Gov. Gary Locke changes waterfront laws to keep Boeing in the 'hood. This new pier that's going in will affect the whole Snohomish system fish runs.
EVERETT -- On the Port of Everett pier overlooking the USS Abraham Lincoln, Gov. Gary Locke signed the Everett Shorelines Bill into law Thursday as the bill's supporters looked on.
Under the new law, the Growth Management Act and Shorelines Management Act are given equal weight, allowing for a range of waterfront development called for under a 1995 state law.
Alhough Locke could have signed the bill at his desk in Olympia, he chose to make a trip to Everett's waterfront -- where the future development could, in part, determine whether Boeing decides to stay in the region.
City, county and port officials have said a proposed pier is essential to the long-term viability of the Boeing Co.'s Everett factory. The bill's signing means there are fewer regulations that would block the pier's construction.
Locke said he would ask for $16 million from the state's $2 billion capital construction fund to help pay for the pier.
Supporters of the bill described its passage as critical to the city's economic development and a piece of key legislation that could determine whether Boeing continues operations in Pierce, King and Snohomish counties.
Boeing officials have criticized the state's transportation system and questioned the state's ability to improve its ports.
"We're all here because we care about jobs," Locke said. "Jobs for the entire Puget Sound area. This bill clarifies shoreline laws. It allows businesses to make decisions with a better understanding of government expectations."
In January, city and port officials were left hanging after a state hearings board struck down portions of the city's revised 2002 Shoreline Master Plan. The three-member, unelected board is empowered to hear challenges to city and county growth plans.
The board ruled that the Shoreline Management Plan had priority over the Growth Management Act and that Everett's revised plan did not adequately protect five environmentally sensitive areas.
City and port officials were outraged that the board's decision gave undue weight to protecting and preserving shoreline areas. As a result, industry, navigation, development and public access to the waterfront were pushed aside, city planning director Paul Roberts said. State law calls for a balanced use of the waterfront, he said, "not just preservation."
In response to the ruling, the city, port and state Department of Ecology, which had signed off on the city's shoreline plan, filed motions with Snohomish County Superior Court, appealing the decision. They claimed the board overstepped its authority and wrongly interpreted and applied the law.
On the waterfront, officials feared that the ruling would jeopardize the proposed pier. The port has been studying whether to build a 600-foot pier at the Mukilteo tank farm to handle shipments of parts bound for Boeing's Everett plant.
Currently, ships unload airplane parts in Seattle or Tacoma, where they are transferred to Everett-bound barges. With the addition of a new pier, the cargo ships could dock in Everett, saving Boeing time and money.
Under a 1995 state law, cities and counties were asked to update their shoreline master plans using the Growth Management Act, which regulates urban and rural growth, and the Shoreline Management Act, governing development within 200 feet of state waters.
Eric Johnson, representing the Washington Association of Ports, said the new law benefits not only Everett, but "cities and counties and ports across the state." Within the next few years, they will be required to update their shoreline master plans to match the new law.
"This bill improves our economy without compromising our environment," Locke added.
But Peggy Toepel, spokeswoman for the Everett Shoreline Coalition, the citizens group that challenged the city's revised shoreline plan, stayed home Thursday.
The group opposed the new legislation, calling it unnecessary. The 1995 law spelled out what was required for the revision of shoreline plans, Toepel said.
"(Boeing) did a heavy-duty lobbying job, and I think nobody dared vote against it," Toepel said. "I think it was used as a poster child for getting them to soften industrial regulations and other waterfront activities that wouldn't have been allowed in the shoreline zone."
Previous Topic
Index
