The Olympian's Sunday story on what Ecology has told the City about its proposal to amend the Shoreline Master program to accomodate Triway's condo project seems kind of confusing to me. I made some public records requests about what was going on which I sent to The Olympian and which were part of the material for their story; here's my understanding of what those show.

The Olympian says "state officials aren’t inclined to approve the city’s request to allow taller buildings as it’s currently worded." The wording isn't the problem; Ecology says that the proposal violates three out of its seven legal guidelines for when it's permissible to change an SMP through a limited amendment.

Among other things, those say that you can't change your SMP through a limited amendment if 1) the changes represent "a significant modification to shoreline management practices ... or significantly add, change, or delete use regulations;" or 2) there are "substantive issues that must be addressed on a comprehensive basis... such as ... major use conflicts, or public access;" or 3) "The current master program and the comprehensive plan are not mutually consistent."

The first two seem pretty clear. The point of the third one, as Ecology expressed it in the analysis (here and here) accompanying its letter to the City, is that the Shorelines Management Act "requires that other local plans, regulations, ... and ordinances for land adjacent to SMA shoreline jurisdiction be assessed to make sure use policies for that land are consistent with the SMA policy ... Guidelines ... and the local SMP, not the other way around." Basically, Ecology says that the City’s limited amendment "represents 'uncoordinated and piecemeal' development of the state’s shorelines in direct conflict with the fundamental purpose of the Shoreline Management Act."

Ecology's guidelines also say:

"Limited amendments are often proposed to address specific projects. Such 'spot' amendments may be inconsistent with the SMA’s policy favoring comprehensive shoreline planning and the avoidance of piecemeal development. They may also be inconsistent with the specific requirements of the guidelines. In general, limited amendments should not be used to address specific project proposals, but instead should be based on other factors."

Seems pretty clear to me...

In fact, Ecology met with the City about this issue at least three times, starting in June 2008, well before the Planning Commission started discussing the proposal. At each meeting, according to Ecology's meeting notes, they told the City that "it was most appropriate to address the type of changes they were proposing through a comprehensive SMP amendment." Ecology also offered to discuss this with the Planning Commission, but the City "decided not to invite them." Ecology says that the City should handle this proposal as part of the comprehensive review of the SMP, which is already underway with State funding and is legally due by 2011.

(I also happen to know that the City Council was well aware of this issue, because I sent them the guidelines myself before they voted on the rezone...)

Because the City has insisted on trying to get this change made using a process that Ecology repeatedly recommended against using, we've probably wasted hundreds of hours of staff and citizen time. Unless Ecology suddenly changes its mind, we'll probably have to start over and do this right over the next two years, as part of the comprehensive revision of the Shoreline Master Plan and the comp plan update.

In fact, I think that discussing the isthmus as part of what to do about the whole waterfront is the only way for us to work out a creative compromise about development and waterfront access in the City. We need to talk about the issues all together - in a comprehensive discussion of the isthmus, Triway's West Bay condo project, the Port's new waterfront development, the future of Capitol Lake, and what ought to happen eventually to all that empty land the Port's sitting on. (Maybe we'll also actually have a new Council with new priorities to vote on the changes - if it does turn out that Ecology won't go along with the current Council's efforts to push this through.)

Best,
Thad