The people of Olympia versus the Olympia City Council : The continuing tug-of-war over the isthmus

author : Janet Blanding topic : Friends of the Waterfront | rezone

by Janet Blanding

“It ain’t over until it’s paved over,” declared Bonnie Jacobs of Friends of the Waterfront at a recent citizens forum to save the isthmus. Thought it was a warm, sunny Saturday morning, the Columbia room in the Capitol basement was filled to capacity, standing room only. Event organizers made several trips to the cafeteria to retrieve more chairs to accommodate the nearly 180 people who wanted to know what could be done to stop the unpopular proposed rezone of the isthmus. Among the crowd was newly re-elected Senator Karen Fraser. Sponsored by the Friends of the Waterfront, 20/20 Vision Olympia, the Capitol Park Foundation and the League of Women Voters, the forum featured a number of speakers, who addressed topics ranging from the status of the citizen initiative, to the impact of the rezone on the proposed Heritage Center on the Capitol Campus, to the possible course of litigation should the rezone be approved by the Olympia City Council.

“The Bottom of the Third”

“This issue is in the bottom of the third inning,” said Jerry Reilly, Chair of the Capitol Park Foundation, when he spoke at the citizens forum. “It has a long, long way to go.” Former Olympia Mayor and Friends of the Waterfront founding member Bob Jacobs outlined the steps required to rezone the isthmus: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a height amendment, and an amendment to the Shoreline Master program. Thad Curtz gave a brief overview of what threatens to be a very long process of litigation, which may ultimately involve the Department of Ecology, the Growth Management Hearings Board, the Court of Appeals, the State Supreme Court, and the Shoreline Hearings Board. “Should this whole scenario play out,” says Curtz, “it would be four to six years before anything could be built on the isthmus.” And that’s if all rulings are in favor of the developer.

Pro Bono Legal Representation

Both the Friends of the Waterfront and the Capitol Park Foundation have formed legal committees which are planning to fight the rezone legally if the city council adopts the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance, which it will most likely do at the December 16 council meeting. The two groups and their legal committees are working together amicably, as they have to date, although they may approach similar legal problems from slightly different angles. Both groups have attorneys and legal researchers working pro bono, yet Curtz acknowledged that there will most likely be legal costs that will need to be covered by fundraising, that the groups fighting to preserve the isthmus will most likely have to appeal to concerned members of the public for funds to legally block this unpopular project. He observed wryly that Olympia taxpayers will be picking up the tab for the city’s legal costs as well. Some audience members expressed frustration that they will be paying for both sides of a legal battle to fight something that the majority of the public has clearly expressed they do not want.

Many of the people at the forum also voiced discontent with the unwillingness of the city council to respond, or even listen to them. Apparently, email messages which had the word “isthmus” in the subject line were returned unread. The public comment period was closed, and the feelings of the public are being treated as an unnecessary nuisance.

“A View for All”

The forum concluded with the debut of “A View for All,” a song written by local resident and rezone opponent Jane Canfield. Canfield, who is now a second grade teacher, was formerly a professional songwriter in Nashville. In a phone interview she explained that nowadays, instead of writing for a commercial market, her songs reflect her emotional responses to events. Because she enjoys walking the serpentine switchback trail down the hillside near Capitol Lake, Canfield is dismayed that the beautiful views there are threatened, that the open space there will be ruined by massive “Wal-mart sized condos down there, block to block.” [See lyrics to “A View for All,” page ____)

Standing Room Only – Again

On November 25, the Olympia City Council was to begin deliberations on the rezone. To the dismay of the standing room only crowd who gathered to witness the discussion, the council treated the rezone as a foregone conclusion, and the only deliberations involved details of its enactment As Jerry Reilly of the Capitol Park Foundation put it, “The ‘deliberations’ of the council were disappointing and frustrating. The only deliberations that took place were how to carry out this colossal mistake of a rezone, not whether it should be done at all.” Members of the public watched helplessly as their elected representatives proceeded as if the public had overwhelmingly endorsed this project, rather than just the opposite. Councilmembers asked questions and proposed different strategies for enacting “view mitigations,” that supposedly protect the views the large buildings will block, and voted to have a hearing review board oversee the project, rather than depending on a development agreement with Triway, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Jeff Kingsbury preferred to leave the finer points in the hands of a review board, as he didn’t want to “sweat the details,” while councilmember Rhenda Strub, an engineer, wanted to “keep the details under this board’s control as long as possible.” Ultimately, Kingsbury prevailed, with the council voting five to two to let the finer points be resolved by a hearing examiner rather than an agreement. It should be noted that without a binding development agreement, the property will be easier to sell, which some people believe has been Triway’s plan all along.

Apparently, the thousands of signatures on the citizen initiative and the hundreds of public communications addressed to the city council expressing opposition to this project resulted only in a few ridiculously paltry “mitigations” to ease the pain of the loss of cherished views. Councilmember Karen Messmer expressed some doubts that the proposed mitigations would do much to compensate, and the standing room audience at the council meeting overwhelmingly agreed. For instance, will the 100,000 yearly visitors to the Capitol Campus not mind that they can no longer see the Olympic mountains or Budd Bay if Larida Passage provides parking for the public – one stall per 10,000 square feet of building area? Will the people jogging around Capitol Lake fail to notice that the sunshine and views are blocked if the seven story buildings are set back at least eight feet from the sidewalk? Does a 400 square foot viewing platform somehow compensate for the loss of views everywhere else in the city?

A number of citizens pleaded with the council to at least delay passage of the amendment until after the park feasibility study had been completed. “Please slow down and wait for the study,” implored Jane Canfield. Sandy Mayes commented that moving ahead with the rezone before completing the feasibility study was a mistake, since the predicted effect of the rezone would be to increase the value of the land and make it more difficult for the public to purchase; the premature rezone of the isthmus would “effectively sabotage the feasibility of a park.” Mayes stated that the only way to proceed in good faith, would be for the council to complete the study before voting on the rezone. Walt Jorgensen expressed frustration with the seeming unwillingness of the council to take into account the will of the community, saying “When thousands of your constituents give voice to something, you need to give attention to it”. Gretchen Christopher shared his sentiments, saying, “You’re ignoring me, and hundreds if not thousands of other citizens.” She went on to wonder why the council would move ahead against the will of the majority for the sake of a developer who does not have a good track record, and is currently embroiled in several lawsuits.

Trouble with Triway

A number of rezone proponents have rhapsodized over Tri Vo’s being a local developer who is eager to move ahead with a local project. However, the city council seems to have taken little note of the many unhappy local residents with complaints about local problems created by Triway. [Editor’s note: Works In Process is in the process of acquiring public records and gathering information to provide more in-depth coverage of these complaints regarding Cooper Crest, Tumwater Hill, Nisqually Bend and Horizon Pointe in the January issue. Contact us at olywip@gmail.com if you have information to share about these or other projects.] It is interesting to note that while proponents of the Larida Passage project have often argued passionately that the high-density project is an environmentally responsible alternative to suburban sprawl, many of the complaints regarding Triway center around its irresponsibility when it comes to environmental stewardship. And most of Triway’s projects represent the essence of “sprawl” – just ask the dead trees.

Not far outside Olympia’s city limits on the West Side, on a hillside overlooking Budd inlet, a moldering pile of dead alders in a vacant lot owned by Tri Vo tell a sad story. Almost five years ago, the lot was cleared of native vegetation, on a Sunday morning, without a permit, for no discernible purpose. Shawn Newman, who lives nearby and sometimes strolls by the still unused lot with his dog, describes what happened. Newman and other neighbors noticed a several trucks going down the hill and a lot of noise and activity in the lot on a weekend morning. Newman “thought it was odd that this was happening on a weekend,” so he moseyed down to the lot, and observed that trees were being cut. He looked around to see if there were permits posted, but none were evident. Being as it was a weekend, it was impossible to contact the county, but Newman called them Monday, by which time all the trees were lying dead on the ground, where they remain to this day. “I don't know for a fact if it was anything illegal,” said Newman, “but I thought it was unusual. I thought it was odd.”

A recent call to the Thurston County Permits Division revealed that the clearing of the lot was indeed done without a permit, that a stop work order was issued (after all the work had been done), but the matter has since been resolved to the County’s satisfaction.

“Tri Vo has not lived up to development agreements”

Triway’s failure to comply with permit requirements has also been a problem at the Cooper Crest subdivision. Many residents who have had problems with Triway Enterprises are wary of speaking out publicly against the company; many are homeowners who fear that problems which degrade the value of their property will not be remediated if they are too outspoken. One homeowner who has not hesitated to come forward, however, is Karen Veldheer, who has repeatedly asked Triway and the City of Olympia to address various drainage and erosion problems at the Cooper Crest subdivision, where she purchased a house with the understanding that it was part of a “low impact” development. Veldheer explains that the land on which Cooper Crest is built is a wetlands, designated as a critical area with special state and federal development regulations. The city allowed development of the land into buildable lots on the condition that it be done in a “low impact,” environmentally responsible manner.

According to Veldheer, “Tri Vo has not lived up to the development agreements in Cooper Crest -- and so far has gotten away with it. The City of Olympia has long been aware of a number of problems besetting Cooper Crest, as Veldheer and her neighbors have struggled for years to get the city to enforce Triway’s permit requirements. Not until Veldheer and seven other Cooper Crest residents showed up and testified at a City Council meeting did the City finally threaten to collect over $1 million in bonds posted by Triway, which led to some planned remediations at Cooper Crest. In a letter to the City of Olympia dated October 10, 2008, Triway’s attorney promises to remedy soil problems, improve stormwater controls, remove invasive vegetation, and replace dead trees, although several excuses are made for why most of these measures cannot be undertaken before Spring of 2009. Veldheer believes that many of the proposed remedies are inadequate, and “Triway is still trying to get out of their permit requirements.”

A recent Sunday drive around the Cooper Crest subdivision revealed obvious erosion problems, several bare dirt front yards, a number of runoff ponds surrounded by inexpensive chain-link fencing and weeds, what appear to be sandbags made from garbage bags full of dirt, poorly positioned telephone and utility boxes in front yards and common areas, incomplete landscaping, and yards and yards of white PVC pipes lying on the surfaces of sloping hillsides. A row of houses on the downhill end of the slope were unoccupied, and many for-sale signs were in evidence throughout the development.

Making Hay While the Sun Shines

Apparently sensing that currently local city governments are friendly to its interests, Triway has been moving ahead with a number of rezone applications, which is somewhat surprising given the gloomy economic outlook and the faltering housing market. Triway recently filed an application with the City of Olympia to raise height limits on West Bay at the site of the former Hardel mill, planning another mixed use project which will include both upscale commercial space and high-end housing with waterfront views, very similar to the proposed Larida Passage. In addition, Triway is pushing for an “upzone” in Tumwater, to the dismay of local residents, in order to build a similar mixed-use project dubbed Bellatorre. If height limits are overturned to make way for this project, it will block the views of Mt. Rainier currently enjoyed by some residents who live near the proposed project.

While most corporate giving has been impaired by the state of the economy, leaving many nonprofit and public benefit corporations hurting, Triway Enterprises seems to be an exception. Councilmember Kingsbury’s employer, the Capitol Playhouse, has been a recent beneficiary of Triway’s largesse. Sharp-eyed theater-goers may have noticed that the donor list in the Playhouse’s program has recently been expanded to include Triway Enterprises, listed as a contributor at the “fanatic level,” of $1000-$4,999. While the argument could be made that there’s nothing unethical about supporting the arts, others note that accepting this donation creates a conflict of interest for Kingsbury. Cynics have noted that Triway’s patronage of local drama began after the rezone application was submitted.

Frustration on Both Sides

Just as the majority of Olympians who oppose the isthmus are frustrated at not being heard, the few folks who are its champions appear to be growing frustrated that its opponents don't just shut up and go away. Mike Oakland, opinion editor of the Olympian, which has consistently boosted the Larida Passage project and minimized the magnitude of public objection, has been refusing to answer phone calls from some citizens who call to question the Olympian’s biased approach to the isthmus issue, and verbally abusing others. Although phone calls to Oakland from WIP staff have not been returned, Oakland recently berated a rezone opponent over the phone, shouting at her and calling her a liar. Councilmembers, similarly, have been showing the strain. Jeff Kingsbury recently came under fire when it was discovered that he called a citizen addressing the council an “idiot” on his Facebook page, and laughed at other folks speaking during Public Communications who were unaware that he was deriding them online. At a recent council meeting, Craig Ottavelli admonished the public for questioning his policy decisions, calling their objections “hurtful,” while Joe Hyer similarly encouraged concerned citizens to “keep it positive.”

As much the council would like the public to shut up and take their lumps with a smile, it’s not going to happen. Taking the will of the community more seriously now would save the city more pain and negativity in the future. An expensive, protracted legal battle is most assuredly in Olympia’s future, at a time when city resources are dwindling, and much better uses for municipal funds could easily be found. Although no one wants litigation to become necessary, rezone opponents are optimistic that there are excellent grounds for challenging the zoning change. Olympia attorney Allen Miller referenced the Sato case (Sato Corporation v. Olympia, 1982) which held that high rise buildings on the isthmus are in violation of the Shoreline Management Act. “It’s crazy for the city to go forward with repeating the same error in allowing these types of buildings to potentially be there,” said Miller. “There’s good language in the [Sato] case,” he remarked, adding that the courts, the Growth Management Hearings Board and the Shoreline Hearings Board may all ultimately become involved in an appeal of the rezone.

Why?

Again and again, rezone opponents have questioned why the council is alienating the public for an unpopular project that looks increasingly impractical with every downturn of the stock market. The fervent support on the council for this unlikely project is mysterious, especially considering its political cost. “Why?” asked one activist who has opposed this project from the beginning. “What are they getting out of it?” As stated by former councilmember TJ Johnson, “Larida Passage is an example of the worst type of corporate welfare; the city is giving away a valuable public asset and getting nothing in return.”

Although it is true that most of the rezone’s supporters on the council received campaign contributions from Triway, and none of its opponents did [see chart], the relatively small amounts donated hardly represent a compelling reason to disregard the overwhelming objections to the project. Since the council did not actually openly deliberate on whether or not to pass the rezone, citizens are left wondering what their rational for brushing off the will of the the public could possibly be. Could it be that they still have faith in trickle-down economics, that they think building luxury condos during a recession will somehow improve the local economy? Do they really believe that one high-end project can protect Olympia from the effects of a global recession? In the absence of public deliberations and a willingness to respond to the public, no better explanation can be imagined.