If it can be proven that high rise buildings on the isthmus are the highest and best use, then I would say that I would have to go along with it. But if it can be proven that there are better uses for the land in question, then I think building height limits should not be, accordingly, rezoned.

So it comes down to determining what's best for the whole community, present and future.

If the amendment were to be passed by the Council, there is no guarantee that future development would be in line with the proposed Larida Passage idea. It could be changed to office space or simply sold to another developer with his/her own idea.

Although it may seem like this has been going on for a long time, this is only the first step in the journey toward what the developer visions as the final product.

I sent it to the Planning Commission in an email tonight... by the way, the Planning Commission is considering written testimony until June 30th. Then they begin deliberating. They will make their recommendation to the Council on July 21.

I oppose the proposed amendment to change the height limits on the isthmus.

I do hope that the Planning Commission is not influenced by the threat that Triway will build a three story office building on the isthmus if the rezone is rejected. This alternate project has been referenced quite frequently lately in the discussion about the rezone, and was made most notably by Triway's counsel Aaron Lang at the conclusion of the hearing tonight. I was at the public forum in March where the point was made rather strongly that development of the isthmus would not be "attractive" to developers under the current zoning because projects wouldn't be sufficiently profitable. A three story office building in an area where office space has been vacant sounds like a losing proposition. The return on investment will be considerably lower for several reasons: the tax break for housing won't apply; the smaller size of the building will mean less space can be sold or leased to offset construction costs; and the premiums for views that homeowners will accept are much higher than those leasing office space will be willing to pay.

It is clear that despite all the rhetoric about Tri Vo's love for the Olympia community and his desire to leave us with a "legacy," this proposed alternative project seems to have been conceived with a spiteful intent, and it's a loser, business-wise. Supporters of the rezone have been using it as a threat. Please don't allow it to influence your decision.
Sincerely,

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

From: Robert F. W. Whitlock
[redacted address]

To: Members of the City Planning Commission;
Members of the City Council;
and everyone else

Re: Urban Waterfront Rezone Proposal

Dear City Council Members, City Planning Commissioners, et al.,

The City of Olympia mission statement is to "improve the quality of life and to enhance the spirit of the community through personalized services, citizen involvement, planning for the future, and a commitment to timely action."

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed building height rezone. I am glad to participate in the planning activities for this diverse community, and I hope that my ideas will be considered as genuine, and a well-meaning contribution to the discourse on this issue, as well as the resultant future physical form of this special area.

When determining zoning standards, It is important to hold proposals to the standard of best use. It’s important to ask tough questions. What indeed is the best use for this parcel of land? What are the potential benefits of the proposal, and what are the possible pitfalls?

I want to express my disapproval of the proposal based on my belief that the potential pitfalls far outweigh the potential benefits. So I will attempt to briefly and concisely describe some of the basis of my opinion to deny the Urban Waterfront Rezone Proposal to increase building height limits on the isthmus. That said, I understand that this is an ongoing discussion and I would be glad to participate in an ongoing dialogue.

High-rise buildings on the isthmus will not serve the interests of best use for the area in question. Suppose that the rezone is approved and that the developer fulfills the vision to develop multi-use high-rise buildings to include 100+ market-rate housing units. These high-rise buildings on the isthmus, while perhaps appearing to fulfill some of the functions of sustainability (via denser urban housing), would not necessarily do so – for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is the question of where the residents would work: are there enough jobs locally to support the residents, or would they have to commute to Tacoma or Seattle, or perhaps even further for employment? The task of reducing suburban (and urban) sprawl is high-minded, but we also must simultaneously seek transportation solutions; “car culture” is having deleterious effects on the environment and on society. If we build housing downtown, then we must similarly promote jobs downtown. If the high-rises would increase traffic congestion downtown, then that would be a mark against them from the perspective of fitting into overall community sustainability.

Society is doing grievous harm to the planet, its ecosystems, and its inhabitants (including ourselves.) More species are driven to extinction every day. We can’t eat from the waters of Puget Sound because of pollution; we are even warned against swimming in them. Increasing the density of urban housing is an honorable solution to this problem, but the isthmus location is inappropriate; it would cause an increase in run-off and it would increase traffic in an environmentally sensitive area. There is not a sufficient buffer between the area of proposed rezoning and the water to meet the common sense needs of responsible ecological stewardship. Best use of the land will take into account the current ecological perils and the need for increased efforts toward sustainability.

I could go on and on describing the problems that I see with high-rise buildings on the isthmus, including obstruction of the view, and an effort to sequester the best views for only those who can afford them, rather than affording the best views to everyone who desires them. Also of significance are environmental concerns in relation to sea-level rise predictions, and the livability of a building that is smack-dab in the middle of a projected flood zone. Will people want to live in a building where floodwaters daily submerge surrounding grounds?

Yes, there are many problems with building on the isthmus! There are problems that must, honestly and genuinely, be considered in light of cost and benefit, not only to the current generation, but also to future generations. Yes there are problems with the proposal, but please hear me out, I also want to spend some time describing what I envision as the best use for the isthmus, in light of the City mission (above) and City Resolutions to further sustainability as a function of government (http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/community/sustainability/).

What I see is a park. I see a natural area. My current vision is amorphous, but I think there is room to incorporate ideas from many different alternating visions for a park into the isthmus area. A park would make sense for a number of reasons. One reason is the ability of a natural area to cope with rising waters. Two would be its function as a truly novel feature – a feature not unlike the Central Park of NYC – a feature that would attract people and attention to downtown. A park would attract more housing, more people, and more economic activity to the core of downtown. Olympia is already an interesting and stimulating place to live. A park would only serve to increase and solidify the special qualities of Olympia, as a place that prides itself as being at the edge of the envelope of culture and future planning.

A park would have the ability to function as a monument to our societal relationship with the natural world; it would serve as a monument to the sacred space that exists where the two waters of the Deschutes and Puget Sound meet; it would serve as a reminder of our socio-ecological relationship with nature and wilderness, a relationship that is absolutely essential to the maintenance of quality of life. A park would also serve as an environmental buffer between the products and contaminants of industrial society, and the sensitive Puget Sound waterway. We have an opportunity – by denying the proposal to rezone – to encourage the creation of a park, a monument to a vision and a hope for a healthy and prosperous future, for all the members of future generations.

The City of Olympia has adopted a series of formal resolutions that encourage and promote a functioning sustainable society (citation above). True sustainability will take a lot of effort, and changes, some more difficult than others. In some ways, moving toward sustainability will be challenging, it will challenge some of the preconceived notions that many of us have. In other ways it’s an exciting opportunity to expand our awareness and our horizons.

In conclusion, I believe that to deny the rezone proposal is the only fitting response to upholding this vision for sustainability. Would building in a projected flood zone be good business? NO! – To deny the building height limit rezone proposal is just, quite simply, good business.

I encourage a vision for dense urban housing. Build in areas that are not flood-prone. Build in areas that do not constitute a sacred space for the community. Wouldn't it be great to have 15,000 more people living and working in downtown Olympia? Let's promote downtown housing development in a responsible, ecological and economical manner. Keep the isthmus free for future generations. Keep alive the vision of a great public open space – a place to celebrate the meeting of two waters, and to honor our socio-ecological/economic relationship with the Earth.

Thank you for your time and for your consideration,

Robert F. W. Whitlock
[telephone redacted]