From: Nancy LenziTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: FW: City Council"s Draft SMPDate: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:37:01 AM

From: CityCouncil Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:21 AMTo: robert ahlschwedeCc: Councilmembers; Steve Hall; Keith Stahley; Todd Stamm; Nancy LenziSubject: RE: City Council's Draft SMP Thank you for your comments. I will forward them on to all Councilmembers and appropriate staff.

Mary NolanExecutive SecretaryCity of OlympiaPO Box 1967Olympia WA 98507360-753-8244 Please note all emails may be considered as public records. From: robert ahlschwede [mailto:swedeberger@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:17 AMTo: CityCouncilSubject: City Council's Draft SMP Following are four comments concerning your Draft SMP: 1. This draft SMP is a good one. Its content speaks to the community and provides for manygood and desired outcomes. It only has a few flaws, some of which could be fatal for thecommunity. 2. 30 feet setback....... What can I say? So many have already testified to the needs toextend that further at least double if not more. Besides of the inability to do what we need todo in just 30 feet, if measured properly--horizontally from the Ordinary High Water Mark--there is not 30 feet of level ground. Because of the slope of all of the shoreline in the Big W--except where it is armored bulkhead!--many times there is less than 20 feet of level ground. Also, no one, not the planning staff or anyone else has answered the question of just wherethat 30 foot figure originated. No scientific foundation for 30 feet, no list of logical, provenreasons that 30 feet is what the setback should be. Not even a guess!! Without any of this,WHY 30 FEET??? "Because I said so" is not a reason!!! 3. The Olympia Yacht Club. Before Heritage Park was developed, you know, back in thedays of Little Hollywood and train yards and sewage, the OYC probably looked good alongside all that, but now, it is the carbuncle on the nose of Olympia! What a way to greet

mailto:/O=CITY OF OLYMPIA/OU=OLYNET/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=NLENZImailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.usmailto:swedeberger@gmail.com

visitors to Oly--come down to Percival Landing and look at all the boathouses, thecorrugated tin, the plastic tarps, the listing structures, the patches...... The privately ownedmarinas and the Swantown Marina are well run, neat and presentable. We could only wishthe OYC could do the same. They do not deserve any special treatment or allowances. 4. Olympia's Budd Inlet has the least developed shoreline in all of Puget Sound--of cities itssize or larger--and that makes the city ripe for easy over development. I urge you to let thatdevelopment go forth with care and sensitivity. Let's not lose what we have. You do have a difficult set of decisions to make. I wish you well and hope you end up witha document that our grandchildren can be proud you adopted. Rob Ahlschwede ----Rob Ahlschwede3726 Wesley Loop NWOlympia, Washington 98502360-866-1935

From: CityCouncilTo: Susan AhlschwedeCc: Councilmembers; Keith Stahley; Todd Stamm; Nancy LenziSubject: RE: City Council SMP DraftDate: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:31:56 AM

Thank you for your comments. I will forward them on to all Councilmembers and appropriate staff.

Mary NolanExecutive SecretaryCity of OlympiaPO Box 1967Olympia WA 98507360-753-8244 Please note all emails may be considered as public records. From: Susan Ahlschwede [mailto:seaolympia@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:58 PMTo: CityCouncilSubject: City Council SMP Draft To: Olympia City Council members: The 30 foot setback recommended by Council in their draft of the SMP, does not seem toconsider ESA’s assumption that our shoreline will have a 20 foot Vegetation ConservationArea (VCA) in the Urban Intensity and Shoreline Residential designations. In reading ESA’s “Cumulative Impacts Assessment” document covering the City of OlympiaShoreline Master Program Update, I find that the City Council’s draft does not take the 20foot Vegetation Conservation Area (VCA) into consideration when assigning setbacks. Ifthere is to be a VCA along the shore, then a 30 foot setback is impossible, given the listeduses for that setback. The passages below are quoted from the document: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT: City of Olympia Shoreline MasterProgram Update

--Provided by ESA (Environmental Science Associates)

Appendix: page C-5, Chart entitled:

Assessment of Ecological Functions along the City of Olympia’sShorelines

mailto:/O=CITY OF OLYMPIA/OU=OLYNET/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=CITYCOUNCILmailto:seaolympia@gmail.commailto:Councilmembers@ci.olympia.wa.usmailto:kstahley@ci.olympia.wa.usmailto:tstamm@ci.olympia.wa.usmailto:nlenzi@ci.olympia.wa.us

Marine Habitat:

Vegetation Conservation Areas

Parcels with frontage on marine waters shall preserve or provide a nativevegetation conservation areas. The vegetation conservation area shall be 20feet from OHWM in the Urban Intensity and Shoreline Residential shorelineenvironments and 50 feet from OHWM in the Urban Conservancy and Naturalshoreline environments (SMP 2.18).Vegetation conservation areas shall be placed in a separate tract in whichdevelopment is prohibited; protected by execution of an easement dedicated toa conservation organization or land trust; or similarly preserved through apermanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City (SMP 3.32).

If we intend to improve the health and biological functioning of our Budd Inlet, theseVegetation Conservation Areas are integral to that goal. “No net loss” cannot be achievedwithout them. “No net loss” is impossible without the Vegetation Conservation Areas identified by ESA. Thank you,Susan Ahlschwede

A Vision for the Waterfront: Formal comments on the City of Olympia's ShorelineMasterPlan

RËcElvEDBy Harry Branch

ì,i.f.l / $ ;liii:+Ecological importance:

Nearshore areas consist of tide flats, salt marsh and overhanging vegetáT6lf'ilËtoåfitJBBÖ*tu'

Tide flats are important because they form shallow areas at the mouths ofstreams and rivers where nutrients coming from land can be remediated byphytoplankton which can then be consumed by zooplankton. These thingshappen best in the presence of atmospheric oxygen and sunlight, that is, inshallow areas that are formed by sediments coming from land... one of nature'sperfect designs.

Salt marsh is important because salt marsh plants are among the best atremediating nutrients and contamination and they provide spawning, protective

and feeding habitat for a variety of species.

Overhanging vegetation is important because it provides food and shade for anumber of impodant species.

Downtown Olympia was historically comprised of tide flats and salt marshstretching from East Bay, to West Bay. The entire area was part of theDeschutes River EstuarY.

Over the past century about three quarter's of a square mile of historic tide flatsand salt marsh have been dredged, filled and armored and run through longculverts. As a result, water quality in parts of the bay is degraded. East Baycontains no phytoplankton, only bacteria and lower life forms. There is no marineweb of life, only an environment more akin to a septic tank'

The Port is currently planning development at East Bay in the location of historictide flats and salt marsh. The Port's Comprehensive Scheme for Harborlmprovements, their de-facto master plan, makes no mention of intertidal ornearshore restorations. lt is instead largely an analysis of what's legally permitted

or the extent to which development can be legally extended. This isunderstandable given that laws, as they currently exist, not only discouragerestoration, they are constricting from a development standpoint..

No-net-loss is no longer an adequate goal. Loss of structure does not equate toloss of ecological function. lf an area is structurally degraded, populations ofspecies that rely directly on that structure decline, then species that relied onthose species decline, the decline feeds back on itself, spreads geographicallyand impacts complex predatorlprey relationships. The decline in chemical andbiological paramters can continue long after alterations to physical parameters.

At some point we'll hopefully see the wisdom in repairing Puget Sound's mostimporlant physical characteristics.

The true ecological baseline is not what we currently have, it's what existedhistorically. Adhering to a constantly "shifting baseline" is one way the State ofWashington avoids the best science it touts.

lntact tide flats and salt marsh are beautiful, especially when they are healthyenough to attract wildlife. Consider the Nisqually Estuary to the east and MudBay to the west. The shoreline of South Puget Sound when viewed from the

water is beautiful.

We cannot duplicate the economic benefits of natural places. They can only beprotected and restored When we create a place that's more beautiful we createeconomic value. People want more than just being able to see water. Peoplewant to see natural beautY.

Realities:

Under current rules, there are no incentives to restore anything. Ecologicalfunction has no value. Restoring salt marsh takes up space that could be usedfor parking or other amenities.

A setback of a certain number of feet from the water's edge discourages theremoval of any fill. Removing fill moves the shoreline back which means movingthe setback back. The cost of giving up any land is giving up more land.

Because the current system encourages development, up front, rather thanrestoration, up front, projects don't qualify for restoration funding.

Locations of historic fill are often plagued with ongoing problems. Just look at anyold waterfront log yard or parking lot. And fill tends to be contaminated. Dealingwith contamination at the site of the Hands on Children's Museum has beencostly. There have been other expenditures associated with sagging and settlingduring infrastructure construction.

Solutions:

We could conceptually begin with restoration and then move on to human use,that is, piece human use into the environment not try to piece the environmentinto human use. Why can't we have a nearshore that looks like Tolmie State Parkor Priest Point Park with buildings among the salt marsh and overhangingvegetation? We continue to adhere to archaic ideas. First comes thedevelopment plan, then come tweaks and mitigations'

We would all benefit by giving up setbacks in exchange for restoration. A buildingoverhanging a beach can mimic overhanging vegetation. A building next to abeach cãn mimic a large boulder. The important question is what kind of shape isthe beach in. Does it even exist?

Move the shore back and leave the building where it is. Looking from above, theonly part of the upper beach that would not be restorations might be the footprintof the building itself.

The building itself could be designed to include light wells, tide pools and otherfeatures reminiscent of the Monterrey Bay Aquarium. The views from the buildingmight be nearly 360%. Looking back at salt marsh from the water is in someways more interesting than looking out over the water.

A Vegetation Conservation Area of 25 feet, or even 55 feet in and of itself isgoing to provide no meaningful benefit. ln many ways this is what we have now.Pickleweed and other salt marsh plants are growing in the upper intertidal zonebacked up by some native plants here and there along with some non-nativeplants. The band of salt marsh is maybe a foot or two wide along much of Westand East Bay because the bank is so steep. This area of salt marsh isinadequate to provide high and low marsh and a succession of species, itprovides no meaningful habitat and it is not enough area to significantlyremediate nutrients and contamination. Any larger overhanging vegetation willalso be meaningless because the upper bank is so steep that little area would beshaded. And if we make no attempt at increasing the area of tide flats we're onceagain not addressing the most important issues.

The steepness of the bank also means that it cannot be softened withoutincreasing the risk of sloughing. We saw an efforl at soft armoring failjust southof the marine terminal a couple of years ago when a section of bank collapsedreleasing dioxin into the environment.

The way to accomplish this is to have setbacks throughout Budd lnlet of 150 feetwith the caveat that restoration of salt marsh, tide flats, eelgrass and otherimportant features will move the development closer to or even over the water.The important question isn't whether or not to build over the water, the impodantquestion is: What kind of shape is the upper beach in? A building could protrudeover the upper beach if the beach is intact providing ecological benefits. Thesame building could be 55 feet from the high tide mark separated by fill andarmoring and provide no benefits.

The city could provide help obtaining grants and other outside funding to bringthe development to reality. lf the City and developer were on the same page,outside funding for such restorations would be plentiful. The mitigation, if wemust call it that, must however be on the same parcel, We can't mitigate saltmarsh off site. lt can only grow in the nearshore.

Conclusion:

Wise people protect their food sources above all else. We're all aware of howmany salmon used to spawn in area streams but I don't think most people fullyappreciate just how rich and productive this ecosystem once was.

There is a prevailing wisdom that urban nearshore environments are toodamaged to be restored in a cost effective, practicable manner. This argument isflawed for two significant reasons: (1) Estuaries, where the land meets the sea,are the most important oceanographic features and we have tended to build ourcities in estuaries. lf we're going to restore the earth's most importantoceanographic features, we're going to have to engage in urban restorations. (2)This fact is widely recognized outside Washington State. There are manyexamples in places like California, New York and New Jersey of successfulurban nearshore restorations.

And then there's the argument that current rules are doing a fine job. Aboutfifteen years ago, an analysis of birds was conducted for the City as part of theplanning process for the new bridge to West Olympia. The report stated thatseveral species of diving ducks were seriously depleted and heading toward localextinction. Another testimony by a retired WDFW official stated that forage fishwere plentiful in South Budd lnlet until about twenty years ago. Diving ducksincluding surf scoters and grebes are now locally extinct as are forage fish.Where we would have seen hundreds of birds we now see none. According tothe Puget Sound Partnership, all true ecological indicators are continuing tocrash.

The concerns regarding Budd lnlet are, or should be, ecological; they shouldaddress the interrationships between plants and animals and their environment.And they are oceanographic; they should address how chemical and biologicalparameters are impacted by alterations to physical parameters. And yet thescientific disciplines of ecology and oceanography have been excluded from thisprocess

When we are building along the all-important nexus between the land and thesea, we should think about that nexus. Arbitrary setbacks and prohibitions thatare not ecologically based make no sense. Every decision regarding PugetSound should be ecologically based. Very few if any ever are.

Harry Branch

239 Cushing St NW

Olympia WA 98602

(360) 943-8508

From: peggy brutonTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: comment on SMPDate: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:33:41 PM

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the SMO.

Briefly, it seems to me that the standard setback should at least 75 feet-- in some cases more. Perhaps there are exceptions where a narrower setback would suffice. But given the quickening pace of sea level rise, a conservative approach would seem advisable, and so the larger number would be a better baseline.

Peggy Bruton1607 East Bay DriveOlympia 98506

866-7165gimleteye@comcast.net

mailto:gimleteye@comcast.netmailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: Cjcuyken@aol.comTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: SMP Update Comment from Clydia J. CuykendallDate: Monday, January 21, 2013 9:13:50 AM

The 1-22-13 draft of Olympia's SMP Update does a good job of addressing the concerns expressed inthe 5-23-12 letter from the Port of Olympia Citizens Advisory Committee. Critics of the proposed set-back are not supported by the EIS DNS or any scientific data. They appear to want the entire BuddBay shoreline to be a park. The existing parks on Budd Bay are underutilized (with the exception ofPriest Point and the Percival Landing playground) and are magnets for homeless people (while notserving them). Let the Port pursue its economic development mission and our local jurisdictions use thetax revenue generated to serve the public (including the homeless) and to put parks where they arereally needed, like the south end of Ward Lake. Clydia J. Cuykendall, 4203 Amber Ct SE, Olympia, WA 98501

mailto:Cjcuyken@aol.commailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: Nancy LenziTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: FW: water front set backsDate: Friday, January 18, 2013 7:36:29 AM

  |Nancy Lenzi|Planning Division|CP&D||601 4th Avenue East|PO Box 1967, Olympia WA 98507-1967|360.753-8735||Emails are public records, potentially eligible for release.| 

From: Mary Nolan Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 5:00 PMTo: Nancy Lenzi; Todd StammSubject: FW: water front set backs FYI 

Mary NolanExecutive SecretaryCity of OlympiaPO Box 1967Olympia WA 98507360-753-8244 Please note all emails may be considered as public records. 

From: CityCouncil Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 5:00 PMTo: 'Rick and Paula Finch'Cc: Councilmembers; Steve Hall; Keith StahleySubject: RE: water front set backs Thank you for your comments.  I will forward them on to all Councilmembers and appropriate staff.  

Mary NolanExecutive SecretaryCity of OlympiaPO Box 1967Olympia WA 98507360-753-8244

mailto:/O=CITY OF OLYMPIA/OU=OLYNET/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=NLENZImailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

Please note all emails may be considered as public records. From: Rick and Paula Finch [mailto:rpfinch@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:30 PMTo: CityCouncilSubject: water front set backs City Council Members,

It is our belief that your 30 foot set back for waterfront building is not adequate for the Cityof Olympia. Global warming will bring higher tides that will continue to erode the citywaterfront boundaries, and mitigating plans will not work well with a set back that is solimited. A larger setback will give the city flexibility to plan public projects that will protectthe shoreline.

Paula Finch

mailto:rpfinch@gmail.com

From: Holly GadbawTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: comments on SMPDate: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:59:02 PMAttachments: February 12 letter on draft SMP.docx

 

mailto:hollygadbaw@comcast.netmailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

February 5, 2013

Dear Mayor Buxbaum and Members of the City Council,

I am writing again to express my general support for the current draft of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). I believe that the January 22, 2013 shows that you have listened to all parts of the community, the city staff, and the Department of Ecology and have developed a SMP that moves in the right direction. This draft creates more opportunities to restore Olympia’s shorelines and create more recreational opportunities as well as increase sale and property tax potential for the City than the draft presented to you by the Planning Commission.

I am concerned about some of the comments that I heard about West Bay Drive at the public hearing and some of Councilmember Jones comments. Several comments were enthusiastic about Portland and Tacoma’s waterfront. Both those cities are of a much larger scale than Olympia and both cities include open space, trails, and water dependent, water enjoyment uses, and housing on their shorelines. You can enjoy Tom McCall Park in Portland as well as walk along a boardwalk that includes shops to buy ice cream, kites, and take-out food to enjoy in the park. Also people living along the waterfront add vibrancy and a feeling of safety to the boardwalk and the park. We have a park on West Bay and hopefully, someday a trail for bikes and pedestrians. However, the City cannot build new amenities by itself. There are not enough state or federal grants to enable the City to do this by itself. To restore the shoreline and create the amenities, the City needs to enlist the help of property owners to accomplish its recreation and restoration goals. Therefore, I hope that your shoreline regulations provide the flexibility for property owners to enable new development to assist the City in providing these amenities and contributing to restoration. It is important to remember that development here will be costly with the view protection studies and required environmental protections that are now included in the SMP.

I also think it is unfair to call these property owners “speculators”, as some did at the public hearing. Most of these property owners have owned the property for decades and provided hundreds of industrial jobs for the greater community. As the economy has changed, I do not think it is inappropriate for them to desire to utilize their property for mixed used development that would include water enjoyment or water dependent uses and create additional sales and property taxes for the City, which it sorely needs to maintain just basic services.

I am also concerned about the public process. The January 22nd hearing was advertised as an opportunity to comment on the January 22nd draft. At the hearing Councilmember Jones solicited comments on his white paper that had not been posted for the general public and only circulated to select members of the public. I do not think this complies with the spirit of you public participation procedures set forth in Section of the Olympia Municipal Code 18.59 and 18.78 or RCW 36.70A.035 of the Growth Management Act.

I am also concerned about your State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. From both the FEIS on the comprehensive plan and your cumulative impacts analysis on the SMA, it appears that only one alternative for the SMA has been analyzed.

Thank you for the additional opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Holly Gadbaw

1625 Sylvester Street SW

Olympia, WA 98501

(360)754-9401

hollygadbaw@comcast.net

February 5, 2013

Dear Mayor Buxbaum and Members of the City Council,

I am writing again to express my general support for the current draft of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). I believe that the January 22, 2013 shows that you have listened to all parts of the community, the city staff, and the Department of Ecology and have developed a SMP that moves in the right direction. This draft creates more opportunities to restore Olympia’s shorelines and create more recreational opportunities as well as increase sale and property tax potential for the City than the draft presented to you by the Planning Commission.

I am concerned about some of the comments that I heard about West Bay Drive at the public hearing and some of Councilmember Jones comments. Several comments were enthusiastic about Portland and Tacoma’s waterfront. Both those cities are of a much larger scale than Olympia and both cities include open space, trails, and water dependent, water enjoyment uses, and housing on their shorelines. You can enjoy Tom McCall Park in Portland as well as walk along a boardwalk that includes shops to buy ice cream, kites, and take-out food to enjoy in the park. Also people living along the waterfront add vibrancy and a feeling of safety to the boardwalk and the park. We have a park on West Bay and hopefully, someday a trail for bikes and pedestrians. However, the City cannot build new amenities by itself. There are not enough state or federal grants to enable the City to do this by itself. To restore the shoreline and create the amenities, the City needs to enlist the help of property owners to accomplish its recreation and restoration goals. Therefore, I hope that your shoreline regulations provide the flexibility for property owners to enable new development to assist the City in providing these amenities and contributing to restoration. It is important to remember that development here will be costly with the view protection studies and required environmental protections that are now included in the SMP.

I also think it is unfair to call these property owners “speculators”, as some did at the public hearing. Most of these property owners have owned the property for decades and provided hundreds of industrial jobs for the greater community. As the economy has changed, I do not think it is inappropriate for them to desire to utilize their property for mixed used development that would include water enjoyment or water dependent uses and create additional sales and property taxes for the City, which it sorely needs to maintain just basic services.

I am also concerned about the public process. The January 22nd hearing was advertised as an opportunity to comment on the January 22nd draft. At the hearing Councilmember Jones solicited comments on his white paper that had not been posted for the general public and only circulated to select members of the public. I do not think this complies with the spirit of you public participation procedures set forth in Section of the Olympia Municipal Code 18.59 and 18.78 or RCW 36.70A.035 of the Growth Management Act.

I am also concerned about your State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. From both the FEIS on the comprehensive plan and your cumulative impacts analysis on the SMA, it appears that only one alternative for the SMA has been analyzed.

Thank you for the additional opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Holly Gadbaw 1625 Sylvester Street SW Olympia, WA 98501 (360)754-9401 hollygadbaw@comcast.net

From: Rollie GeppertTo: cpdinfo; Shoreline UpdateSubject: SMP cumulative impactsDate: Monday, February 04, 2013 3:12:35 PM

Todd Stamm:In reviewing the Cumulative Impacts Assessment report for the DraftShoreline Master Program I did not see a definition for 'cumulativeimpacts.' This is a very important feature of the SMP and it seems that forit to be effective it should explain how impacts from shoreline developmentcan accumulate over time and space and how the effects can be mitigated.

Many years ago the WA State Forest Practices Board (FPB) faced this sameissue when working to develop innovative ways to minimize negative impactsarising from forest practices. This is how they defined 'cumulativeeffects':

"Cumulative effects are defined as: Changes to the environment caused by theinteraction of natural ecosystem processes with the effects of two or moreforest practices.

The key to this definition of cumulative effects is the requirement ofinteraction between effects of multiple forest practices. A cumulativeeffect occurs whenever an environmental change caused by a forest practiceinteracts with environmental change(s) from other forest practices. Ifenvironmental effects of individual forest practices do not interact, thereare no cumulative effects. Interaction may be additive (accumulate),subtractive, or synergistic.

Multiple forest practices include all possible combinations of the manydiverse types of forest practices that may be ongoing within a forest(timber harvest, road construction, site preparation, etc.) as welI ascombinations and repetitions of the same type of forest practice. Theseforest practices may occur on the same site over time, or be widelydispersed within the forest, occurring simultaneously or in a sequentialmanner. In brief, there are no combinations of practices that are notmultiple forest practices.

Since all effects are not cumulative, there must be another category ofenvironmental change. Environmental change caused by a forest practice whichdoes not interact with other changes from additional forest practices isdefined as an "individual effect". AlI environmental changes caused by manare either individual or cumulative effects. Environmental change thatoccurs naturally is part of the natural baseline.

Cumulative effects are either temporary or persistent. Temporary cumulativeeffects will recover at some time within the forest management time framewith the affected element of the environment returning to its baselinecondition. On the other hand, the change to the baseline caused by apersistent cumulative effect will continue as long as the forest practicesthat cause this change continue without modification. Restoration ofpersistent cumulative effects via natural ecosystem processes is slow andcontinually aggravated by additional forest practices. Persistent cumulativeeffects are probably more important than temporary ones and they areemphasized in this report.

The definition of cumulative effects relates changes in the elements of theenvironment to forest practices as the cause. Forest practices means any

mailto:rgeppert@comcast.netmailto:cpdinfo@ci.olympia.wa.usmailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

activity conducted on or directly pertaining to forest land and relating togrowing, harvesting, or processing timber. These practices were categorizedunder the headings 1) Timber Harvest, 2) Road Construction, Maintenance, andUse, 3) Site Preparation, 4) Reforestation, and 5) Stand Maintenance andProtection. These practices cause changes to the five elements of thephysical environment; air, earth, water, flora, and fauna."

As you can see the key is in identifying the pathways for how multipleshoreline activities can accumulate over time and space and the recoveryperiod needed for the natural environment to return to a baseline conditionthat meets the goals and objectives of the SMP.

This insight is offered for the purpose of improving an already gooddocument.

Sincerely,

Rollin Geppert, founderEcosystems Scholarship Fundwww.Ecoscholarfund.org360-412-7425

From: Sherri GouletTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: SMP Comments #1Date: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:24:50 AM

To the Members of Olympia City Council: I am sure that you have had many comments about the SMP. I delivered a comment at the publichearing, and this email is to reinforce how strongly I feel about the citizens’ waterfront. A decision to do the right thing for the citizens of Olympia will take courage and vision. Thewaterfront is like the public commons. Many towns have saved critical areas of their waterfrontsfrom development and benefitted from their decisions. It is now your turn to do what is right forthe city as a whole and for its citizens. Gobbling up our waterfront with only 30 foot setbacks will not allow for public trails or qualityaccess. I am pleading with you to opt for more footage than 30 feet. 70-80’ is reasonable; youhave heard and read all the arguments. Now it is time to decide. Please do what you know is right. Thank you.Sherri Goulet3516 Pifer Rd SEOlympia, WA 98501

mailto:Sherri@TCProNet.orgmailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: Sherri GouletTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: SMP Comments #2Date: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:34:40 AM

To the Members of the Olympia City Council:

This is my 2nd comment because it is on a different issue. My request to you is, not only to extendthe 30’ setbacks to 70-80’; I am also asking that you stair step building heights along the setbacksin the areas where it is appropriate. Walking along the shoreline right next to tall buildings doesnot allow for the feeling of open spaces. Honoring our shoreline with stair stepped building heightscreates the waterfront that the citizens want and deserve. I cannot envision any reason why the Olympia City Council, which is duly elected to serve thepeople, would place developers’ needs above those of citizens. After all, stair stepping does notmean a developer cannot build. In fact, the structures (hotels, restaurants or whatever) will beenhanced by a beautiful open waterfront. This is not an either/or situation. All will benefit. I know this is not easy because you are facing tremendous pressure. Doing the right thing is almostnever easy. Please do it anyway. Thank you. Sherri

mailto:Sherri@TCProNet.orgmailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: Nancy LenziTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: FW: Shoreline Master ProgramsDate: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:46:34 AM

  |Nancy Lenzi|Planning Division|CP&D||601 4th Avenue East|PO Box 1967, Olympia WA 98507-1967|360.753-8735||Emails are public records, potentially eligible for release.| 

From: CityCouncil Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:38 AMTo: Mike HarburgCc: Councilmembers; Steve Hall; Keith Stahley; Todd Stamm; Nancy LenziSubject: RE: Shoreline Master Programs Thank you for your comments.  I will forward them on to all Councilmembers and appropriate staff.  

Mary NolanExecutive SecretaryCity of OlympiaPO Box 1967Olympia WA 98507360-753-8244 Please note all emails may be considered as public records. From: Mike Harburg [mailto:mhharburg@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 7:12 PMTo: CityCouncilSubject: Shoreline Master Programs Dear People,I write to give my citizen's input for the public hearing for the Shoreline Master Program. InMexico the shores are all public property, technically speaking of course. Anyhow, I thinkthis should be the rule here. But at least, the city should make a 70 foot setback or maybe100 would be better. Shorelines for the People! Thank you.

Mike Harburg360.357.9804 

mailto:/O=CITY OF OLYMPIA/OU=OLYNET/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=NLENZImailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.usmailto:mhharburg@yahoo.com

From: abholm@q.comTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: Shoreline UpdateDate: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 2:14:05 PM

Dear Councilmembers: I am still in disbelief that, after all the years and efforts of the Planning Commission to devisea plan for Olympia's shoreline that would stress public access, you would so arbitrarily throwit out and go back to considering 30' limits that don't begin to allow for all of the things youhave said you want and need there. I watched on TV and was horrified as onecouncilmember's statement that 30' was good enough was barely disputed by most ofthe other members. My sister tells me I have become cynical, and it is episodes such as thisthat have driven me to it. (Councilmember Jones: I do appreciate your very thoughtfulanalysis of the issues that followed later.) Aside from my visual, access, and environmental concerns, I also wonder if anyone haslooked into a possible legal issue. If the Council allows buildings within 30' of the shoreline,knowing full-well of the risk of future sea-level rise and earthquakes, does this implicitlymake the City responsible for paying for flood controls and flood damages for those privatebuildings? I for one am not interested in paying taxes to save or replace buildings that weknew should not have been built in the first place. I doubt if many remember the names of the city officials who allowed the "mistake by thelake" to be built in such an inappropriate place but they certainly remember (How can theyhelp it?) what they did and revile them everyday. Please don't allow this Council to be addedto such a list. You have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to leave an incredible mark on this beautiful city. Will it be for good or ill? Please screw your courage to the sticking point and vote forsetbacks that are big enough to make long-term sense visually, environmentally, and fiscally. Make us proud. Anne Holm1616 Water St. SWOlympia, WA 98501 360-943-7603

mailto:abholm@q.commailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: Monica HooverTo: Shoreline UpdateCc: CityCouncilSubject: SMP CommentsDate: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:30:12 PM

Dear Olympia City Council Members,I am very concerned about the direction the draft SMP has taken. I ammostly concerned about the setback and building heights on the OlympiaPeninsula (aka the "Port Peninsula"). This land is public land, yet the PortCommissioners do not speak for the people they represent when they fightagainst reasonable setbacks. To allow the placement of multi-storybuildings only 30 feet from the ordinary high water (OHW) mark will greatlydegrade the character of the shoreline in downtown Olympia for severalgenerations to come and is a great dis-service to the citizens.

The building height and setback distance of the boatworks building at thesouth end of the Swantown Marina gives a closed-in feeling even with thatbuilding at about 55 feet from the OHW mark. Imagine that building at only30 feet from the OHW mark and them imagine that replicated all along theshoreline! I can't see why anyone would view that as a desirable conditionwhen the alternative is to have room for a walking and biking trail that isvegetated on both the water side and the building side. Another buildingto take note of is the office building adjacent to the Port Plaza and justnorth of Anthony's Restaurant. Both sides of that building are a dead zoneas far as I am concerned. Imagine how lively the Port Plaza would be ifthe office building and the Farmer's Market swapped places. Impossiblenow, but had there been a real vision of what was possible several yearsago, it would be amazing.

Accommodation for sea level rise will be needed. Attempting to design asolution to this while working within a narrow corridor will be likely tosignificantly raise the costs of any alternative. That cost will be carried bythe general tax payers to protect buildings that were built too close to thewater to begin with.

Here is my recommendation: For the shoreline from East Bay aroundto the 4th Avenue Bridge, the setback should be at least 60 feet fromOHW with one story buildings allowed starting at 60 feet and 3 storybuildings starting at 90 feet from OHW. Please adopt this in theSMP update and please find a way forward so the existing buildings, such

mailto:mmhoove@gmail.commailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.usmailto:citycouncil@ci.olympia.wa.us

as Bayview, are not non-conforming in their current size and location.

Sincerely,Monica HooverOlympia, WA

From: John C. JacksonTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: shoreline.Date: Monday, January 28, 2013 8:17:53 AM

Dear Council Members,Some years ago I lived in Victoria, B.C. and saw how development had claimed the northside of the inner bay with huge apartments and condominiums. Those cut off the view ofother building behind but the planners had the sense to leave enough room betweenbuilding and the shoreline for public walkways and places to rest. Sufficient set-back to dothat with land along the Olympia shoreline should be widened from 30 to 50 feet, becauseonce planted with crowding development, breathing space cannot be recovered. And thequestion of saving a little view for other buildings behind would be best served with heightlimits. Now is the time to set the immediate greed of development aside and approve ashoreline master plan with a true vision of the future. Thank you for your kind attention. John C. Jackson, 3031 Langridge Avenue NW, Olympia WA 98502.

mailto:furtrade1@comcast.netmailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: JacobsOly@aol.comTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: The SMP Taking QuestionDate: Sunday, February 03, 2013 8:07:30 PM

Councilmembers: Whenever land use decisions involving restrictions are considered, land owners arelikely to threaten legal action for "regulatory taking" of their property in violation of theconstitution. The STOP Thurston group did this recently when the county was considering itsCritical Areas Ordinance, and mention of it has been made regarding the OlympiaSMP. I have conferred with legal counsel, and it appears that the types of regulation you areconsidering, and that Friends of the Waterfront and others have proposed, would notcome close to a taking. To do so, they would have to leave no reasonable use of theland, and that would not be the case here. However, this will not stop land owners from threatening suit or even filing suit as atactic, to get a cash-strapped city to back down and allow them greater flexibility in theuse of their land. I urge you not to back down. This SMP should be about what isbest for the entire community, and if legal expenses need to be incurred, then so be it. Perhaps the more interesting question is what happens in the future when the citymoves to use the land in the setback areas for various public purposes such asvegetation, trails, and flood protection. At that point, a taking is a possibility. Andmonetary compensation could be required. However, our legal advisor informs methat municipalities usually avoid monetary compensation by using regulatory powersand non-cash compensation approaches such as height bonuses. This is my layperson's understanding of this situation. It should be verified with legalstaff. Please let me know if you receive any contradictory information. I really want tounderstand the law applicable to the SMA. Best,Bob Jacobs 352-1346 720 Gov. Stevens

mailto:JacobsOly@aol.commailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: JacobsOly@aol.comTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: Comments on Yacht Club Members" RequestsDate: Sunday, February 03, 2013 9:16:21 PM

Councilmembers: I want to comment on two of the requests that members of the OYC made at yourrecent public hearing on the SMP, both dealing with covered moorage: 1. One member suggested that the Club should get credit for providing public accessover its leased DNR land for Percival Landing. This person was probably unawarethat the OYC was already compensated for this easement. The covered moorage had been subject to a city regulation requiring that it beremoved by the end of 1999 or so. The city rescinded this regulation in returnfor access for Percival Landing. 2. Another member suggested that additional covered moorage at OYC should not beprohibited. I disagree. Covered moorage blocks important views, and therefore itshould be limited to areas where views are not an issue, like West Bay Marina. Thereason you never hear complaints about covered moorage over there is that nobody'sviews are impeded. No further covered moorage should be allowed in the inner partsof Budd Inlet, either east or west. This issue may be moot because I understand thatstate regulators may have prohibited additional covered moorage. Thank you, Bob Jacobs 352-1346 720 Gov. Stevens Ave. SE

mailto:JacobsOly@aol.commailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: JacobsOly@aol.comTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: Vegetated BuffersDate: Sunday, February 03, 2013 9:24:02 PM

Councilmembers: There seems to be some confusion about the authority for establishing vegetatedbuffers along our waterfront. This confusion may arise from the fact that two differentapproaches are possible. On the one hand, the SMA as interpreted by Ecology requires "no net loss ofecological function", which can justify vegetated buffers. On the other hand, the SMP allows for the implementation of community values asexpressed in city policies like the Comprehensive Plan, quite apart from the "no netloss" requirement. Thus, this community's strong commitment to the restoration ofthe healthy environmental functioning of Budd Inlet can also justify the establishmentof vegetated buffers. I hope this will assist you in your deliberations. Bob Jacobs 352-1346 720 Gov. Stevens Ave. SE

mailto:JacobsOly@aol.commailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: JacobsOly@aol.comTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: Developer IncentivesDate: Sunday, February 03, 2013 9:34:53 PM

Councilmembers: In an earlier email about the taking issue, I mentioned developer incentives to achievethe establishment of trails, vegetated buffers, and possibly sea level rise barriers. Such incentives are commonly used by municipalities to avoid cash outlays,according to my legal adviser. I support this approach, but believe that a great deal of care must be taken in order tomake it work. If the incentive for the provision of public amenities is weak, these amenities may notbe provided by the developers. I believe the current West Bay zoning is of this sort. A developer could simply forego the additional building height and save the cost ofthe public amenities. To assure that the public amenities will be provided by developers, the underlyingzoning should be set at a very low level, with the development bonuses made verygenerous. This way, it is virtually certain that the developers will provide the desiredamenities. I hope these thoughts will be helpful. Bob Jacobs 352-1346 720 Gov. Stevens Ave. SE

mailto:JacobsOly@aol.commailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: JacobsOly@aol.comTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: Waterfront RestaurantsDate: Monday, February 04, 2013 4:05:41 PM

Councilmembers: It has long been assumed that waterfront restaurants needed to be over water orimmediately adjacent to the water in order to benefit from the waterfront setting. Thisidea has appeared in discussions of the Olympia SMP. Our downtown Anthony's restaurant has disproved this idea. Anthony's has been verysuccessful with a very significant setback of about 150 feet for most of its water-frontage. In fact, the area between the restaurant and the water adds visual interest for manypatrons. Please consider this when determining setbacks. It is not necessary to have a smallsetback in order to have a successful restaurant. Bob Jacobs 352-1346 720 Gov. Stevens Ave. SE

mailto:JacobsOly@aol.commailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: JacobsOly@aol.comTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: SMPDate: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 12:32:49 PM

Councilmembers: I urge you to carefully consider that the SMP which you adopt will likely shape ourtreasured waterfront area for at least the next 50 years. In particular, the setbacks and step-backs will determine the character of this area,either open or closed-in. The setbacks and step-backs will also determine whetherthere is adequate space for a quality urban trail, vegetation, and sea level risestructures. And the setbacks will determine whether these features will be affordableor excessively expensive when they are installed. Please be cautious and provide plenty of space for future public needs. A great dealdepends on your decisions. Bob Jacobs 352-1346 720 Gov. Stevens Ave. SE

mailto:JacobsOly@aol.commailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: JacobsOly@aol.comTo: Shoreline UpdateCc: swedeberger@gmail.comSubject: SMP and PathsDate: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 12:43:41 PM

Councilmembers: Rob Ahlschwede has shared his comments on this topic, and I want to be on recordas supporting them. The waterfront trail envisioned in city and county plans would clearly receive heavyuse, and would therefore justify the highest category of trail, which is a 12-foot pavedsurface with at least 2-foot aprons and additional space on both sides. Your Parksand Public Works staff can provide the details of city and national standards. For your information, here are some actual trail widths I measured recently: Deschutes Parkway -- 10 feet Olympia-Woodland Trail -- 10 feet Batdorf and Bronson sidewalk -- 16 feet (Big W east-west connector) In addition, Parks staff informed me that the interior trail in West Bay Park is 12 feetwide due to expected heavy use. Bob Jacobs 352-1346 720 Gov. Stevens Ave. SE

mailto:JacobsOly@aol.commailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.usmailto:swedeberger@gmail.com

From: JacobsOly@aol.comTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: SMP and IncentivesDate: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 2:03:11 PM

Councilmembers: Recent conversations with city officials make me wonder whether the council is tryingto do too much in the SMP. I suggest you treat the SMP, with regards to setbacks and step-backs, as reservingspace for future public uses. The developer incentives that would actually get developers to develop the publicamenities in the setback area can be part of the updates in zoning and developmentregulations. I don't think these details need to be worked out now, and doing so wouldrequire a great deal of additional time and effort. Bob Jacobs 352-1346 720 Gov. Stevens Ave. SE

mailto:JacobsOly@aol.commailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: JacobsOly@aol.comTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: SMPDate: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 2:38:39 PM

Councilmembers: During Planning Commission deliberations on the SMP, two divergent approacheswere advocated regarding the establishment of setbacks. One position is that setbacks should be set narrow to allow for currently unforeseenfuture uses to be accommodated with a minimum of effort on the developer's part. The other position is that setbacks should be set wide, and that currently unforeseenfuture uses can use the variance process to gain approval for construction closer tothe shoreline. I hope you will choose the second approach. It seems unwise to allow all buildings tobe placed closer to the water just to assure that the occasional unusual applicationcan be accommodated. If an application can justify placement closer to the water,then presumably it will be approved. Bob Jacobs 352-1346 720 Gov. Stevens Ave. SE

mailto:JacobsOly@aol.commailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: JacobsOly@aol.comTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: SMP CommentDate: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:19:45 PM

Councilmembers: A great irony of the 30-foot setback that has been advocated by a variety of cityofficials for the past three years is that it runs counter to everything that is happeningon urban waterfronts everywhere. Cities across our state and around the world are going to great lengths to open uptheir waterfronts for public use, often at great expense to remove buildings and roadsto do so. In Olympia, contrariwise, we start with a largely undeveloped and lightly developedwaterfront that would be relatively easy to keep open. And we now propose to shut itoff. There has been no explanation for this approach. I hope you'll reverse the coursewe've been on, and if not then tell us why. Thank you, Bob Jacobs 352-1346 720 Gov. Stevens Ave. SE

mailto:JacobsOly@aol.commailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: jcbsbonnie@aol.comTo: Shoreline UpdateSubject: comments on the 2013 SMP updateDate: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:08:08 PM

720 Gov. Stevens Ave.Olympia, WATuesday, February 5, 2013 Dear City Council Members,

Two weeks ago I testified re. the setback of 30 feet / 10 yards being too narrow toaccomplish all that will be needed along the downtown shoreline to accomplish thevalues the average citizen olds dear:1. Re-vegetation: both as a buffer, a cleanser, and counterbalancing the erosion thatcomes with sloped shorelines.2. Sea Level Rise: Space to provide options for dealing with the inevitable rise of seawater into downtown.3. A Public Walkway at least as beautiful and versatile as the WA State's HeritagePark Walkway.

I used the analogy of a football field. The current recommendation of 30 ft / 10 yd isthe distance from the goal line to the 10 yd line. Even twice that amount, 20 yards,would be barely sufficient to provide what is needed never mind, what would make it"world class."

Also please, step-back the building heights as you set-back the buildings. Imaginewater lapping against the goal line and 4 story buildings rising against the 10 yardline.

If you have not yet walked along the path in back of the old Kentucky Fried Chickenbuilding please do. It won't take long. Please do not let that model become yourlegacy for future generations.Look at shorelines, both salt water and fresh, in cities all around the state and thecountry. They are being reclaimed to enhance livabilty, successful businessopportunities and welcome newcomers and visitors alike.NOW is the time and Olympia's Shoreline Master Program is the way to set adirection for the Shoreline for all the residents now and into the future.Thank You for all the careful consideration you are giving to important issue.Bonnie Jacobs352-1346

mailto:jcbsbonnie@aol.commailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: eastbay4To: Shoreline UpdateSubject: on the DOWNTOWN URBAN SHORELINE prior to 5:00 PM, Tuesday, February 5, 2013Date: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:50:08 PMAttachments: Olympia City Council SMP Comments 252012.docx

Olympia City Council

C/O Olympia Community Planning and Development Department

P.O. Box 1967

Olympia, WA 98507-1967

Re: Comments on the DOWNTOWN URBAN SHORELINE prior to 5:00 PM, Tuesday, February 5,2013

Dear Olympia City Council Members,

As I stated in my three minutes testimony at the January 22 at the City of Olympia Draft ShorelineManagement Program (SMP) hearing, the latest City draft SMP does not adequately address thelong-term Olympia urban saltwater shorelines and near shore tidelands visions and needs over thenext 20 to 50 years. There are a number of priority and critical long-term Olympia urban saltwatershoreline needs, like probable sea-level rise over the next 50 years as the result of global warming,etc., improving public access and use of Olympia’s urban saltwater shoreline with the planned big“W” walking and biking trail, etc., and planting some of Olympia’s urban saltwater shoreline slopeto mitigate prior environmental damage done to the flora and fauna by major filling of the southBudd Inlet shorelines and near shore tidelands. This has been especially bad with past fills on thewest side of West Bay and East Bay saltwater shorelines. The north side of the Isthmus urbansaltwater shoreline is also built on fill that is susceptible to liquefaction during probableearthquakes, sea-level rise, and need to mitigate the north shoreline to enhance shoreline flora andfauna. This mitigation on the north Isthmus saltwater shoreline should try to accommodate thecurrent retail activities as well as current or future water dependent, water related, and waterenjoyment uses, like the Olympia Yacht Club, City marine amenities and bathrooms, andOysterhouse Restaurant. My personal priority Olympia urban saltwater shoreline vision is tocontinue current and enhanced future public access and use of the Olympia’s urban saltwatershorelines, as required in numerous current numerous plans that connect all segments of theplanned big “W” urban saltwater shoreline trail.

Recommendations SMP Buffers, Building Heights, and Urban Saltwater Shoreline Sub-Area Plans

1. The west side of West Bay Olympia urban saltwater shoreline requires 55 feet to 70 feetfor a reasonable sustainable shoreline buffer width needed for shoreline vegetativemitigation for prior fills, probable sea-level rise for the next 20 to 50 years, and long-planned West Bay segment of Olympia urban saltwater shoreline walking and biking trailcalled the big “W” trail as well as add adequate donated public access and use easementsfor current development bonuses as currently authorized in the most recent west side ofWest Bay Sub-Area Plan, including:

a. Raising higher building heights from 42 feet to 65 feet for donating a publicaccessible and usable West Bay segment for the big “W” walking and biking trailbased on current Olympia and West Bay plans for a West Bay segment to the big“W” walking and biking trail.

b. Other West Bay Sub-Area Plan and zoning incentives for building up to 65 feet

mailto:eastbay4@comcast.netmailto:shorelineupdate@ci.olympia.wa.us

Olympia City Council

C/O Olympia Community Planning and Development Department

P.O. Box 1967

Olympia, WA 98507-1967

Re: Comments on the DOWNTOWN URBAN SHORELINE prior to 5:00 PM, Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Dear Olympia City Council Members,

As I stated in my three minutes testimony at the January 22 at the City of Olympia Draft Shoreline Management Program (SMP) hearing, the latest City draft SMP does not adequately address the long-term Olympia urban saltwater shorelines and near shore tidelands visions and needs over the next 20 to 50 years. There are a number of priority and critical long-term Olympia urban saltwater shoreline needs, like probable sea-level rise over the next 50 years as the result of global warming, etc., improving public access and use of Olympia’s urban saltwater shoreline with the planned big “W” walking and biking trail, etc., and planting some of Olympia’s urban saltwater shoreline slope to mitigate prior environmental damage done to the flora and fauna by major filling of the south Budd Inlet shorelines and near shore tidelands. This has been especially bad with past fills on the west side of West Bay and East Bay saltwater shorelines. The north side of the Isthmus urban saltwater shoreline is also built on fill that is susceptible to liquefaction during probable earthquakes, sea-level rise, and need to mitigate the north shoreline to enhance shoreline flora and fauna. This mitigation on the north Isthmus saltwater shoreline should try to accommodate the current retail activities as well as current or future water dependent, water related, and water enjoyment uses, like the Olympia Yacht Club, City marine amenities and bathrooms, and Oysterhouse Restaurant. My personal priority Olympia urban saltwater shoreline vision is to continue current and enhanced future public access and use of the Olympia’s urban saltwater shorelines, as required in numerous current numerous plans that connect all segments of the planned big “W” urban saltwater shoreline trail.

Recommendations SMP Buffers, Building Heights, and Urban Saltwater Shoreline Sub-Area Plans

1. The west side of West Bay Olympia urban saltwater shoreline requires 55 feet to 70 feet for a reasonable sustainable shoreline buffer width needed for shoreline vegetative mitigation for prior fills, probable sea-level rise for the next 20 to 50 years, and long-planned West Bay segment of Olympia urban saltwater shoreline walking and biking trail called the big “W” trail as well as add adequate donated public access and use easements for current development bonuses as currently authorized in the most recent west side of West Bay Sub-Area Plan, including:

a. Raising higher building heights from 42 feet to 65 feet for donating a public accessible and usable West Bay segment for the big “W” walking and biking trail based on current Olympia and West Bay plans for a West Bay segment to the big “W” walking and biking trail.

b. Other West Bay Sub-Area Plan and zoning incentives for building up to 65 feet should include raising shoreline property ground level to accommodate the probable sea-level rise over the next 50 years at the shoreline edge upland to an enhanced West Bay Drive;

c. Allow from 50 % to 70% of property shoreline building width coverage for public access and use of the big “W” shoreline walking and bike trail;

d. Raising the ground level at the west side of West Bay saltwater shoreline to accommodate more than the probable sea-level rise over the next 50 years (no less than 5 feet); as well as

e. Encourage SMP buffers of 55 feet to 70 feet that permit the big “W” urban waterfront trail, mitigation to correct past west Bay shoreline fill for the benefit of flora and fauna, as long as it does not obstruct public views from the pedestrian and bike big “W” trail and also encourage other amenities for use by the public that use the big “W” trail, like water enjoyment restaurants, boat rental and bike rental commercial space, etc. ;

2. Encourage public access to the West Bay segment of the big “W” shoreline walking and biking trail by creating opportunities for the public to access and use the trail as part of the mix of building incentives for wider building widths that parallel West Bay Drive and the west side of West Bay in the West Bay Sub-Area Plan and appropriate zoning.

3. Encourage foot traffic and bike traffic across private West Bay shoreline property as part of the amenities allowing building width to go from 50 % to 70% to mitigate the public view impacts and improve utilization of related first floor water dependent, water related, and/or broadly defined water enjoyment activities, like restaurants, retail stores, boat rentals, bike rentals, etc.; and

4. Encourage west side of West Bay Sub Area enhancement by reducing SMP buffers in exchange for appropriate non-obtrusive vegetative and shoreline mitigation, raising the ground level by 5 feet or more to accommodate probable sea-level rise over the next 50 years, and move needed public access and use of a sidewalk and bike path near West Bay Drive in order to allow walking and biking access and use of Tug Boat Annie and West Bay Marina and the development of sea-level sensitive elevated building structure closer to the saltwater shoreline with appropriate vegetative mitigation to improve the shoreline eco system for shoreline flora and fauna, as long as the elevated buildings as long as they do not block private and public views from the Crestline Neighborhood to the west and northwest in an amended West Bay Sub-Area Plan and related zoning.

5. Encourage continued public access and use of Olympia’s north Isthmus shoreline by supporting current Percival Landing uses over the water and/or future saltwater shoreline public access and uses along with reasonable water dependent, water related, and some water enjoyment private uses and redevelopment of existing structures upland if needed to accommodate sea-level rise by raising the ground level of adjacent upland private properties and public properties to accommodate existing uses as well as public access and use of the north Isthmus saltwater shoreline segment of the big “W” trail or Percival Landing in front of current private land owners upland use and redevelopment further upland with SMP mandated buffer width as long-as Isthmus Sub-Area Plan requires raising ground level to accommodate probable sea-level rise over the next 50 to a 100 years.

6. Encourage reasonable current uses of the north Isthmus shoreline on these filled properties as well as water dependent, water related, and/or water enjoyment uses and related activities that enhance Percival Landing wood walkway and/or future big “W” trail segment that helps connect the West Bay segment of big “W” trail through Percival Landing and on to the East Bay shoreline big “W” trail segments.

7. The west side of East Bay Olympia urban saltwater shoreline requires a 55 to 70 foot SMP buffer over its filled saltwater shoreline properties needed to accommodate shoreline vegetative mitigations, probable sea-level rise for the next 20 to 50 years, and the enhanced east side of East Bay segment of Olympia’s big “W” urban saltwater shoreline walking and biking trail that will be incorporated into the Port’s east side of East Bay Sub-Area Plan, including:

a. Raising higher building heights from one story stepping back consistent with Olympia’s building standards as reflected in current and future Port of Olympia zoning building height guidelines creating public walking and biking access with water views over appropriate shoreline mitigation, including shoreline slope vegetation to mitigate tideland damage cause by massive prior shoreline fill, including the West Bay Lagoon, publically accessible and useable shoreline trail, and raising upland ground level to accommodate probable sea-level rise over the next 50 years that is no less than 5 feet;

b. Allow for more public access and use by enhancing existing shoreline trail to allow great public access and use of the shoreline for the big “W” walking and bike trail, accommodate probable sea-level rise over the next 50 years of no less than 5 feet, as well as the additional public access and use the big “W” walking and bike trail segment and upland water dependent, water related, and water enjoyment activities from the trail, like water enjoyment restaurants, boat rentals, etc.;

8. Encourage public access and use of the use the East Bay segment of the big “W” shoreline walking and biking trail from parallel road to create added foot traffic and bike traffic to support public amenities and activities, such as water related first floor water dependent, water related, and water enjoyment activities, like restaurants, retail stores, boat rentals, bike rentals, etc.; and

9. Encourage west side of East Bay Sub Area enhancements that integrate shoreline vegetative mitigation to support East Bay flora and fauna, for raising the ground level by 5 feet or more to accommodate probable sea-level rise over the next 50 years, and move needed public access and use of East Bay closer to the shoreline improve walking and biking access and use the marina and access of boat house, bathrooms, etc.

I can attest to the fact that we in our Olympia community have had long-time Olympia urban saltwater shoreline visions, goals, and values. They are largely reflected in our current plans, policies, etc. We have wanted to increase the public’s access and use of the Olympia urban saltwater shorelines. The SMP buffers also need to accommodate the big “W” trail, shoreline and near shoreline land vegetative enhancements for the benefit of shoreline and near shoreline land flora and fauna. These enhancements are intended to further mitigate land fill and/or industrial urban saltwater shoreline toxic and related clean-up that may have created additional non-mitigated shoreline and/or near shore damage. The excessive filling to create buildable industrial shoreline land left dirty (toxic) shoreline land and disturbed the natural shoreline vegetation and/or near-tideland flora and fauna. The prior industrial uses prevented easy access and use of Olympia’s urban saltwater shorelines by the public.

As someone involved with community and shoreline planning since 1984, I can attest the long-held community visions with regard to Olympia urban saltwater shoreline. While on the Olympia Planning Commission (OPC) 1984 to 1992, we worked with the broader community on a common saltwater shoreline vision that was the basis for some of the current planning goals and supportive policies. Olympia and Thurston County’s plans captured this vision, which was used to prioritized capital projects and help make some of these reality, like the East Bay View Area, East Bay Park, etc. These long-held Olympia urban saltwater shoreline community visions were developed through a variety of Olympia community public and private involvement processes and were made real in the current Olympia Comprehensive Plan, Waterfront Plan, west side of West Bay Sub-Area Plan, and numerous shoreline plans and capital projects as well as trying to enhance the Draft SMP buffers and height limitations with regard to Olympia’s urban saltwater shorelines.

should include raising shoreline property ground level to accommodate the probable sea-level rise over the next 50 years at the shoreline edge upland to anenhanced West Bay Drive;

c. Allow from 50 % to 70% of property shoreline building width coverage for publicaccess and use of the big “W” shoreline walking and bike trail;

d. Raising the ground level at the west side of West Bay saltwater shoreline toaccommodate more than the probable sea-level rise over the next 50 years (no lessthan 5 feet); as well as

e. Encourage SMP buffers of 55 feet to 70 feet that permit the big “W” urbanwaterfront trail, mitigation to correct past west Bay shoreline fill for the benefit offlora and fauna, as long as it does not obstruct public views from the pedestrianand bike big “W” trail and also encourage other amenities for use by the public thatuse the big “W” trail, like water enjoyment restaurants, boat rental and bike rentalcommercial space, etc. ;

2. Encourage public access to the West Bay segment of the big “W” shoreline walking andbiking trail by creating opportunities for the public to access and use the trail as part of themix of building incentives for wider building widths that parallel West Bay Drive and thewest side of West Bay in the West Bay Sub-Area Plan and appropriate zoning.

3. Encourage foot traffic and bike traffic across private West Bay shoreline property as part ofthe amenities allowing building width to go from 50 % to 70% to mitigate the public viewimpacts and improve utilization of related first floor water dependent, water related,and/or broadly defined water enjoyment activities, like restaurants, retail stores, boatrentals, bike rentals, etc.; and

4. Encourage west side of West Bay Sub Area enhancement by reducing SMP buffers inexchange for appropriate non-obtrusive vegetative and shoreline mitigation, raising theground level by 5 feet or more to accommodate probable sea-level rise over the next 50years, and move needed public access and use of a sidewalk and bike path near West BayDrive in order to allow walking and biking access and use of Tug Boat Annie and West BayMarina and the development of sea-level sensitive elevated building structure closer to thesaltwater shoreline with appropriate vegetative mitigation to improve the shoreline ecosystem for shoreline flora and fauna, as long as the elevated buildings as long as they donot block private and public views from the Crestline Neighborhood to the west andnorthwest in an amended West Bay Sub-Area Plan and related zoning.

5. Encourage continued public access and use of Olympia’s north Isthmus shoreline bysupporting current Percival Landing uses over the water and/or future saltwater shorelinepublic access and uses along with reasonable water dependent, water related, and somewater enjoyment private uses and redevelopment of existing structures upland if neededto accommodate sea-level rise by raising the ground level of adjacent upland privateproperties and public properties to accommodate existing uses as well as public access anduse of the north Isthmus saltwater shoreline segment of the big “W” trail or PercivalLanding in front of current private land owners upland use and redevelopment furtherupland with SMP mandated buffer width as long-as Isthmus Sub-Area Plan requires raisingground level to accommodate probable sea-level rise over the next 50 to a 100 years.

6. Encourage reasonable current uses of the north Isthmus shoreline on these filledproperties as well as water dependent, water related, and/or water enjoyment uses andrelated activities that enhance Percival Landing wood walkway and/or future big “W” trailsegment that helps connect the West Bay segment of big “W” trail through Percival Landingand on to the East Bay shoreline big “W” trail segments.

7. The west side of East Bay Olympia urban saltwater shoreline requires a 55 to 70 foot SMPbuffer over its filled saltwater shoreline properties needed to accommodate shorelinevegetative mitigations, probable sea-level rise for the next 20 to 50 years, and theenhanced east side of East Bay segment of Olympia’s big “W” urban saltwater shorelinewalking and biking trail that will be incorporated into the Port’s east side of East Bay Sub-

Area Plan, including:a. Raising higher building heights from one story stepping back consistent with

Olympia’s building standards as reflected in current and future Port of Olympiazoning building height guidelines creating public walking and biking access withwater views over appropriate shoreline mitigation, including shoreline slopevegetation to mitigate tideland damage cause by massive prior shoreline fill,including the West Bay Lagoon, publically accessible and useable shoreline trail,and raising upland ground level to accommodate probable sea-level rise over thenext 50 years that is no less than 5 feet;

b. Allow for more public access and use by enhancing existing shoreline trail to allowgreat public access and use of the shoreline for the big “W” walking and bike trail,accommodate probable sea-level rise over the next 50 years of no less than 5 feet, as well as the additional public access and use the big “W” walking and bike trailsegment and upland water dependent, water related, and water enjoymentactivities from the trail, like water enjoyment restaurants, boat rentals, etc.;

8. Encourage public access and use of the use the East Bay segment of the big “W” shorelinewalking and biking trail from parallel road to create added foot traffic and bike traffic tosupport public amenities and activities, such as water related first floor water dependent,water related, and water enjoyment activities, like restaurants, retail stores, boat rentals,bike rentals, etc.; and

9. Encourage west side of East Bay Sub Area enhancements that integrate shorelinevegetative mitigation to support East Bay flora and fauna, for raising the ground level by 5feet or more to accommodate probable sea-level rise over the next 50 years, and moveneeded public access and use of East Bay closer to the shoreline improve walking andbiking access and use the marina and access of boat house, bathrooms, etc.

I can attest to the fact that we in our Olympia community have had long-time Olympia urbansaltwater shoreline visions, goals, and values. They are largely reflected in our current plans,policies, etc. We have wanted to increase the public’s access and use of the Olympia urbansaltwater shorelines. The SMP buffers also need to accommodate the big “W” trail, shoreline andnear shoreline land vegetative enhancements for the benefit of shoreline and near shoreline landflora and fauna. These enhancements are intended to further mitigate land fill and/or industrialurban saltwater shoreline toxic and related clean-up that may have created additional non-mitigated shoreline and/or near shore damage. The excessive filling to create buildable industrialshoreline land left dirty (toxic) shoreline land and disturbed the natural shoreline vegetation and/ornear-tideland flora and fauna. The prior industrial uses prevented easy access and use of Olympia’surban saltwater shorelines by the public.

As someone involved with community and shoreline planning since 1984, I can attest the long-heldcommunity visions with regard to Olympia urban saltwater shoreline. While on the OlympiaPlanning Commission (OPC) 1984 to 1992, we worked with the broader community on a commonsaltwater shoreline vision that was the basis for some of the current planning goals and supportivepolicies. Olympia and Thurston County’s plans captured this vision, which was used to prioritizedcapital projects and help make some of these reality, like the East Bay View Area, East Bay Park,etc. These long-held Olympia urban saltwater shoreline community visions were developedthrough a variety of Olympia community public and private involvement processes and were madereal in the current Olympia Comprehensive Plan, Waterfront Plan, west side of West Bay Sub-AreaPlan, and numerous shoreline plans and capital projects as well as trying to enhance the Draft SMPbuffers and height limitations with regard to Olympia’s urban saltwater shorelines.

RE: City Council’s Shoreline Management Program (Draft) TO: Mr. Mayor and City Council members: Support the Olympia Planning Commission’s SMP Recommendations THE CITY COUNCIL’S SMP DRAFT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH: Multiple provisions of Washington State Statue in RCW 90.58.100 and RCW 90.58.20; City Council’s Resolution of 2009 on Sea Level Rise; Social scientific research as required by state law; Banning “…piece-meal development…” along the marine state shoreline as per state law; Olympia Planning Commission’s recommendations; The character and image of the state capital city of Washington State by blocking views; Full public participation and public involvement process by fast-tracking; Public hearing comments that objected to the City Council’s recommended 30’ setback which privatizes 85% of the public shoreline distance, and leaves local governments unable to respond to future and fiscal liabilities; Heights that must be “…consistent…” or coordinated with the broader community; The demand to “show your work” on how the public setback distance of 30 feet was calculated. City Council draft is “a taking” of the public shoreline setback because the property owners “…arbitrarily…” takes public setback distances without showing the necessary calculations and methods; Outdoor space per person needs in dense urban downtown cores along our marine shoreline environment; “…consistent …” heights (35’) and land use; Protecting against the net loss of millions of SF of scenic wooded hillsides of Olympia;

Received 2/5/2013

Staff given ecological requirements for marine mammals and salmon that require these shorelines to be designated as Urban Conservancy; Olympia Planning Commission’s MAXIMUM recommended public shoreline setback distance of 100 feet along a public shoreline for Reach 5C. 50 feet - Sustainable Pebbled Beach Shoreline treatment is the most cost effective; it’s the only shoreline treatment that attracts visitors and invites residents; it’s the only shoreline treatment that enhances ecological functioning and eelgrass meadow ecosystems; and it’s sustainable shoreline pebbled beach (1:5 slope minimum from OHWM) protects against Sea Level Rise and flood damage; and it’s the best to withstand seismic earthquake damage and expensive repairs. 25 feet - Vegetative Conservation Area 10 feet - Walkway and Bikeway 15 feet - Vegetative buffer from buildings ______ 100 feet – Total public setback for Reach 5C It’s time to comply with the state law that “…the public interest is paramount…” It’s our moment. Have the courage to standup and speak for all the people. Please give your deliberations the perspectives of size and location relative to the needs of different uses. If the waterfront area being considered is 7.2 miles long, i.e., the Big “W,” and 200 feet wide, then it covers about 1\4 (0.27) of a square mile. That's 1.5% of Olympia's total land area (17.82 sq mi), not including the UGA. It's less than 4/100ths of 1% of the County's total land area (727 sq mi). Development, with some obvious exceptions, can occur just about anywhere we don't exclude it. Our waterfront has no choice. It must occur on the shoreline where the land encounters the water. And that line will, of course move landward as sea level rise occurs. It should not be necessary, let alone an imperative, that this slender strip of absolutely unique land be sacrificed to development that will most likely not benefit anything except the economic position of its current owner and whatever entity effects development. It will not enhance the ecological, the recreational, the visual and other aesthetic qualities of the immediate and adjacent property, nor will it seem more attractive than it was before to people who might be otherwise inclined to move here to take a job. That makes it a negative for potential employers, both those doing business here now and those thinking about it.

Received 2/5/2013

Included in my oral testimony before you on the SMP two weeks ago, I referred to the Port of Olympia as a “rogue government.” As that opinion found its way, understandably, into the Olympian as a quote, many people “heard” it. Some may have thought that characterization was bit over the top. I feel that I was accurately representing this particular special purpose agency and indeed, I think I can prove it. My point to you was, and is, that this is exactly the kind of developer (and the Port is developer) that you do not want to encourage or enable because they will deface our waterfront. The Port seeks out design and build developers, i.e., do what you want as long as it pencils out for you. They do not make any money on their real estate deals. By underbidding on the marine terminal and marina services, they may now not make money on anything. They manage between 1/3 and ½ a billion dollars worth of property and can't make a dime for their stockholders, the voter/taxpayers of Thurston County. They are out of touch with this same constituency, many of which don't even know that they contribute property tax money to the Port. They have the worse record of environmental non-stewardship (what they do is by court order) and they have nothing but disdain for the public they serve. Do you think the people of Thurston County, owners of most of the “Port” peninsula, will be unhappy with you if you don't allow the lion's share of that final 200 feet to be developed? Do them a favor, and constrain the Port for losing any more money for them. (They won't make any money on the gas dock either.) I do not retract my opinion of the Port. If you are worried about being sued, please don't take this as a threat, but remember that litigation is an alternative that anyone can use. It is true that it is often a first alternative employed by those wishing to develop outside of the rules established by the City. For those trying to protect the public common or pursue some other non-personal objective it is often a alternative of last resort, employed only when all other avenues of engagement have been frustrated. And lastly, let me remind you that whatever rules you adopt will be in the mixing bowl for quite some time with the Dept of Ecology's blessing waiting perhaps a year down the pipeline. Ironically, the more you try to do to protect and retain the waterfront for the benefit of today's and tomorrow's public, the more likely that some or many parties will choose to slip under the new, impending regulations by developing today instead of later. A case in point is the recent experience in Tumwater where the Council, though intending to impose a moratorium, was unable to act in time to prevent Wal-Mart from submitting an application under the deadline, clearly inconsistent with what the government jurisdiction wanted for their constituents. Ergo, if you do not issue a moratorium, whatever you do may be largely academic when the development over the next 12 months obviates your best intentions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment further. I wish you the best of luck. May your deliberations be guided by your best instincts and the best empirical information.

Received 2/5/2013

Walter R. Jorgensen 823 North St SE Tumwater, WA 98501-3526 waltjorgensen@comcast.net 360-489-0764 (home) 360-529-1581 (cell)

Received 2/5/2013

Ahlschwede.Rob.012313Ahlschwede.Susan.020513Branch.020513Bruton.020513Cuykendall.012113Finch.011713Gadbaw.020513Geppert.020413Goulet.020513Goulet.020513.2Harburg.012013Holm.020513Hoover.020513Jackson.012813Jacobs.Bob.020313Jacobs.Bob.020313.2Jacobs.Bob.020313.3Jacobs.Bob.020313.4Jacobs.Bob.020413Jacobs.Bob.020513Jacobs.Bob.020513.2Jacobs.Bob.020513.3Jacobs.Bob.020513.4Jacobs.Bob.020513.5Jacobs.Bonnie.020513Jaksich.020513Jorgensen.020513Jorgensen.020513.2