Weekly Blog for Joan Machlis

Joan Machlis for Olympia City Council

Machlis wins The Olympian endorsement

The Olympian's candidate choices for Olympia City Council

THE OLYMPIAN | • Published October 11, 2009

    *
      Comments (0)

This is a pivotal election for the Olympia City Council because a majority of the positions are up for election. The decision of voters on Nov. 3 will go a long way toward shaping the future of the capital city.

After years of inaction by council members more interested in national and international issues than policing and potholes, the 2007 election brought refreshing change. Finally, Olympia had a decisive City Council that studied issues, made the tough decisions and got the city moving again.

A new City Hall is under construction, and the Hands On Children’s Museum will soon break ground on port property. A fourth fire station will be built on the east side, The new state employees credit union is ready for occupancy and the city has made significant progress on not one, but two, proposals to meet the decades-long goal of attracting market rate housing downtown.

Plans are in place for the first municipal parking garage, and a major road improvement project is under way on Boulevard Road, with Harrison Avenue and 18th Avenue improvements scheduled shortly. The council has purchased additional land for parks, created West Bay Park, pushed Percival Landing repairs to the top of the to-do list and acquired the city’s first freshwater swimming beach at Ward Lake.

No longer is the Olympia City Council mired in the minutiae of a nuclear-free zone ordinance, angry port protests, a proposed community values ordinance or other nonsense. Yes, the isthmus housing proposal and the lake vs. estuary issues have been contentious, but no one can accuse Olympia of ducking the tough issues. Those who make tough decisions open themselves to public criticism. This is a do-something, not a do-nothing, council. What’s unfortunate is that some people may be one-issue voters. They cannot look beyond one council vote or action to see everything positive going on. That’s regrettable.

Today The Olympian’s editorial board offers its recommendations for the candidates we believe will keep this city moving forward — candidates with a variety of experiences and solid decision-making skills to tackle the issues that will come their way for the next four years.

VELDHEER VS. ROGERS

Karen Messmer is leaving the council. Seeking to replace her are two more Karens — Veldheer and Rogers. The Olympian supports community activist Karen Veldheer.

Rogers, 36, a policy analyst for the Liquor Control Board, has spent much of her campaign running against the current council. She’s primarily focused on the majority vote to uphold the planning commission recommendation to rezone three blocks of the isthmus to allow a mixed-use development, including 141 condominium units. Hers is a campaign of “no” — “no” on the housing project, “no” on the parking garage, “no” on the City Hall. Given her arrogant temperament we have serious concerns about her ability to work with her council colleagues and the city staff.

Veldheer, 37, has gained a reputation for her grassroots activism, helping her Cooper Crest neighbors resolve issues of substandard development that resulted in flooded crawl spaces under their homes. She is focused, determined to improve communication between the council and city residents and supportive of the need to balance economic development with environmental protections. She serves on the steering committee of the Coalition of Neighborhood Associations in Olympia.

Veldheer is much more even-tempered and willing to learn than her opponent. She will have a steep learning curve if elected on Nov. 3, but she, by far, has the better temperament to work with the other six council members. We support Karen Veldheer for Position 4 on the council.

BUXBAUM VS. KINGSBURY

In some respects Councilman Jeff Kingsbury has been his own worst enemy in the past year.

As a leader on the council, Kingsbury was instrumental in drafting the pedestrian interference ordinance, which has helped ease a thorny panhandling problem downtown. Kingsbury, 49, artistic director at Capital Playhouse, also played a pivotal role in drafting the Camp Quixote ordinance that has worked so well to house the homeless in Thurston County. His solid leadership skills have been a terrific benefit to Olympia and its residents.

But Kingsbury also has taken some missteps. He has sometimes treated constituents poorly, and he got caught up in the stupid practice of council members’ e-mailing one another during council sessions. It was dumb, and Kingsbury knows it. He says he has learned from his mistakes. It’s imperative that voters not judge Kingsbury on a couple of minor mistakes, but on his four years of hard work and his strong leadership on the council. He is not afraid of making tough decisions and he has been a solid supporter of nonprofit organizations in the community.

His opponent, Stephen Buxbaum, 54, a management consultant, is a disappointment. Ask Kingsbury whether he supports the lake or estuary option and he answers clearly and concisely — “lake.”

Ask Buxbaum the same question and you get a rambling answer about setting principles for negotiations and how, “we need to bring people together around a shared vision.”

Shared vision? Make a decision! Show some leadership. Based on his demonstrated ability to resolve tough issues, we encourage voters to re-elect Jeff Kingsbury to a second term on the Olympia City Council.

ROE VS. MACHLIS

This is an easy call. Joan Machlis, 60, retired owner of Wind Up Here, is head and shoulders above her challenger, Jeannine Roe, 52, a senior legislative assistant with the state Senate.

Roe is a one-issue candidate. She opposes the council decision to rezone the isthmus, and that appears to be the sum and substance of her knowledge about city governance.

We found her lack of knowledge about the city budget and spending priorities shocking. She’s myopic on the isthmus controversy, and totally ill-prepared to serve on the Olympia City Council.

Machlis, by contrast, has been an excellent council member. She is quiet in demeanor, but has earned a reputation as someone who studies issues in depth, asks the hard questions, comes to a decision and sticks with it.

As a former downtown business owner she gets it. She understands the importance of creating a thriving downtown that has a mix of housing, retail, restaurant and shopping experiences. She’s an advocate for economic development, but not at the expense of the environment. She understands the importance of an efficient transportation plan and how that’s an integral part of the city’s comprehensive plan — the guiding document for development of the community.

Machlis, who was appointed to a vacant council position in January 2008, is thoughtful, articulate and, most important, understands the breadth and depth of thinking necessary to run the complexities of city government. It was telling when Machlis said, “I have a passion for all of the issues.” That speaks of her desire to do the full job, not be a single-issue candidate like her opponent.

Elect Joan Machlis to a full, four-year term on Nov. 3.

SERMONTI VS. HYER

Councilman Joe Hyer, 36, co-owner of the Alpine Experience, is extremely bright. No one knows the city budget better than Hyer. The effort to build a parking garage would have stalled — yet again — were it not for Hyer’s pressure to keep the project alive. He also deserves credit for the city’s zero-waste plan, collecting stimulus funding for important road improvements and the acquisition of the Ward Lake property. No one can question Hyer’s council work ethic.

But he can be extremely indecisive. It drives his friends and supporters crazy. He’s for a lake. No, he’s for an estuary. No, dual basin is the best answer. He’s opposed to a park on the isthmus. No, he supports an isthmus park. Then there was his cop-out on the Capitol Way reconstruction project. He went right down the middle of that road — abstaining on the key vote.

That’s not leadership.

We like the direct, decisive approach of Tony Sermonti, 29, who until recently was a communications specialist with the state Senate.

In the lake vs. estuary issue, Sermonti came out early for the lake option and he has stuck with it. He supported the rezone on the isthmus and doesn’t waffle.

For a young man he has an impressive resume. He was appointed by Gov. Gary Locke to serve as the student representative on the board of trustees at The Evergreen State College and has been president of the Capital City Pride organization for the last two years.

Look for him to tackle the structural problems in the city budget. He’ll look for ways to build partnerships and treat people with the respect they deserve.

Voters looking for a fresh, new voice on the council will support Tony Sermonti on Nov. 3.

The Lake Debate

THE LAKE DEBATE

Like many of you, I’m becoming more concerned about how much the State’s decision about the future of Capitol Lake will affect Olympia. The CLAMP (The Capitol Lake Adaptive Management Plan) Steering Committee has recommended an estuary option. Now begins a long process through General Administration, the Governor’s Office and the legislature. The good news is that with the State’s budget crisis nothing is likely to happen soon so we have time to have our input. The bad news is that nothing is likely to happen soon. We all know that the status quo is bad. With 35,000 cubic yards of sediment being deposited in Capitol Lake every year we are losing the Lake and not improving habitat. Pollution coming down the Deschutes River continues to cause problems in the lake and Budd Inlet.

The lake is becoming the most talked about issue when I doorbell. Most comments I get are from people who see downtown Olympia built around the Lake and want to keep it.

The City Council and staff are working to let the state know that Olympia residents have questions around cost shifting for sediment removal, flooding, odor and insects, water quality, habitat and economic implications to the marinas, port and recreational users. Some council members are beginning to focus on the understudied dual basin option. Under this option, a reflective lake and estuary would be combined. Unfortunately the CLAMP study did not invest much in developing the technical or design features for this option.

My position on this is as follows:

    • Many Olympians are very concerned, as am I, about the environment and the health of Budd Inlet and Puget Sound. We all realize the river and lake can have a role in improving the environment. We respect the role of the state departments and the Squaxin Tribe who identified the environmental problems with the Lake. There are, still, many, many ways to clean up our environment. Is spending $60 – 87 million dollars to remove the dam, build a new bridge and make changes to Deschutes Parkway the best use of these scarce funds to improve wildlife and salmon habitat in the South Sound?

    • We don’t know what the estuary would be like. We need visuals and information we can rely on to know if an estuary would be compatible with the urban downtown we are building. The growth management vision to create compact, transit-oriented city centers is another compelling environmental mandate of our times and one that I’m working hard to achieve.

    • Heritage Park Capitol Lake was created as a reflecting pool for the Capitol campus. Many people I speak with envision mudflats, mosquitoes and odor that are not compatible with downtown Olympia, the park, or nearby neighborhoods and see it detracting from the beauty of the Capitol campus. Again, the question of aesthetics needs to be addressed.

    • I am not opposed to the city and private interests paying a portion of the costs of lake management. Olympians reap enormous benefits from this asset. But, the cost shifting for handling sediment that will end up in Budd Inlet if the dam is removed to create the estuary could easily be unaffordable and vastly change our marinas, our port operations and even the City’s plans for Percival Landing. We have to hold firm on a management plan with a budget and a governance structure that means we are not left holding a financial “bag”.

The CLAMP Steering Committee looked at many important questions. I don’t think they looked at everything important to Olympians. They haven’t presented us with answers to questions on how this would fit in with an increasingly urban downtown or the State’s investment in Heritage Park. We don’t know what the economic impacts will be on downtown business, the marina, and the port of changing from a Lake. And we don’t know how any option is going to be paid for.

Given these big questions, I cannot support a change. I can support an on-going process where many of Olympia’s citizens’ questions get answered, where a governance body is established and where there is much more opportunity for public input and information going forward in what promises to be a long process. I will continue to advocate for Olympia’s recreational, aesthetic and economic interests being balanced with the environmental conclusions supporting an estuary option. I also will support looking at other options including the dual basin.

Q&A on the Isthmus

As I doorbell I've found frequent misinformation on the Isthmus issue.  I've addressed some of the most common questions here.

September 2009

Frequently Asked Questions about

Development on the Isthmus

This FAQ was developed to clear up confusion and misinformation, and to help citizens understand the legal, environmental, and economic realities that City Council members considered when we approved the comprehensive plan amendment for the proposed mixed-used development by Triway Enterprises.

1.  Where exactly is the property that is included in the rezone?

The property is west of the Capitol Center Building (the nine-story office building on the isthmus) and east of the old Kentucky Fried Chicken building.  The site is currently occupied by the empty and deteriorating buildings that used to house the County Health Department and the Housing Authority.

2.  Who currently owns the property?

The County sold this property in 2001, and it was later bought by Triway Enterprises, which is owned by Tri Vo, a local developer. 

3.  What does the developer want to build there?  What will it look like?

Tri Vo plans to build condos, offices and parking, with retail shops at street level.  But what ultimately is built will depend on financing, market conditions, and the results of the City’s rigorous design review and building permit processes.  (The Council’s vote for the rezone was just the first step; the design review and building permit processes have not yet begun.

Many people were alarmed by the pictures used during the planning process that showed big yellow boxes on this site.  Those pictures were presented to show the potential building heights being considered, but they were misleading (not to mention ugly!).  The Urban Waterfront Housing District has design regulations that require “step backs” above 35 feet.  This means the building would look more like a wedding cake, with higher floors smaller than lower floors. 

When the Council approved the rezone, it added more requirements – for parking, public viewing space, a public trail and, if the buildings go up to seven stories, an investment in a waterfront park.

4.  Is Triway Enterprises a reputable developer?

Yes. Tri Vo is a local citizen and developer who has a 20-year track record of completing projects such as the Cabela’s in Lacey and the Horizon Pointe housing development.  There has been controversy about Cooper Crest, an experimental low-impact development, because of drainage issues, and because some of the builders of individual homes there have gone out of business.  Tri Vo is currently finishing the work that builders were obligated to do, but didn’t.

5.  Did the City Council give tax breaks or other special consideration to Triway when it approved the rezone? 

No.  The City Council did not grant a property tax exemption (currently available for most new downtown housing units) for this project.  In fact, the current Council rescinded a pre-existing tax exemption for this area that was agreed to years ago.  Neither Triway nor the buyers of any condos that are built will receive any tax exemptions.

By law the Planning Commission and the City Council consider comprehensive plan amendments once each year to help achieve the plan’s goals and policies.  This rezone was one of seven amendments considered last year.  The Council weighed the evidence and found that this action would help meet the goal set 15 years ago to create more downtown housing and promote economic vitality. 

6.  What about the environmental impacts of this development?

Substantial majorities of the members of the Planning Commission and the City Council agree that there will be important environmental benefits when more people live downtown, where they can walk or bike to work and to shop.  This reduces air and water pollution, reduces dependence on cars and our need to pave more roads (which costs about $1 million per mile), and helps prevent the conversion of agricultural and rural lands to suburban development. 

Several blocks were rezoned to the same housing zone designation in 2002.  The Environmental Impact studies done for the 2002 rezone and the 2008 rezone both concluded that there were no significant environmental impacts. There is also no adverse impact on the shoreline.  Less than an acre of the 2.94 acre site that was rezoned is within the shoreline and therefore subject to state Department of Ecology approval.

7.  Won’t this development block the view of the waterfront?

Even if the Council had not agreed to the rezone, current laws and rules would allow a 35-foot tall building in this location.  In fact, an office building on the site had previously been approved, but Triway would rather build housing – a use that contributes a great deal more to the City’s comprehensive plan goal of increasing downtown housing, and would also produce less rush-hour traffic than an office building.

The rezone allows a building height of 42 feet within the first 100 feet from the shoreline, and 65 feet within the second 100 feet from the shoreline.  These heights are similar to those allowed along the rest of our city’s and port’s shorelines.

It’s important to note that even a single story building, such as Bayview Thriftway, blocks the view of the shoreline for anyone walking along the street.  That’s why the City has committed to maintaining a system of waterfront trails, parks and boardwalks around the shoreline.  From the capitol campus, these new buildings will block part of the view of Budd Inlet, but not the Olympic Mountains.

8.  What is the City’s plan for the rest of the isthmus?

Since 1993, when the Heritage Park plan was finalized, the view corridor has been defined as the blocks where Fountain Park is now located.  The City intends to preserve the view corridor from the capitol campus through Heritage Park, which the state owns, and Fountain Park, which the City owns.  The City will eventually buy and demolish all the one-story buildings between Fountain Park and Heritage Park creating a continuous park and opening up this vista. 

The City does not own – nor can it afford to buy – the nine-story Capitol Center Building.  Nor does the City envision turning all of the isthmus into a park.  Our first priority will be repairing and improving Percival Landing.  There are already 70 acres of land devoted to parks downtown, and when the West Bay park and trail are completed there will be over four miles of public waterfront access.

Coalition for Open Government

I’ve been struggling with completing a candidate questionnaire from the Washington Coalition for Open Government. Every question gives me pause. I might have agreed with the general premise behind a question, but got stuck in the subtleties. The questionnaire asks for yes/no answers where I see complexity.

 First, the Washington Coalition for Open Government is a statewide organization located in Seattle with members from all over the state. Its Board of Directors includes eminent persons associated professionally with diverse interests including newspaper publishing, the law, state government, academia, and public policy advocacy. The mission statement is:

 "The Coalition was formed to act as an independent, non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to promoting and defending the People's right to know in matters of public interest and in the conduct of the public's business. The Coalition's driving vision is to help foster open government processes, supervised by an informed and engaged citizenry, which is the cornerstone of democracy."

 Organizational support is important to a campaign, no question. But my dilemma was discussed by Barack Obama in The Audacity of Hope. Here are some of his thoughts on the topic of questionnaires, which come up frequently in political campaigns.

 (Interest groups) “aren’t searching for the most thoughtful, well-qualified, or broad-minded candidate to support. Instead they are focused on a narrow set of concerns—their pensions, their crop supports, and their cause. Simply put they have an ax to grind. And they want you, the elected official, to help them grind it”.

 Even with groups where Obama was aligned in opinion he found himself “hedging on such questions, writing in the margins, explaining the difficult policy choices involved””.

 If you get the questions “right” you have “locked yourself into the pattern of reflexive, partisan jousting that you have promised to help end.”

 And “sometimes it didn’t matter how you filled out your questionnaire”—you would not receive the endorsement even if your interests and voting record were aligned with the group’s cause.

 So, the way I conduct myself as a councilperson is how I find I must conduct myself as a candidate. Significant policy questions are usually difficult. There are competing interests. I like to think about the questions deeply, try to foresee the implications of my decisions, and weigh the pros and cons.

 And, the questions about open government are interesting and complicated, I think. A future posting will respond to the questions posed by the Coalition for Open Government in a way that will let me explore the issues more deeply than I could in the questionnaire.

A Give Away? NOT!

A Give Away?  NOT!

It might serve the purpose of folks who have made the Isthmus their issue to keep things simple and in sound bytes.  But, remember few sat through hours of public testimony, read 1,400 e-mails and reviewed reports, studied view analyses and the comprehensive plan.   There is much more to the story of the rezone. 

Independent thinking people would naturally ask the question of how the vast majority of public servants on both the Planning Commission and the Council arrived at the conclusion that the rezone was in the public interest. 

This post isn’t about the reasons for the rezone.  What it is about is how the Council carefully tried to balance view issues with the community goal of providing increased urban housing densities.  In a black and white world this balancing is looked upon cynically.  In the real world compromise is what good public policy is all about. 

Initially the Council decided to limit the number of parcels on which increased heights were allowed.  We reduced the parcels in the rezone to include only the two blocks west of the Fountain Block, between Fourth and Fifth Avenues, one acre of which is within the 200 foot shoreline. This area currently houses the ImageSource Building and a parking lot with jersey barricades along the Deschutes Waterway.

The Urban Waterfront-Housing Zone allows a building height of 42 feet outright and requires that beyond the ground floor retail shops, all floors must be residential. We require the development to provide increased public amenities if additional height is sought to provide housing units--amenities far beyond the requirements of the Shoreline Management Program.

If the development builds to 5 stories the developer must comply with tailored development and design regulations created for the UW-H Zone, with step-backs that will mean that a building will not have a vertical wall effect. They will also participate in a rigorous Design Review process.  There must be a public view platform of at least 400 square feet built into the development.  And, one public parking stall must be created for every 10,000 square feet of gross building floor area.  The developer must also create a pedestrian and bike right of way between 4th and 5th Avenues. 

If the development rises to 7 stories even more requirements apply: the viewing platform area doubles and the developer must either build a park on site or contribute to a new park or plaza with public access to the shoreline such as Percival Landing or West Bay Park. On the shoreline parcel, the development must also provide a trail connection along the waterfront.

In addition, the Council did not grant a tax exemption for the development of housing on the Isthmus.  Tax exemption has been critical to downtown investments in many communities to help offset the disincentives to private investment in core areas.  Tax exemption is allowed throughout the rest of downtown.  We decided, however, that the Isthmus already benefits from substantial public funding of amenities and therefore might not require the tax exemption to develop.

The City and the State, as evidenced in the recent Isthmus Park exercise, cannot afford to provide public amenities everywhere on our urban shoreline. In fact, we are having difficulty funding high priority projects like the repair of Percival Landing and the development of West Bay Park and Trail.  Even the completion of Fountain Park will be delayed for many years. 

Private investment can help develop activity centers, parks, and trails as part of an open, accessible, attractive and lively City waterfront.  Good development regulations and zoning requirements work hand in hand with public investment. The UW-H District is an example of this cooperative roadmap for our city’s waterfront.

Our divided community

Clearly, decisions about rezone of the Isthmus have divided the community.  People on both sides of this issue feel strongly they have the corner on the truth.  We do have a hard time hearing each other in any satisfying ways.  

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of development there or the council races, leaders will need to build much more consensus around the best ways to accommodate growth and improve the vitality and sustainability of downtown.

This kind of consensus doesn't happen well when discussing specific projects.  It especially doesn't happen well during the proscribed comprehensive plan amendment process.  This was the process under which the rezone decision was made.

I have written a position paper about some of my thoughts on these issues.  It's available at www.joanmachlis.com under Position Papers:  Growth.  

I really welcome your comments and debate about what I have written.