water-improvement/Total-Maximum- Daily-Load-process/Directory-of-improvement-projects/Deschutes-River-and-tributaries Budd Inlet TMDL:
4 https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-quality/Water-improvement/Total-Maximum- Daily-Load-process/Directory-of-improvement-projects/Deschutes-River-watershed-area-Budd- Inlet
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26122017/climate-change-science-2017-year-review- evidence-impact-faster-more-extreme http://michaelmann.net/content/climate-change-happening-faster-expected-and-its-more- extreme-december-26-2017
"We have literally, in the space of a year, doubled our assessment of the potential sea level rise we could see by the end of this century. That is simply remarkable. And it is sobering," said Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann. (Dec. 2017)
Brief Resume for Dave Peeler: Dave Peeler was born and raised in Seattle and graduated from the University of Washington with a B.S. in Zoology and a B.A. in English Literature. He later studied environmental policy and sciences at The Evergreen State College in the MES program. Dave worked for the WA Dept. of Ecology for 33 years in the areas of water resources, water quality, shorelines management and Puget Sound restoration, holding many positions including Supervisor of the Basin Planning and Water Quality Standards Section, Water Quality Program Manager and Special Assistant to the Director. His work included water quality standards, water quality monitoring, waste discharge permits, nonpoint pollution source control programs, grants and loans for water pollution prevention and control, watershed pollution control plans and water resources management plans, among others. Subsequent to his initial retirement from Ecology in 2008, Dave held various positions: independent consultant; Director of Policy at the non-profit People For Puget Sound; and analyst at the Puget Sound Partnership assisting the formation of the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program. He fully retired in 2015. Dave is president of the board of the Deschutes Estuary Restoration Team (DERT) and president of the board of the Scott Lake homeowner’s association, past board member of the Griffin Neighborhood Association and past President of the Olympia Kiwanis Club.
5
Input on Views on Fifth Development in downtown Olympia Dick Binns, Olympia area resident ([email protected]) 3208 46th Ave NW, Olympia, 98502
I support the proposed development of Views on Fifth in downtown Olympia and ask that in considering the development proposal the City take into account the following specifics:
Economic:
1. Development and construction of Views on Fifth will create family wage jobs in Olympia. While the alternative proposed by some members of the public in the City purchasing the land for teardown of the original building and development of a city park would also create jobs, the jobs created would not be as many or as high skilled as those created by construction of Views on Fifth. 2. When complete, Views on Fifth will add to Olympia’s tax rolls with property tax, sales tax from the retail businesses located within the complex and the local purchasing power of the residents. If developed as a park, none of those economic benefits would accrue to Olympia and the City would incur operational costs in maintaining the park. 3. Development of Views on Fifth with 130 market rate units helps move Olympia towards a healthier mix of Low Income/Subsidized housing to Market Rate housing. As I understand two years ago approximately 85% of downtown Olympia’s housing was considered “low income” and I believe the figure now stands at ~ 67%. While it’s important to provide housing for low income individuals, you can’t have a healthy vibrant urban area with a disproportionate ratio of low income residents. I’m not an urban planner so I don’t know what the “ideal” ratio of low income to market rate housing is but I’d guess somewhere in the 25 to 33% range so if that’s the case Olympia still has some ways to go. In any event, Views on Fifth helps mitigate this issue in the right way which is growing the number of market rate housing units, not shrinking the pool of low income units.
Aesthetic:
1. It’s easy to denigrate the core Views on Fifth building as the “Mistake on the Lake” eyesore. But at its core the 1966 building is a midcentury modern classic. Cleaned and fixed up it could be a striking architectural anchor for the isthmus as people enter Olympia from the west. 2. There seems to be an obsession with perpetuating the old Neoclassical Capitol theme of Wilder & White on the part of those opposed to the Views on Fifth development. But, we don’t live in a monolithic Beaux Arts world and in my opinion there’s room for a range of architectural styles. One could view the striking Cherberg Library on the Capitol Campus and Views on Fifth as the midcentury modern bookends of the Capitol Campus. 3. We moved to Olympia from Portland four years ago and while there is much to commend in Olympia we do miss the urban vitality and density of Portland when compared with Olympia. Adding developments like Views on Fifth or 222 Market to Olympia will help Olympia grow its own unique urban density and vitality.
Kenneth Haner
From: Dorothy Gist
I attended the hearing on Tuesday and wish to commend the hearing officer for his clear communication, obvious desire to hear all sides and ability to create a calm atmosphere.
I don’t understand how a building that has been empty and unused for 10 years can be allowed to be remodeled and not meet all code requirements. That area has a 35 feet height limit. The building should be shortened to that height or demolished.
I am also concerned about the sea level rise protection technology. If there is a power outage, how will residents on the street level be protected from flooding.
Finally, the original Olmstead Plan for the area needs to be put in place. We don’t want Mistake by the Lake #2.
Dorothy Gist 1720 Hays Ave NW Olympia 98502
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Erica A. Cooper
I am writing in support of the Views on 5th project.
Downtown Olympia needs this type of development, and the blight of this area has adversely affected the entire downtown for far too long. Through the long and extensive recent Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Plan processes, the people of Olympia clearly expressed that they would welcome development as long as it fit the defined parameters and restrictions. Views on 5th fits those parameters perfectly, and should be approved.
Although I manage several historical buildings, and recently filled an application for one to be on the historic register, I completely reject the argument that the isthmus should and is part of the State Capitol Campus HIstoric District. The National Trust and the application for being declared on the register makes NO MENTION of views. They do not protect them.
I am sure that the state archives are FILLED with plans and visions for our state that are only realized on paper. The fact is, this property is NOT under the juristiction of the state, but of the City of Olympia. Their vision is not Olympia’s vision, and Olympia is not obligated to see it come to fruition. In fact, collectively speaking, the former governors who have spoken out against any development on the isthmus had collectively 56 years holding the highest office in the state, and did NOTHING to have the state purchase this land. Add in Mr. Munro’s service as Secretary of State for 20 years, and there is essentially 76 years of inaction in regards to this property. In fact, one could argue that they helped make the Capitol Center building viable by renting it for a state agency for a good number of years.
The “visions for Olympia” that Mr. Allen cites in his appeals are old and outdated. The City of Olympia employees worked long and hard the last couple of years on the Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master plan, and many citizens participated in long meetings to help form this vision. The Views on 5th new buildings comply not only with all the required laws, but with that vision.
Also, to deny reusing the existing building because it doesn’t comply with these new regulations when it is over 50 years old sets a dangerous precedent putting all of our historical buildings in our downtown at great risk.
Regards,
Erica A. Cooper Cooper Realty, Inc./Orca Construction, Inc. Phone: 360‐491‐4580
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Fred Macinnes
Dear Ms Floyd
We implore you to exercise your power to vote against the proposed development of this building.
We are 35 year home owner residents of Olympia. Please stop this development proposal. You've heard all the arguments. We don’t want it. Please.
Fred and Laurie MacInnes Olympia
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Frederick Adair
Dear Ms. Floyd:
My colleagues didn't want to stay long enough on Tuesday evening for the list to reach me, so please receive my comments on the project herein.
I am opposed to the project, mainly for the aesthetic reasons expressed be many on Tuesday evening.
I have specific points on the view, 4th and 5th avenues travel, and flooding.
I have checked the view of the Legislative Building looking southward from a southbound boat and find the legislative building becomes obscured by the isthmus building shortly after passing Boston Harbor. From the memorial on the north side of the Temple of Justice looking northward, the isthmus building blocks most of Budd Inlet.
The two streets on the isthmus are the only downtown connections to/from the west side short of going a long way to the south. These routes are now heavily travelled. The traffic increase from the proposed project likely would saturate the routes, especially before any serious remedies could be effectuated, if indeed any remedies could keep pace with traffic increases.
Referring to paragraph 15, page 21 of Attachment 1 to the Staff Report, I read "...Structures must show flood protections of up to the 16 foot mean sea level..." Olympia has experienced tides of 17 feet. Though these have been infrequent, the seawater report given to the city indicates that these tides will become more frequent as well as the coming of greater tides in the near future. City building requirements for the Isthmus should call for greater tidal protection than for tides of 16 feet.
Frederick Adair [email protected] PM 1/11/18
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Gary Wiles
Dear Ms. Floyd,
We're writing to comment on the current proposal to reconstruct the nine-story Capitol Center Building on Olympia's isthmus. We oppose this project for the following reasons and prefer that the isthmus eventually become a park.
1. A redeveloped Capitol Center Building with 140 residential units and retail stores will bring significant additional traffic congestion to downtown Olympia and 4th and 5th Streets on the isthmus. Downtown Olympia is already seeing greater vehicle congestion that will only increase with the many new residents brought in once the building is reopened. Additionally, the isthmus has the potential to become a major traffic bottleneck for which there are no easy solutions due to area's limited land space. We live in the west side neighborhood above Capitol Lake and believe the building's reopening will add significant difficulty for people driving between west Olympia and downtown during business and early evening hours. Does the city have any plans to address traffic-related concerns brought on by this project and who will pay for these?
2. As you know, future sea level rise will increasingly affect the downtown core of Olympia and at some point the city will have to begin making major infrastructural changes to prevent flooding of this area. This will be challenging enough without reopening the Capitol Center Building. However, presence of a major building at this location will add considerably to the area that must be protected and the cost of that protection. We presume the developer will provide little if any of the money needed for this eventual work and that the cost will fall upon city and state taxpayers. It would be much wiser to begin the gradual phase-out of all buildings on the isthmus now and to concentrate future protective efforts east of Water Street.
3. Even with redevelopment, the Capitol Center Building will remain an eyesore to the Capitol Lake area. Ideally, as much of the isthmus as possible should be turned into a park, which would add greatly to the scenic beauty of the area and the enjoyment of city residents and visitors.
4. We worry that downtown Olympia is already becoming too developed with many new buildings being recently completed or under construction. Reopening the Capitol Center Building will only add to this rapid growth, which threatens to eventually turn the city into just another crowded and expensive urban center on Puget Sound. We enjoy the city's current atmosphere and hope it will retain some of this in the future.
Thanks for allowing us to comment.
Gary Wiles and Jan Sharkey 521 Rogers St SW Olympia, WA 98502
1 Kenneth Haner
From: ompeaceful
2832 18th Ave SE, Olympia, WA 98501 1410 Ninth Ave SW, Olympia, WA 98502
January 11, 2018
City of Olympia Community Planning & Development, 604 4th Ave E. Olympia, WA 98501
Atten: Project Manager, Ms. N. Floyd, Mr. K. Haner and the Views on Fifth committee members:
After attending Tuesday's Views on Fifth hearing, I was both heartened and dismayed by what I saw and heard.
Heartened by the turn out of so many of my concerned community's citizens; yet dismayed to hear that after all our years of effort to remove that visual blight, it appears that the former DOC building is likely to remain standing.
Since it's inception, that building has been a visual barrier from the downtown area waterfront to our state capital and from there to the Olympics. Economic hopes and greed will cause us to miss this rare opportunity to create a truly beautiful public access to our waterfront activities.
If this mistake on the lake is to remain, many new problems will arise from the decision. Locals will likely skirt downtown to avoid the increased traffic congestion (caused by denser travel to and from the bridge) which already often bottleneck at that intersection.
Additionally, after listening to the architects' presentation, I am not convinced that flooding and earthquake vulnerabilities have been adequately addressed.
Development there will perpetuate the pollution problems that Capital Lake already engenders. Building removal, not approval, is Olympia's best option.
Sincerely, Gay Gorden
Public school educator and property owner since 1990
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Fleetwoods / Gold Cup Music
To: City Planner Nicole Floyd
Dear Nicole and Olympia City Planners,
My father (Ian Christopher, 1900-1997) looked for 10 years (more than 1/10th of his life) to find a little acreage on the bay, where he and Mom (Helen Christopher, www.TheFleetwoods.com/tributes.htm) could raise their family. I loved living there, from ages 8 to 18.
Successfully writing and recording the nation’s #1 Hits “Come Softly To Me” & “Mr. Blue” among a dozen Hit Singles and as many Albums, took me to live in other places: Seattle WA; Hollywood, San Francisco and Oakland CA, before marrying and moving to Olympia to raise our own family.
Here, following in my father’s footsteps, I searched for five years to find an appropriate home on the bay, for my young family. They are now grown, with children of their own, and I delight in sharing with them and with others, my little pioneer home (documented in Washington State Library books), The Firs, on Budd Inlet.
For 45 years (as of this June 1st, 2018), I’ve enjoyed the views of Budd Inlet, Mount Rainier and (when out on the water in front of the house) the Olympic Mountains to the North and the Washington State Capitol to the South.
Everyone should have the soul-nourishing experience of these gifts of nature, and I share them as much as I can, opening my home to family, friends, and friends of friends, four times each year: The Parade of Lighted Ships (first Saturday of December); Pisces Party (to celebrate February 19-March 20th birthdays, since mine, on February 29th, comes only once every four years); Friends & Family Fourth at The Firs (the 4th of July); and Harbor Days’ Tugboat Races, Party, Potluck & Jam (Sunday before Labor Day, in September).
Of course, I cannot accommodate all who visit Olympia, but those who do, or who live here, or who are homeless, all can enjoy these breathtaking views from the grounds of the Capitol; a sweeping vista from the Capitol campus, across Capital Lake and the Isthmus, up Budd Inlet (past my little home) to the Olympic Mountains, unobstructed except for the “Mistake by the Lake.”
It seems to me the greatest mistake would be to allow that building (the Capitol Center Building) to be refurbished and solidified into a complex of new buildings from which it would be difficult to extricate and eradicate (except perhaps by earthquake or flood) and which, to my great fear, might pave the way for other variant structures, closing off, even further, that priceless, historic view that is the right of all to enjoy.
In case there’s any doubt, my hope is that you, Nicole, and other responsible parties in whose hands we’ve entrusted the safe development of our downtown areas, will continue to have the foresight to preserve and protect what has been aptly described as one of the most beautiful capitol campus views in the United States.
1 Thank you, all, for your consideration and conscientiousness in this matter. May it bring you much satisfaction to know that you’ve done your utmost to preserve and protect these unique and beautiful natural treasures of our community, and the dreams that were envisioned by the designers of the Capitol Building group and it’s beautiful campus, celebrating our unique state.
By the way, I am willing to perform a Benefit Concert to help raise funds to raise the Mistake by the Lake and develop, in its place, a park with a view for all to share. (An appropriate Opening Act might be Songwriter Jane Canfield who has written songs supporting that goal - and other musicians who wish to preserve and share this spectacular view and state treasure).
With love of beauty and music to share, Gretchen [email protected]
2 3 Click to hear Sound Clips at www.GoldCupMusic.com
4 Kenneth Haner
From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 7:24 AM To: Nicole Floyd Subject: views on 5th
I support the project, can see it from my home, and believe it will enhance Olympia.
J. Stephen Pruka 1910 evergreen park dr sw #703 Olympia Wa 98502
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1
Letter to the Hearings Examiner re Views on Fifth
January 11, 2018
Ten years ago, in 2008, the community was roiled by the Triway proposal to raise heights on the isthmus. The majority of Olympia City Council members favored raising the heights to as much as 90 feet and approved a change to the zoning ordinance. Hundreds of local residents reacted with dismay and then surged into action. Through the hard work of doorbelling, educational mailings, and public events, in 2009 we managed to elect four people to council who were in sympathy with pushing back the height limits. In 2010 the height limits were restored to 35 feet.
What was behind this extraordinary triumph of the electorate? It was the shared hope of removing the “mistake by the lake” and preventing more such intrusions, to restore territorial views, including the sweep from the dome to mountains across Budd Inlet. But a host of practical considerations were raised: Climate change and flooding, earthquakes, traffic management, the need for affordable housing, and more.
And this didn’t just start 10 years ago. For years before that, efforts to put isthmus downtown waterfront land into the public sphere have been plugging along. The city wanted to sell the grassy park along Percival for housing; the citizens turned that back. The city wanted to sell a nearby parking lot. Same story. In charettes and other events through the years, consultants from afar have marveled at the gem of our waterfront. They have declared it to be of high value for public space. Such vistas and public lands confer a premium on all the surrounding territory.
Somehow the city has lacked the will or the wisdom to follow through with what the majority of the public wants for an area of regional and indeed statewide importance.
Please, Mr. Hearings Examiner, honor public sentiment. A building such as the View on Fifth can grace somewhere else in downtown Olympia, and not take the views from the rest of us.
Emily Ray Olympia resident at 2622 Buker St., Olympia, WA 98501 until August 2016 Currently at 3938 Holladay Park Loop SE, Lacey, WA 98503
Kenneth Haner
From: janet murr
To the members of the City Council : Please do the right thing and Do NOT approve this project known by the name of Views on Fifth.
Although I now live in Orange County, California, I was born and raised in Olympia graduating from Capital High School. Among other things, Olympia is known for its simplicity, beauty, waterfront, Capitol Building and breathtaking Capitol Lake views. Building anything that would block this 100 year old view of Capitol Lake would not only be a mistake it would be taking away one of the things that makes Olympia.... well, Olympia... Having lived in Southern California for awhile now, I cannot tell you the amount of building that goes on every day with what seems like no regard for parks, wildlife, views, grass, trees, or nature at all. I have come to expect this down here. But my gosh, that's what the Northwest is known for.... preserving it's beauty, it's green grass, it's gorgeous parks, beautiful lakes and waterfront views. Do you really want to make a decision based on a monetary goal that will forever change Olympia for us and for generations to come? Is it really worth it? It's NOT and you know it. Please do the right thing. Thank you. Janet
Janet Montecucco Murr Madison Street Partners VP Business Development Cell 949-861-3676 T 949 585 9865 | F 949 585 9866 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 350 Newport Beach, CA 92660 [email protected]
www.madisonstreetpartners.net
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Janice Arnold
Hello Nicole,
It seems important to clarify one more thing in reference to the Downtown Strategy to include in the record.
In 2008, as a response to a previously proposed development on the isthmus, I founded, with 4 other women, of a group called 20/20 Vision Olympia. I didn’t mention this my testimony at the Jan. 9, 2018 public hearing. I did mention some of our collective work - the Wake Up Washington YouTube video with the 6 living Governors about the issue of developments on the isthmus.
Our efforts in overcoming the previous development was the catalyst for lobbying City Council members to adapt a plan to create a strategy that would prevent our city from falling victim to developers designing downtown. . (I have copied Cheryl Selby, one of the people who supported this approach and thanks to her work and many others, the council hired Makers.)
The intent, spirt and objective of this strategy, was to shift downtown land use planning to professionals, and be consistent with the community goals and values.
This proposed project is in violation of the stated goals by the City in hiring an urban planner. We were told that the isthmus was not included in this plan because of it’s importance had to be dealt with in a forthcoming individual process.
Please, do not approve this development. It has not had the due process of urban planning our community has been promised.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Janice Arnold JA FELT Studio & Lab
Old Grand Mound Schoolhouse 20604 Grand Mound Way SW Centralia, WA 98531
360.402.3112 - mobile 360.273.8548 - studio 360.273.6991 - fax
www.jafelt.com - Web JA FELT - Facebook
1 Kenneth Haner
From: JEFF WAGNITZ Owner
Dear Ms. Floyd:
We appreciate the opportunity to register our opposition to the proposed redevelopment of the Capitol Center Building on Fifth Avenue Southwest. We believe that the Views on Fifth project is ill‐advised for a variety of reasons.
For one, the nine‐story building obstructs views from the south and, in particular, from the Capitol Campus. Left standing, the building would forever interfere with the lines‐of‐sight from the campus to Budd Inlet, interrupting an otherwise‐integrated landscape design from the Capitol to the bay.
Second, the development would constrain the public use of the isthmus itself, potentially as part of a consolidated system of park land, trails, and other amenities — all with views — on that land. The isthmus is a unique topological feature that deserves a more citizen‐oriented development plan that enhances, rather than detracts from, the physical beauty and access to the complex of public spaces north of the capitol.
We acknowledge that downtown needs more housing, but believe that it can be constructed at lower heights, farther from the waterfront edge, leaving the isthmus more open and attractive. We agree with former Washington Secretary of State Ralph Munro's view that the existing Capitol Center Building "needs to come down."
Jeff and Shelley Wagnitz 3354 Lakemoor Circle S.W Olympia
1 Kenneth Haner
From: jlmontec
I was born in Olympia, Please take the time to review this-
Jim Montecucco 425.451.1125
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note5.
------Original message ------From: lee montecucco
Subject: Fwd: [covp-board] Fwd: [growthtalk] Public sounds off on controversial downtown development - The Olympian
Send a quick email if you can, we are trying to show it matters to people all over state. I had a great info thing written up, it wouldn't. Send, got lost, just pick ore think up 2-3 sentences, send it off. DEADLINE IS 12 NOON TODAY. Send to Nicole Floyd, Olympia City Planner, [email protected]. Thanks, Mom.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "'[email protected]' [email protected] [covp-board]"
It is quite a coincidence that the board members of the Capitol Olympic Vista Park Assoc. Allen Miller, Jerry Reilly, Bob Robinson, Bob Jacobs, Bonnie Jacobs, John Bay all were called to speak after 11 p.m.. Also, Cristiana Kaminsky chair of the successful Olympia Park District Bond Issue and Janice Arnold, who with Mickey Hempsted, created the Video with the Wa Governors ...... were called to speak after 11 p.m.
1
We closed the meeting. There were no-pro development folks in the final 1 hour + of the testimony.
-----Original Message----- From: NANPARTLOW [email protected] [growthtalk]
January 10, 2018 09:33 AM
More than 200 people turned out for a public hearing Tuesday evening on a proposal to remake what may be the most controversial building in downtown Olympia.
The development known as Views on Fifth would transform the nine-story Capitol Center Building on Fifth Avenue Southwest — known to many as the “Mistake on the Lake” and vacant for more than a decade — into a mixed-use building with 140 residential units, a ground-floor restaurant and retail space. Developer Ken Brogan, who owns the property, plans to reconstruct the nine-story tower, tear down a one-story building on the lot and build two more buildings with apartments and parking..
The hearing, which went past midnight, was a chance for the public to weigh in prior to a hearing examiner deciding whether to approve project. Many talked about the risk for flooding and earthquake damage on the isthmus between Capitol Lake and West Bay, and how the building spoils views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains from the Capitol Campus.
“The Capitol Center Building needs to come down,” said Ralph Munro, a former Washington secretary of state whose grandfather helped build Capitol Campus buildings. “Allowing it to be reconstructed will set us back decades. It’s like a wart on the queen’s face — it has to go.”
If the development goes through, Bonnie Jacobs said, “It will just be Mistake on the Lake No. 2.”
The Thurston County Chamber of Commerce and Olympia Downtown Association have endorsed Views on Fifth; the latter said in an email newsletter it “redevelops what has long been a blighted, unused, and unsightly” building. It also would add much-needed housing since the city projects that 5,000 people will move into downtown over the next two decades.
Others at the hearing said Views on Fifth would help create a more vibrant downtown. 2
“This building will help move us in that direction,” said Bob Van Schoorl, a former Port of Olympia commissioner who lives within walking distance of the site.
The current 100-foot, mid-century modern tower was built in 1966. The city has since implemented a 35-foot limit on buildings in the area, but city staff determined the tower can stay as long as it doesn’t get any taller.
There have long been calls for the city to tear down the building to make room for a park on the isthmus. That would cost about $30 million, according to a feasibility study commissioned by the city in 2009.
Last month, city staff determined Brogan’s project does not fall under the state’s Shoreline Management Act and would not require an environmental impact statement to move forward.
A group represented by Olympia attorney Allen Miller, who opposed the project when he ran for Olympia City Council unsuccessfully in the fall, has appealed that decision based on “adverse effects” from building in an area susceptible to floods and earthquakes damage and with existing soil and groundwater pollution. In its appeal, the group called the building of the Capitol Center Building “the greatest land use error in the history of Olympia.” That appeal will be heard later, after which the hearing examiner will issue a decision.
Public comment about the project can be submitted until noon Friday to City Planner Nicole Floyd at [email protected].
Abby Spegman: 360-704-6869, @AbbySpegman
Nancy Partlow
__._,_.___
Posted by: "[email protected]"
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)
Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
VISIT YOUR GROUP
3
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
4 To: City of Olympia Hearings Examiner
From: John H. Bay
Date: January 11, 2018
Re: Testimony of John H. Bay against Project 17‐2528 Views on 5th
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony regarding the Views on 5th Land Use Approval Application. I will address both procedural and substantive matters.
My Qualifications:
I am a 13‐year resident of Olympia and own property in the downtown area. I am an attorney licensed in Hawaii (active) and California (inactive). I have professional experience as a land use attorney and consultant and specifically have been involved with coastal erosion and inundation issues in both Hawaii and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. A list of relevant publications and presentations is appended to this testimony. I also am a member of the Board of the Olympia Capital Parks Foundation.
Procedural Matters:
Review Standards:
This matter comes before you as an initial determination of the permit issuance, not as an appeal. Thus, as you noted at the January 9th hearing, you are tasked with making the land use application approval decision and imposing appropriate conditions, effectively standing in the shoes of the Director of the Community Planning and Development Department (CPDD). I believe, you also noted at the hearing that this was a case of procedural first impression for you.
In deciding the matters before you, and particularly in considering the CPDD “Hearing Examiner Staff Report”, your consideration should be de novo and given the same weight and deference as any other testimony received. The presumptions and weighting of staff and board determinations set forth in OMC §18.75.040 do not apply.
SEPA:
The purpose of SEPA is for decision‐makers to be able to “Consider environmental information (impacts, alternatives, and mitigation) before committing to a particular course of action.” (State Environmental Policy Act Handbook, p.2.) You currently have before you the appeal of the City’s DNS on this project and had initially schedule concurrent proceedings on the permit and the appeal. For good and sufficient reasons, you have bifurcated the matters. However, since you are the initial decision‐maker on the Land Use Approval application, you are the decision‐maker that must consider the environmental information before “committing to a particular course of action”, placing you in an interesting procedural bind. You must consider the SEPA information before deciding on the application. However, should you choose to grant the application after such review impliedly accepting the DNS as sufficient, and then consider the SEPA appeal, you are essentially hearing the appeal of your own decision, or conversely, deciding the SEPA appeal without a full hearing and record. To avoid this procedural quandary, I would suggest that you delay any decision on the Land Use Approval application, until you have heard and decided the SEPA appeal.
Substantive Matters:
Parking:
The Applicant determined that it was required to provide 74 parking spaces for the project. (Architectural Plans Revised, Sheet A101). The CPDD Staff Report cites this number as 58, without explanation of this discrepancy. The Staff Report goes on to dispute even the 58‐ space requirement citing various purported exemptions and coming to a landing at 17 or 18 spaces. The Applicant is correct, not the Staff.
The Staff Report apparently relies on the exemption for buildings constructed prior to 2002. OMC 18.38.160.C.1. However, subsection C.3 provides an exception to the exemption:
3. All new commercial buildings or expansions totaling over 3,000 square feet of gross leasable area, constructed after January 1, 2002, which are located within the Downtown Exempt Parking Area (See Figure 38‐2) shall be required to meet vehicle parking and bicycle standards (OMC 18.38.020 through 18.38.240).
This project is an expansion vastly exceeding 3,000 square feet. This project is not 3 projects, each subject to separate calculations and standards.
I recognize that the Applicant is providing 139 parking spaces, easily meeting the required number. However, the exercise to get the required spaces right is not academic. It matters for precedent for other development. It matters for marketing. It matters for parking management. The proper number should be set forth in the permit decision and the permit should be conditioned on such parking spaces being reserved for the commercial use.
Sea Level Rise:
As the Staff Report notes, “the City adopted OMC 16.80 to control the impacts of damage, to reduce risks and to avoid future costs associated with sea level rise.” OMC 16.80 goes further to state that:
E. Interpretation. In the interpretation and application of this ordinance, all provisions shall be: 1) Considered as minimum requirements; 2) Liberally construed in favor of the governing body
My concern is that the development as proposed is inconsistent with the requirements of OMC 16.80 and will likely increase future costs associated with sea level rise that will be borne by the citizens of Olympia.
4th and 5th avenues and Simmons and Sylvester streets and the adjacent sidewalks sit at 13.3’ to 14.8’ elevation (Civil Plans Revised. Sheet 8). The existing floor of the Tower is at 14.85’. (Preliminary Civil Plans. Sheet 5). The Applicant has chosen to elevate the Tower floor to the required 16’ and use the dry‐flood proofing measures described at the hearing for areas below 16’ such as the Northwest Building at 14.8’.
First, the “trust me” response to the efficacy of the mechanical barriers is disconcerting given the magnitude of the risk. Major permit decisions should not be made prior to the City determining that the Kevlar skirts will actually be deployed and effective during a flood emergency.
Second, the Application and the Staff Report are totally devoid of consideration of how the “flood‐proofing” for the project integrates with the adjacent streets and environment. This is a fatal flaw under the Chapter 16.80.
The Isthmus is particularly vulnerable to flooding and sea level rise. It is the critical transportation corridor linking the east and west portions of the City. Flooding of 4th and 5th Avenues is a serious event and that creates numerous health and safety hazards for Olympia residents. The Views on 5th project is a major development in the middle of this critical Isthmus area.
OMC 16.80.050.C provides:
C. Critical Facility. Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limits of the sea level rise flood damage area (SLRDA). Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within the SLRDA if no feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities constructed within the SLRDA shall have the lowest floor elevated or protected to one foot above the required 16 feet elevation. Access to and from the critical facility should also be protected to the height utilized above. Floodproofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure that toxic substances will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters. Access routes elevated to or above the level of the 16 foot flood elevation shall be provided to all critical facilities to the extent possible. (Emphasis added.) 4th and 5th Avenues, are arguably themselves critical facilities and clearly are “access routes” to Critical Facilities. Consequently, OMC 16.80 requires that they be protected to a height of at least 17 feet. Now picture that the sidewalks around the project are as low as 13.3’ and the woonerf ranges from 14.5’ to 15’. Thus, when, not if, 4th and 5th avenues are elevated to 17’, a horrendous interface between the street, the sidewalks, and the project will be created. Needless to say, it will be expensive to deal with and the expense will be borne by the citizens of Olympia. Indeed, the project as designed may limit or eliminate viable flood mitigation options for this critical area.
OMC 16.80 is to be interpreted liberally to implement its purposes including “to control the impacts of damage, to reduce risks and to avoid future costs associated with sea level rise.” Consequently, Views on 5th, must be designed to be capable of interfacing with 4th and 5th Avenues elevated to 17 feet and not to impede or increase the costs of implementing flood protection for these critical corridors.
Thank you for your consideration of my testimony.
Sincerely,
John H. Bay Relevant Presentations:
Bay, John H. (1996). “Legal and Policy Considerations for Shoreline Regulation and Hazard Mitigation in Hawaii,” Private Property and Government Takings seminar. Honolulu, Hawaii.
Bay, John H. (1996). Coastal Erosion and Sustainable Coastal Development Panel; World Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism. Honolulu, Hawaii.
Bay, John H. and Bay, Maile M. (1996). Long Term Coastal Retreat Options: Whose Responsibility Is It? Maui County Disaster Mitigation Workshop, Wailuku, Maui.
Relevant Publications:
Bay, John H., Bay, Maile M., Davidson‐Oh, Christine, Bryant, Kathy (1994). Hawaii Coastal Hazards Report I: Legal and Policy Considerations for Shoreline Regulation and Hazard Mitigation in Hawaii, Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii.
Hamnett, Michael, Fletcher, Charles, Bay, John H. (1995). Hawaii Coastal Hazards Report II: Legal and Policy Considerations for Shoreline Regulation and Hazard Mitigation in Hawaii Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii.
Kenneth Haner
From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:16 AM To: Nicole Floyd Subject: WART
You would have to know this building is not in the public interest.Please think of the future and the public and don't make another mistake on the lake. sincerely, John Montecucco
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Kathleen Callison
Dear Ms. Floyd,
I am writing to oppose in the strongest terms the development called Views on 5th.
The project is inappropriate and should be rejected on both technical and historical grounds.
The building location is potentially unstable fill. Flooding there will increase in the future. Building retractable walls to protect the building from flooding does not make economic sense, nor is it a reasonable solution for people who may be trapped in the building during flooding events.
Olympia must take this opportunity fulfill an historic vision of an open space and common area that links the Capital Campus with Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. Public open space at that location will support surrounding local businesses and serve as the “crossroads" for trails along the Puget Sound shoreline and in the Deschutes watershed.
The City should reject this proposal and take the opportunity to build a great public square at the heart of the capital. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Callison Kathleen Callison, PS 360.705.3087 | [email protected] | callisonlaw.com 802 Irving Street SW | Olympia, WA 98512
______
NOTICE: This communication (including any attachments) may contain privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and/or shred the materials and any attachments and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Thank you.
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Kelly Thompson
Please support development of the downtown tower on 5th. I live downtown, and I have experienced the transition of downtown from a desireable place to a place where people are afraid to walk. Some of the problems are perceived, some are real. We have provided services to those in need and thus have concentrated those folks with problems. We need to balance these services with infusion of positive places. Otherwise, we will continue to scare people away. 123 4th is a good start. The tower could be a tipping point that would ripple through downtown spaces.
Thanks for heading up this daring project evaluation. I would be happy to join in discussions of new directions for downtown Olympia.
Kelly Thompson 201 Simmons St NW Olympia WA 98501 [email protected]
1 Kenneth Haner
From: lee montecucco
Nicole Floyd Olympia Planning Department
Re‐development of the "Mistake by the Lake" building is an ill conceived and poorly planned idea! It will increase traffic congestion on the only practical route linking downtown and the Eastside with the Westside of Olympia. As has become apparent in the past, the effect of increased congestion on this 4th/5th corridor is crucial when considering rescue vehicles, ambulances and first responders in the event of a natural disaster (earthquake, flooding, liquefaction...etc.). A prime example would be the earthquake of 2001 in which the 4th Ave bridge was unusable and Deschutes Parkway was closed as well. Had this project been in place, with all of its residents and patrons, the additional traffic would have greatly multiplied the problems. We cannot take the chance on what this project would do for a future disaster which could be 10 times worse. This would affect the entire population, not just those who live downtown. Please do the right thing and do not approve this project.
Leslie "Lee" Montecucco 6948 44th Avenue NE Olympia, WA 98516
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Linda Gallagher
Dear Olympia: I am very opposed to any action allowing the Views on Fifth project to proceed. The Olympia waterfront needs to be preserved and protected as a park ‐ not just for Olympia but for our entire state. This has been promised as a Park for years by the City of Olympia and coalitions supporting the park. You have accepted private financial donations for the park and now need to keep your promises. A "park like setting" is not the same and not fair or right or just in this location.
And how ironic that the project name is "Views on Fifth" but some of the best public views in Olympia will essentially be stolen from the Capitol grounds, the community, and the public.
This project does not preserve the surplus hazardous "Mistake on the Lake' building at the same site. Obviously that building is being removed almost entirely.
The new project should not be allowed at all because of the environment impact, earthquake risk, traffic congestion and prior commitments by the City of Olympia over many years to have a park there. At most, the current 35' ht limit must apply and be enforced.
I am a long time resident of Seattle but I grew up in Olympia. I care deeply about preserving waterfront open spaces. I urge you to reject this project now or at least require changes including your own 35' ht limit and a full EIS from the project owner.
Please also stop relegating public comments from the opposition to a hearing time after 11pm. This is not fair or reasonable. I I ask that you Reschedule further public hearing to take meaningful comments from the public.
Thank you for considering my opposition.
‐Linda Gallagher, JD Seattle, WA
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Lorree Gardener
Dear Ms. Floyd,
Please count me and my family as OPPOSED to saving the too tall and in the wrong place eyesore on the Isthmus. No amount of money and upgrades will make it fit in where it should never be!
I live in the county and am not allowed to vote on city matters... which feels wrong to me, since Olympia is "my town" and I drive past that location most days of most weeks to do business and work downtown.
As the population grows in downtown Oly, we need more open space and vistas, not less!
Thank you for listening.
Sincerely, Lorree Gardener Milne
1 Kenneth Haner
From: maggie reardon
I am against allowing this project. At a minimum, the 9 story Mistake on the Lake must go.
This building, and the entire project must not be allowed, and for the VERY REASON some supporters voiced at the recent hearing. The expected influx of 5,000 residents to the downtown area means that it is imperative we have large open spaces, views, and a large park area to balance the density we need. Having a large, staggeringly beautiful open area will actually enhance the viability of downtown and the residential pull for the area. Some spoke of how the 149 living units is so needed for the coming influx. If this project is not built, there is no way that others cannot easily make up the difference.
Land for residential units can and will be found all through the urban area. Land with the potential to make Olympia itself a fabulous, landmark place to to live is not. This piece of land is all there is that can be used for a center core large park. Preserve it.
Thank You, Maggie Reardon
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Margaret Clifford
> I would like to submit comments as to the permit for the project on the Isthmus. I have lived in Olympia, short of college years, over 55 years. In all that time I have heard over and over how we should protect the views blocked by that building. > I find the exemption from the Shoreline Management Act while perhaps legal, it is not within the intent of the law. Dividing the project up so it is under more than one name, and therefore not covered by our law that protects our shorelines is a real estate trick, and should not be allowed on a project of this size. (One corner of the property was transferred to another name in order to avoid the need to comply with SMA.) In addition, reuse of this old building should still be required to meet new building codes. > This building is well known in town as the mistake on the lake. We have an opportunity to correct that mistake now. We voted to for park funds to purchase this property, that is how this should proceed. Building downtown is desirable, but not in that location, or at that height. > And finally, if we allow this kind of development within an area that will likely be under sea water in the near future, we should require that they sign a release so the City is not required to use our tax dollars to try expensive fixes to hold back the sea water. > Margaret Clifford > 1617 Columbia St. SW > Olympia, WA. 98501 > > >
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Mary Miller
Please please save the view from the lake. There are plenty places developers can build condo for the haves. This view from the lake as well as from the state capital should be preserved for everyone. City leaders need to look at the big picture and shat draws people to the state capital. Do you want to be remembered for helping the developers make money or for giving generations a place of beauty?
Sent from my iPhone
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Michael G Jackson
I support the proposed Views on Fifth. It will add 5,000 people downtown. A new park, if ever built, will just be another druggies hang out
Sent from my iPhone Michael G. Jackson
1
January 11, 2018 Paul Williams, 1921 Fir St NE, Olympia WA [email protected]
To the City of Olympia Hearing Examiner, Mark Scheibmeir:
You will find below a number of comments regarding the proposed development project Views on 5th. There are a number of attachments to my written testimony, organized according to this letter. Thank you for taking the time to review these documents.
Olympia Comprehensive Plan, Current Revision (September 16, 2017)
Overview
Goal GL16 of Olympia’s Comprehensive Plan, located in the chapter Land Use and Urban Design, section Housing, states:
“The range of housing types and densities are consistent with the community’s changing population needs and preferences.”
It is unclear to me whether the stated Goals of the Comprehensive Plan govern policy and decision making, and what types of accountability the city leadership, citizen boards, and staff have to these Goals. If there is any legal basis for decision making based on the Goals, I would posit that the proposed development has not met the requirements for finding “[consistency] with the community’s changing population needs and preferences.”
Relevant policies
Policy PL16.1 states:
“Support increasing housing densities through the well-designed, efficient, and cost-effective use of buildable land, consistent with environmental constraints and affordability. Use both incentives and regulations, such as minimum and maximum density limits, to achieve such efficient use.”
Again, it is clear to me that this Policy does not strictly disallow housing that does not meet affordability definitions (in fact, the City yet has no standard definition) to be built within the City. My point here is that the the Policy’s applicability to specific projects is gray, and that, once again, what measure of accountability do these Goals and Policies have if we are able to ignore them at will?
January 11, 2018 Paul Williams, 1921 Fir St NE, Olympia WA [email protected]
It is also worth noting, re: PL16, that on Mr. Brogan’s original SEPA Checklist, dated June 14, 2017, in section 9.a., he is asked:
“Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.”
To which he replies:
“138 high income housing units”.
In the City’s response to his SEPA checklist, the Review Table (1-2), the city states on page 6, response B.9.a:
“Consider changing high income to market rate.”
despite the fact that the SEPA Checklist document instructs the applicant to choose from the options low, middle, or high income. Mr. Brogan replies on his revised SEPA, dated October 11, 2017, section 9.a:
“The project will provide 140 market rate apartments.”
Anyways, enough of the back-and-forth. I believe my point is clear, that the City is encouraging high-income development despite its Policies and Goals in the comprehensive plan instructing it to encourage affordable housing.
Homelessness
The most recent report from the Homelessness Survey done in the Thurston County counts 584 people living without homes (Attachment 1-1). This is an incredible fact, particularly with reference to Mr. Brogan’s intention to rent his 140 units to those with ‘high incomes’. The ‘needs and preferences’ of the population, with regard to housing, in purely statistical and non-moral terms, do not demonstrate a high degree of need for high income housing, while they do clearly demonstrate a need for low-income housing.
“Hotel” Argument
I would also like to address a fear I have about this project. As you are intimately aware, the proposal to turn the same site in question into a hotel failed years ago, thanks to the efforts of community members expressing their preferences.
I find it highly unlikely that there are 138 high-income people in the Olympia area ready to move into this building. Many of the developments completed in the past few years in
January 11, 2018 Paul Williams, 1921 Fir St NE, Olympia WA [email protected]
downtown Olympia have never been fully occupied, and some of those, notably the project at 123 4th Ave W, rent their units nightly on Airbnb. I am attaching screenshots from Airbnb.com (Attachment 1-2).
While it is explicitly unclear that the management is using the units as hotel rooms, all of the units posted list the exact same description, and are listed by the same user. It is also the case the the City has no regulations on Airbnb-like activities, so this point also falls under Comp Plan Goal GL16.
Future Policies and Ordinances
The final point I have to make under GL16 is that City staff and leadership are currently working on new and revised plans for sea-level rise, housing affordability, and environmental regulation. For example, see the city’s sea level rise webpage here: http://olympiawa.gov/city-utilities/storm-and-surface-water/sea-level-rise.aspx
I find it reasonable to assume that the results of these studies and policy decisions would impact this development proposal. I would again argue that community needs and preferences should be taken into account in this case on the grounds that allowing proposed developments to go through despite ongoing City-wide research and policy development projects with high levels of community involvement and input is detrimental to the community’s goals, and demonstrates a lack of regard for the process by which our community is planning for the future.
Which leads me into my next piece...
Mr. Brogan’s Unethical Business and Development Practices
I am attaching a number of newspaper articles that I believe demonstrate Mr. Brogan’s lack of regard for environmental regulations and concerns in his development practices. I believe they also demonstrate his willingness to defect from his responsibility to the community in these cases by declaring bankruptcy, among other things. In this case it is worth noting that Mr. Brogan is being backed by a number of capital investors (documents also attached, Attachments 2-1 through 2-8), some out of state, upon whose investment the development of this project hinges. Should future concerns or litigation be raised I wonder who would come to bear the practical and financial responsibility of cleanup.
January 11, 2018 Paul Williams, 1921 Fir St NE, Olympia WA [email protected]
I am foregoing attaching to you documents such as Mr. Brogan’s original and revised SEPA documents, the City’s Review Table document, etc., in the assumption that you already have plenty of copies of them.
Thank you again for taking the time to review this information.Please contact me if you have any questions about my complaints. I would be happy to provide further information.
Paul Williams 1921 Fir St NE Olympia WA 98506 360-628-4776 [email protected]
HOMELESS CENSUS RESULTS THURSTON COUNTY
COUNTY POINT-IN-TIME COUNT Sheltered Transitional Unsheltered Total 2006 156 163 122 441 2007 249 143 187 579 2008 168 100 194 462 2009 323 203 219 745 2010 181 432 363 976 2011 95 204 267 566 2012 167 377 164 708 2013 113 321 230 664 2014 172 147 257 576 2015 158 155 163 476 2016 223 174 189 586
SOURCE Thurston County Public Health and Social Services http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/health/sscp/reports.html
NOTE A significant drop was seen from the 2010 to 2011 Homeless Numbers may vary between state report and county report.
DATE UPDATED 10/10/2016
Kenneth Haner
From: Rachel Newmann
Date: January 12, 2018
To: Ms. Nicole Floyd, City of Olympia Senior Planner
From: Rachel Newmann, Resident of Olympia since 1982, Member of City of Olympia Heritage Commission and over ten years of participation in Downtown Planning with recognition in recent council meeting by Mayor Cheryl Selby for downtown advocacy, Supporter of recent Olympia Parks Bond and all other Bonds requested by City of Olympia and Olympia School District since 1982, Current President and long time member of Neighborhood Association Board.
Re: #17-2528; Views on 5th
A number of problematic statements exist in the Staff’s Recommendation for approval of project #17-2528. Because of the longtime interest of Olympia residents in the development of the Isthmus, transparent resolution of these questionable areas prior to approval by the Hearings Examiner is important in creating and maintaining trust in our governmental institutions and systems. The public’s interest has been demonstrated in referendums, support of governors, elected officials, support of the Olympia Parks Bond, many public forums, and many hours donated by citizens to understand and address the relevant current and future issues related to development on the Isthmus.
In this letter, I want to address only three of the areas where questionable interpretation of the code or City policy exists:
1. Many of the public are concerned the developer purchased the tower in order to obtain a footprint and a non-conforming height in order to build a new structure. If an essentially new structure is built on an existing footprint, won’t this exceed the non-conforming provisions of OMC 18.37 (as in A below)?
A. Alterations. Any building or structure that does not meet the criteria in section 18.37.040 (B) and is nonconforming as to development/building coverage, yard, building setback, height, open space or density provisions of the use district in which it is located, may be enlarged or remodeled if such alterations do not contribute to further nonconformity. To the extent practical and feasible, any such alteration shall bring the building or structure into closer conformance with the provisions of this title. Enlargement of a nonconforming building within a required yard, whether horizontally or vertically, shall constitute a further nonconformity. Preservation of structure remnants, including but not limited to walls and foundations, solely to justify an exception from conformance shall not be permitted.
Adding to concern about the developer’s intent is the lseparation of a portion of the property so that review of project #17-2528 is not required to comply with the Shoreline Management Plan.
2. Can a permit be issued for non-conforming structures if greater than 50% is destroyed due to an act of God or act of public enemy? The public needs to know how the determination of percent destroyed is calculated for #17-2528 (as described in D below).
D. Restoration. In the event that a nonconforming structure or building is less than fifty (50) percent destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God or act of public enemy, nothing in this title shall prevent the securing of building permit within six (6) months from the date of destruction for the restoration of said structure. The determination of whether a building or structure is less than fifty (50) percent destroyed shall rest with the building inspector and shall be based on the actual cost of replacing said structure or building. In case the building to be restored houses a nonconforming use, such use is not to be changed unless such change is in conformance with the portion of this section dealing with conversions.
3. The vision and goals of the Downtown Strategy should not be used to justify the development of the #17-2528. I participated in and attended public multiple meetings during the development of the Downtown Strategy. The Stakeholders and public were specifically told that the Downtown Strategy vision and goals did not apply to development on the Isthmus. Numerous times the public was informed that due to the complexity of the land use issues regarding the Isthmus, separate process would be undertaken for the Isthmus. Therefore, the goals of the Downtown Strategy should not be used to support the developer’s proposal. All references to the Downtown and the Downtown Strategy should be removed from the staff recommendation.
Thank you for your consideration of my request for denial of the Staff Recommendation for Approval of #17-2528.
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Ralph Munro
Good letter! Ralph
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 12, 2018, at 2:05 AM, Fleetwoods / Gold Cup Music
To: City Planner Nicole Floyd
Dear Nicole and Olympia City Planners,
My father (Ian Christopher, 1900-1997) looked for 10 years (more than 1/10th of his life) to find a little acreage on the bay, where he and Mom (Helen Christopher, www.TheFleetwoods.com/tributes.htm) could raise their family. I loved living there, from ages 8 to 18.
Successfully writing and recording the nation’s #1 Hits “Come Softly To Me” & “Mr. Blue” among a dozen Hit Singles and as many Albums, took me to live in other places: Seattle WA; Hollywood, San Francisco and Oakland CA, before marrying and moving to Olympia to raise our own family.
Here, following in my father’s footsteps, I searched for five years to find an appropriate home on the bay, for my young family. They are now grown, with children of their own, and I delight in sharing with them and with others, my little pioneer home (documented in Washington State Library books), The Firs, on Budd Inlet.
For 45 years (as of this June 1st, 2018), I’ve enjoyed the views of Budd Inlet, Mount Rainier and (when out on the water in front of the house) the Olympic Mountains to the North and the Washington State Capitol to the South.
Everyone should have the soul-nourishing experience of these gifts of nature, and I share them as much as I can, opening my home to family, friends, and friends of friends, four times each year: The Parade of Lighted Ships (first Saturday of December); Pisces Party (to celebrate February 19-March 20th birthdays, since mine, on February 29th, comes only once every four years); Friends & Family Fourth at The Firs (the 4th of July); and Harbor Days’ Tugboat Races, Party, Potluck & Jam (Sunday before Labor Day, in September).
Of course, I cannot accommodate all who visit Olympia, but those who do, or who live here, or who are homeless, all can enjoy these breathtaking views from the grounds of the Capitol; a sweeping vista from the Capitol campus, across Capital Lake and the Isthmus, up Budd Inlet (past my little home) to the Olympic Mountains, unobstructed except for the “Mistake by the Lake.” 1
It seems to me the greatest mistake would be to allow that building (the Capitol Center Building) to be refurbished and solidified into a complex of new buildings from which it would be difficult to extricate and eradicate (except perhaps by earthquake or flood) and which, to my great fear, might pave the way for other variant structures, closing off, even further, that priceless, historic view that is the right of all to enjoy.
In case there’s any doubt, my hope is that you, Nicole, and other responsible parties in whose hands we’ve entrusted the safe development of our downtown areas, will continue to have the foresight to preserve and protect what has been aptly described as one of the most beautiful capitol campus views in the United States.
Thank you, all, for your consideration and conscientiousness in this matter. May it bring you much satisfaction to know that you’ve done your utmost to preserve and protect these unique and beautiful natural treasures of our community, and the dreams that were envisioned by the designers of the Capitol Building group and it’s beautiful campus, celebrating our unique state.
By the way, I am willing to perform a Benefit Concert to help raise funds to raise the Mistake by the Lake and develop, in its place, a park with a view for all to share. (An appropriate Opening Act might be Songwriter Jane Canfield who has written songs supporting that goal - and other musicians who wish to preserve and share this spectacular view and state treasure).
With love of beauty and music to share, Gretchen [email protected]
2 Kenneth Haner
From: Robin Vaupel
Nicole, My wife and I (along with our immediate neighbors and family) are in favor of total REMOVAL of the "Mistake by the Lake." The removal will make the area more attractive to tourism and will bring more money to the community by making the area a multi-use park. With future potential flooding and traffic concerns the removal of the buildings is the only safe, environmental and logical solution to this eye sore of a problem.
Michael & Robin Vaupel 8425 Willow Drive NE Olympia, WA. 98506 360-570-8197 [email protected]
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Roger Grieb
This project makes sense to me , it is long over due to develop this sight instead of watching it deteriorate, there is already a beautiful park around the lake, let’s attract people who will spend money downtown instead of begging for it.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
1 Kenneth Haner
From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 9:42 AM To: Nicole Floyd Subject: The Mistake by the Lake
Nicole Floyd:
When I visited the State Capitol in 2001, wandering around the grounds, I stood on the bluff by Capitol Lake and was shocked to see the Mistake by the Lake. What's THAT! It's ugly. It blocks my view of the Olympic Mountains! An otherwise gorgeous view! Why would anyone let that happen?
If this old building is torn down, as it should have been long ago, we could claim the finest view from any state Capitol in the country. It would bring more tourists to Olympia, and therefore more money to the City.
Next summer Olympia will host the first cruise ship to stop over. Those passengers will be taken on a tour of the Capitol, and will undoubtedly react as I did to the view. It's not something to be proud of at present. It's time to correct the mistake of the past and look to the future, not extend it for another 50+ years.
Ruth Shearer, retired in Lacey now.
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Sandy Montecucco
Please don't allow the new building on the lake. We need to respect the environment by not building there, not build where flooding can be a problem, an instead construct a park on the Olympia waterfront. People from all over the state come to the Capitol, and should be able to enjoy a beautiful view. Please stop the new building!
Thank you, Sandy Montecucco Vancouver, Washington 98662
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Stanley Crossman
I support the renovation, which will employ people and improve downtown. Thanks Stanley Crossman 1910 Evergreen Park Dr SW 703 Olympia 98502
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Steve
I would like to vote NO for the new building construction at the location on 5th Ave known as the Capitol Center Building. The decisions made now to approve the building will be a big mistake. The property should be transformed into the expansion of Heritage Park. Do the right thing and oppose this view‐killing monstrosity !!!
Thank you! Steven Whalen Olympia, WA
1 Kenneth Haner
From: Tom Culhane
January 11, 2018
Re: Opposition to Proposed No. 17‐2528 Capitol Center Land Use Approval
Nicole Floyd, Senior Planner, AICP
City of Olympia
Community Planning and Development Department
Dear Ms. Floyd,
I am writing to oppose land use approval for the proposed large multi‐use development in the isthmus parcel between 4th and 5th Avenue north of Capitol Lake and Heritage Park. This proposal includes reuse of the existing Capitol Center Building tower to provide 140 new residences and construction of two new mixed‐use buildings.
I sent a previous short email in opposition to the project, but here I am able to develop my arguments further. Much of this email has been adapted from another comment filed regarding this project, with my retaining those comments that I agree with and my own thoughts added.
My concerns regarding this land use proposal are as follows:
BUILT ENVIRONMENT:
1) Historic and Cultural Preservation of the Washington State Capitol Campus ‐
1 The US Department of Interior and the National Park Service designated the Washington State Capitol Campus to the National Register of Historic Places (#79002564) as a “Historic District” including the “State Capitol and environs.” The proposed project must be analyzed for relevance and potential adverse effects on Washington State Capitol Campus as it relates to the National Register of Historic
Places.
2) State Capitol Campus View Corridor Preservation
The vision for the design of the North Capital Campus has been part of the State of Washington and City of Olympia plans since 1911, when Wilder and White won a national design competition. Their design captured the imagination of the selection committee with their unique approach – a group of symmetrically arranged buildings in a forest, atop a bluff overlooking Percival Landing, Budd Inlet, Puget Sound and the City of Olympia. An integral part of the planners’ vision was that the Capitol buildings would be connected to the City by an elegant open space that would enhance the overall aesthetic character of the City and the Capitol.
Their vision has remained alive for over one over hundred years and many plan features have been implemented:
• In 1951, Capitol Lake was constructed as a water body to feature and celebrate the majestic beauty of the historic State Capitol Campus buildings and as an amenity for the City of Olympia.
• In 1986, the Mayor of Olympia rekindled the vision of the Wilder and White plan, leading to a groundswell of support from both local and statewide constituents.
• In 1992, the State hired The Portico Group to prepare a Pre‐design Study to develop the vision, goals and master plan for the expansion of the North Capitol Campus. At the same time, the North Capitol Campus Heritage Park Committee was formed including prominent citizens and politicians from Olympia and other portions of the State to support the project.
If the proposed development is allowed to proceed, the visual impact will irreparably harm the visual resource that the citizens of Olympia and the State have supported by providing public and private funds to make Heritage Park a reality. The citizen’s of Washington have entrusted State and Local public officials to be stewards of the land and preserve the standards to which the design of Heritage Park is based. The public vista is a State treasure that was envisioned to preserve the panoramic views to the north from the Capitol bluff to Budd Inlet, South Puget Sound, and the Olympic Mountains; and views south from the isthmus to the North Capitol Campus. The adverse effect of the proposed development should not be permitted.
3) Non‐conforming Existing Capitol Center Building
2 The existing Capitol Center Building is a non‐conforming use and structure to the 35‐foot height limit for the last 12 years. This 35 foot limit was enacted to address the concerns in 1) and 2) above, and to meet the clear desire of Olympia residents, and to will not be addressed by allowing a continuation of this non‐conforming use.
4) City of Olympia Comprehensive Plan and State of Washington Capitol Master Plan
The Comprehensive Plan PL3.3 states “Protect historic vistas from the Capitol Campus to Budd Inlet and the Olympic Mountains and from Budd Inlet to the Capitol Group.” Furthermore, PL18.9 states, “Limit building heights to accentuate, and retain selected public views of the Capitol dome.” The views protected by the adopted Comprehensive Plan would be adversely affected by this project.
5) Public Trust Doctrine
Under the Public Trust Doctrine the State holds all shorelines and waters in trust for the people of Washington. This includes public views to the surrounding landscapes of Capitol Lake, Percival Landing, Budd Inlet, Puget Sound, Olympic Mountains and Historic Capitol Buildings Group are protected. The proposed project would adversely impact public views held in trust for the people of Washington.
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
6) Transportation
4th and 5th Avenues are major transportation corridors In the City of Olympia. The City’s analysis suggests these parking, public transit and traffic impacts have been addressed due to the presence of public transit adjacent to the building, but this fails to account for the increased vehicle traffic from residents and shoppers that would be associated with the project.
7) Flood Hazard Zone
The proposed isthmus development is mapped to be within the City of Olympia Flood Hazard Zone under a 100‐year storm tide with a 6‐inch sea level rise. The adverse effects pose safety issues due to sea level rise and flooding, and are inadequately mitigated for residents and shoppers by emergency surge walls that would be deployed during flood events.
8) Seismic and Liquefaction Hazard Zone
The Washington DNR maps identify the proposed isthmus development to be in the high hazard and liquefaction zone. The older existing tower was constructed using wood pilings and a method that would not 3 be permitted under existing regulations. Although the building has been seismically retrofitted,t still falls short of modern structures.
In conclusion, I found the presentation of the project by the City of Olympia during the January 9, 2018 meeting to be biased and disingenuous. As a case in point the City presented one slide indicating protected views that the project needs to comply with. I cannot recall the source of the map in that slide, but it included small arrows depicting protected views. That map suggested the only protected views relevant to the project were those standing with one’s back to the project looking up at the Capital Campus or out at the water. Everyone’s knows the views of concern are standing at the Capital Campus looking out at Puget Sound. The fact that the City can be so biased seriously calls into question the entire process.
Therefore, based on all of these concerns the Isthmus Capitol Building Multi‐Use Development Land Use Approval should be denied.
Sincerely,
Tom Culhane
Olympia Resident
4 Kenneth Haner
From: wanda hedrick
I am opposed to the Views on 5th development. Rather than list my objections, I will say that I agree, in whole, with the opposition as presented by Allen Miller.
Wanda Hedrick 400 17th Ave SE Olympia, WA 98501
1