Land Use and Urban Design - the City of Olympia

From: Melaney Anderson 

To: Stacey Ray 

Subject: [QUAR] RE: Olympia"s Comprehensive Plan available online now! 

Date: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 3:23:50 PM 

Importance: Low 

How would I go about requesting a copy (either printed or pdf)? I don't 

need a bound copy or anything fancy. I just don't have that much time to 

print out each piece (in multiple web pages) and try to piece it together 

into a document for review and forwarding to others within our group. If 

there were comments available on this pilot project, that would be mine, to 

have a link available to download an easily printable copy that is more user 

friendly (for printing). 

Thanks, 

Melaney 

______________________________________ 

M E L A N E Y R. A N D E R S O N 

Asset Manager 

PCF Management Services, Inc. 

PCF Real Estate Services, L.L.C. 

8625 Evergreen Way, Ste. 200 

Everett, WA 98208 

Ph: (425) 438-1925 

Fax: (425) 338-5745 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Stacey Ray [mailto:sray@ci.olympia.wa.us] 

Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 3:13 PM 

To: 'm.anderson@pcfre.com' 

Subject: RE: Olympia's Comprehensive Plan available online now! 


Good Afternoon Melaney, 

Thank you for your comment. The April Draft of the Comprehensive Plan 

Update is primarily web-based, with multiple web pages. This is a new 

online format we are transitioning to for all new City plans and documents, 

and the Comprehensive Plan is actually the pilot project for this 

transition. The web version you see online is able to be printed. 

The City does not have printed and bound versions or a PDF document readily 

available. If you wished to request that format, it could be done as a 

formal record request. Let me know if you'd like to go that route, and I 

can connect you with the right person. 

Thank you, 

Stacey Ray, Associate Planner 

Community Planning and Development 

City of Olympia WA | PO Box 1967 | Olympia WA 98507-1967 

360-753-8046 

sray@ci.olympia.wa.us


From: Shira Moch 

Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 1:58 AM 


Subject: FW: [QUAR] RE: Olympia's Comprehensive Plan available online now! 


________________________________________ 

From: Melaney Anderson [m.anderson@pcfre.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 3:48 PM 

To: Shira Moch 

Subject: [QUAR] RE: Olympia's Comprehensive Plan available online now! 

Is there a way to get an easily printable pdf of this whole document? 

Thanks, 

Melaney 

______________________________________ 

M E L A N E Y R. A N D E R S O N 

Asset Manager 

PCF Management Services, Inc. 

PCF Real Estate Services, L.L.C. 

8625 Evergreen Way, Ste. 200 

Everett, WA 98208 

Ph: (425) 438-1925 

Fax: (425) 338-5745 


From: Shira Moch [mailto:smoch@ci.olympia.wa.us] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 3:06 PM 

Subject: Olympia's Comprehensive Plan available online now! 

Return-Path: 

Delivered-To: m.anderson@257697.261701 

Received: (qmail 28240 invoked by uid 78); 3 Apr 2012 22:09:50 -0000 

Delivered-To: pcfre.com-melaney.scott@pcfre.com 

Received: (qmail 28235 invoked by uid 78); 3 Apr 2012 22:09:50 -0000 

Received: from unknown (HELO cloudmark1) (10.49.16.117) 

by 0 with SMTP; 3 Apr 2012 22:09:50 -0000 

Return-Path: 

Received: from [198.239.94.33] ([198.239.94.33:41129] 

helo=mail.ci.olympia.wa.us) 

by cm-mr29 (envelope-from ) 

(ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r(37554)) with ESMTP 

id C4/B8-16108-D257B7F4; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:09:50 -0400 

Received: from newman.olynet.local ([10.0.2.69]) by mail.ci.olympia.wa.us 

with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); 

Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:09:45 -0700 

Received: from sherlock.olynet.local (10.0.2.79) by newman.olynet.local 

(10.0.2.69) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.159.2; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 

15:06:21 -0700 

Received: from newman.olynet.local ([10.0.2.69]) by sherlock.olynet.local 

([10.0.2.79]) with mapi; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:06:19 -0700 

From: Shira Moch 

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:06:19 -0700 

Subject: Olympia's Comprehensive Plan available online now!

From: artemisfowl@comcast.net 

To: ImagineOlympia 

Subject: Every year the same thing 

Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:17:12 PM 

You people just don't get it, do you? Or you just don't want to get it? How many letters 

must we send? How many meetings must we schedule? How many city council 

members do we have to vote out? Why do you continue in this pointless persistence 

again and again and again? Your flights of fancy at Decateur have failed every single 

time beginning in 2001, why haven't you got the message yet? Do you even live in 

Olympia at all? Didn't you see the campaign people in this community mounted to 

prevent a 7/11 from being built on Harrison? I mean, holy cow, anyone home? WE. 

DON'T. WANT. THIS. KIND. OF. DEVELOPMENT. 

I mean really, do you think this is fun for us? Do you think struggling, working families 

taking care of sick loved ones who turn on the news to hear about the Obama 

administration trying to acquire the right to indefinitely detain people or make it illegal 

for people to sell their used belongings have the energy for this? Is there no end? 

When will enough be enough?

From: cambrusie@verizon.net 


Subject: "Urban Corridor" 

Date: Monday, June 11, 2012 11:22:48 AM 

To whom it may concern, I am a resident in the Governor Stevens neighborhood and am in close 

proximity to Capitol Blvd. I have several concerns in regards to the urban corridor proposal. First and 

foremost the areas that would be impacted by this proposal are part of our city's historic 

neighborhoods. These areas are part of the charm of our city and would not benefit from high-density 

construction or any further commercial development. They would also add to the already challenging 

parking and driving issues that exist in the areas narrow sub-streets. Not to mention that this proposal 

is in direct conflict with the existing historic preservation goals. instead of developing in our already 

established historic, residential neighborhoods, why not focus on the commercial area near the 

Tumwater Safeway. 

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Date: June 7, 2012 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: STACEY RAY, COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 

FROM: KELSEY SMITH 

CHAIR: OLYMPIA ARTS COMMISSION 

SUBJECT: OLYMPIA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 

APRIL DRAFT 

Members of the Arts Commission met on June 7, 2012, to review and provide comment on the arts 

section of the Comprehensive Plan April Draft. 

In general, discussion focused on two concepts: 

Performing arts should be called out more rather than assuming the term “artist” covers both disciplines. 

The arts center approach should be regional. 

The following changes are recommended: 

Arts and Events Create Community 

Olympia is now home to nearly 2,500 individual artists and almost 100 arts organizations and 

venues. Resident artists are active in music, literature, performance, and visual arts. They consist 

of emerging artists to those that are nationally known. Olympia hosts award-winning theater, 

groundbreaking independent rock music performances, the Procession of the Species, and a 

strong visual arts community that ranges from informal artists to those with nationwide gallery 

representation. 

During the next 20 years, Olympia will face two challenges: 

Creating an Arts Center. This has been identified as a need since 1989. This interjurisdictional 

center should provide exhibition space, working studios, and rehearsal space for 

regional artists. (Additions in red). 

PC7.5Use public art to tell the story of Olympia. Commissioners felt the topic was covered by 

PC7.3 - Use public art to create unique community places and visible landmarks. 

PC7.8 Install Encourage art in vacant storefronts. 

PC8.1 Pursue a regional community arts center. 

PC8.2 Pursue affordable housing and studio/rehearsal space for artists. 

PC8.5 Provide opportunities that highlight the talent of local visual and performing artists. 

PC8.6 Provide technical support to art organizations. 

PC8.9 Encourage early arts education opportunities. 

In addition, Commissioners would like to switch out the photo of the Procession for the photo 

attached. With the caption to read __________________________.

And with regards to the Economy Chapter, Commissioners recommend spelling out the 

abbreviations in the employment chart.

From: jodi backlund 


Subject: Comprehensive Plan 

Date: Thursday, June 07, 2012 5:59:39 PM 

I am writing to voice my concerns about the part of the Comprehensive Plan that 

allows my neighborhood to be part of an "urban corridor." 

This would change the character of my neighborhood (Carlyon North) significantly, 

and not for the better. My street is residential and children can still safely play in 

their front yards. I don't want that to change, it's why we moved here. 

Also, our house is older (1923) and so are others in the area. I am distressed to 

think that the older houses may be taken down in favor of modern structures. I had 

understood that the city was supportive of my neighborhood's historic character, but 

if this part of the Plan is implemented, my neighborhood will change drastically. 

I understand that the city has other options. I strongly urge you to consider them 

and let my neighborhood's character remain. 

Thank you. 

Jodi R. Backlund 

Backlund & Mistry 

P.O. Box 6490 

Olympia, WA 98507 

Phone: (360) 339-4870 

FAX: (866) 499-7475

From: brookebeecher@comcast.net 


Subject: Urban Corridor 


I am a homeowner of a property at 3010 Capitol Boulevard S. I recently became 

aware of an "Urban Corridor" designation allowing for high-density construction. I am 

shocked that the City of Olympia would consider something so detrimental to 

community, to high quality life in residential neighborhoods, to historic preservation, in 

short, to everything that has made Olympia a special city. 

I am under the impression that there are existing Preservation goals for this area, 

selected as one of five "historic neighborhoods." Is the City now tossing out these 

goals in favor of high density construction and commercialization ? There are plenty 

of areas that are underdeveloped and in some cases eyesores that could be 

transformed for the better with attractive development. What has changed in terms of 

our values as a city? 

The neighborhoods as they exist have a strong residential character. Unlike the 

booming subdivisions springing up in the area, where all the houses look alike and 

people move in and out without getting to know their neighbors, the South Capitol, 

Carlyon/North, and Governor Stevens neighborhoods have a very close sense of 

community. I am passionate about living in this beautiful area in a house that was 

built in 1925. People living around me love their neighborhood, their gardens, the 

children in the neighborhood, the fact that we know and care for each other. It stuns 

me that the City would be contemplating destroying part of this - isn't this what cities 

dream of having for their citizens? 

As a teacher, I am wondering what huge high rise complexes might mean for our 

schools? Is there money to build new schools? If we really need high density 

housing why not build it where land is available, and land for new schools, instead of 

destroying one of our stellar neighborhoods? 

There is property available nearby. There is room for more density in the commercial 

area up near the Tumwater Safeway, as well as the brewery site which has been 

abandoned and for sale for years now. 

Not only am I afraid for myself and my quality of life, but I am afraid for the City of 

Olympia. It seems about to sell its soul. 

Sincerely, Brooke Beecher

From: brookebeecher@comcast.net 

To: ImagineOlympia; ImagineOlympia 

Subject: City of Olympia Comprehensive Plan - Capitol Blvd S urban corridor 

Date: Sunday, June 10, 2012 5:12:07 PM 

Attachments: Capitol Blvd urban corridor.pdf 

Please see attached comment letter 

Hal Beecher 

3010 Capitol Blvd S 

Olympia, WA 98501

3010 Capitol Blvd S. 


June 10, 2012 

Olympia Planning Commission 

Olympia, WA 

Dear Olympia Planning Commission members: 

I am concerned about your proposal to designate Capitol Boulevard between the I-5 overpass bridge 

and the Tumwater boundary as “urban corridor” allowing high-density construction. My concerns are 

(1) such a designation would result in a loss of the historical residential character of the neighborhood 

and a decline in the aesthetics and community value, (2) limited opportunity for such construction 

without impacting existing houses or risking significant environmental damage, and (3) there are other 

parts of Olympia where such designation and associated development would be better for Olympia. 

Many of the houses that front Capitol Boulevard in this neighborhood are old and historic. The house 

two away from us dates from the 1860s, well before statehood! Most of the others date from the early 

20 th century and are approaching or have passed 100 years old. The neighborhood receives 

considerable community use by walkers, bikers, and runners, both in organized events and as individual 

activities. The scenic nature of this street contributes to the use of this area for such activities. 

Most of the length of Capitol Boulevard through the Tumwater-I-5 segment is already built. 

Opportunities for new construction would come at the expense of existing houses; only a few lots close 

to I-5 remain vacant. The southwest side of Capitol Boulevard is not suitable for construction due to the 

steep slope leading down to upper Capitol Lake/lower Deschutes River. Construction there would result 

in environmental damage to the lake through sedimentation, increased greenhouse gas emission with 

removal of trees on that side of Capitol Boulevard, and impact to the wildlife in the area, including bald 

eagles, great horned owls, and numerous passerine birds. 

The downtown area, particularly the eastern end of State, 4 th , 5 th , etc., and the Plum Street area seem 

best suited to such urban corridor development. That area has been in decline for many years, although 

some new municipal construction in the area has helped. Many of the properties in that area are vacant 

or limited to bare lot uses. 

I urge you not to squander one of the assets that makes Olympia a desirable place to live. 

Sincerely,

From: DBloom@intercitytransit.com 


Cc: MHarbour@intercitytransit.com; Sophie Stimson 

Subject: Comments on the Transportation section of the Comp Plan Draft 

Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:04:28 AM 

Attachments: OlympiaCompPlan20120510.docx 

Importance: High 

Hello Imagine Olympia, 

Attached, please find comments that are being submitted by Intercity Transit staff 

concerning the Transportation section of the draft Comprehensive Plan. These comments 

replace the previous notes provided to Olympia staff a few weeks ago. 

If you have any questions, please feel to contact me directly. Thank you. 

Dennis 

Dennis Bloom 

Planning Manager 

Intercity Transit 

� dbloom@intercitytransit.com 

�360.705.5832 

Web: IntercityTransit.com

CITY OF OLYMPIA 

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMENTS – TRANSPORTATION 

Mike Harbour and Dennis Bloom, Intercity Transit 

June 12, 2012 

Transportation: 

Street Design Creates Options 

a) ‘Complete Streets’ is a good concept. Would suggest pedestrian and ADA elements that 

reference improving access be “universal design standards.” 

1) GT1 – All streets are safe and inviting for pedestrians and bicyclists. Streets are designed to be 

human scale, while accommodating motor vehicles. 

1. Could add policy – Transit priority measures will be implemented where such measures 

increase transit speed and/or reliability. These could include signal priority measures, bypass 

lanes or exclusive bus lanes. 

2. Provide safe pedestrian access to bus stops and incorporate features to make crossing of 

arterials safer. 

Page 1 of 5 

PT1.2 - Build streets to be as narrow as possible in individual lane width and overall width, while 

facilitating the movement of larger vehicles, as needed. 

1 Outside/curb lane needs to be wide enough to allow safe passage for transit buses (generally 

11’ wide lanes – bus is 10.5’ (w/ mirrors). Otherwise, buses will be forced to take parts of two 

traffic lanes in order to stay out of a striped bike lane. 

PT1.6 - Provide attractive streetscapes with sidewalks, street trees, planter strips, and pedestrianscale 

streetlights. In denser areas, provide benches, building awnings, and attractive transit stops and 

shelters. 

a) Transit bus stops: City should consider adding bicycle stand near transit stops. 

b) Shelter stops need enough room to allow size variations in shelter dimensions. 

c) Shelter stops need lighting added to amenity (solar possible) 

d) Trash receptacles are needed and collection of garbage needs to be considered. 

2) GT2 - As new streets are built or existing streets are reconstructed, multimodal features will be 

added. Features defined for different types of streets are specified in the City of Olympia 

Engineering Design and Development Standards 

1. Provide safe pedestrian access to bus stops and incorporate features to make crossing of 

arterials safer. 

PT2.1 - Build arterial streets to serve as primary routes connecting urban centers and the regional 

transportation network. These streets include bike lanes, sidewalks, planter strips, pedestrian crossing 

features, and in dense areas, a high-quality streetscape. 

1 Should this section include/suggest where pedestrian crosswalk locations can be placed? Any 

particular standards? 

PT2.5 - Provide transit stops and service accommodations, based on the transit service on that street. 

1 Suggest edit: “Provide transit stop amenities based on Intercity Transit stop criteria.” 

2 Stops with shelters must meet federal ADA requirements. All stops should accommodate ADA 

stop landing dimensions: 5’ wide x 8’ deep.


PT2.8 - Build bulb-outs at street corners for shorter pedestrian crossings and traffic calming. Build 

bulb-outs on local access and neighborhood collector streets with on-street parking. Add bulb-outs to 

existing arterials and major collectors with on-street parking for the same reasons. 

1 Caution on corner bulb-outs: placement and locations of radius will create restrictions on bus 

turning movements. Legion Way is a good example of adding bulb-outs but transit vehicles 

can no longer make right-hand turns onto side streets. 

3) GT3 – Streets allow the efficient delivery of goods and services 

PT3.1 - Design streets to allow the efficient and safe delivery of goods and services, providing access 

for buses, commercial trucks, emergency and other public service vehicles. 

1 Buses are 10.5’ wide (w/ mirrors). Need outside lane widths (curbside) of 11’ to accommodate 

transit vehicles. 

Connected Streets Mean Shorter Trips 

1) GT4 – The street network is a well-connected system of small blocks allowing short trips that 

are as direct as possible for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, motorists, and all types of 

service vehicles. 

PT4.3 - Build street connections so that people walking, biking, or accessing bus stops have short 

route options, making these modes more inviting. 

1. Should there be a reference to including accessible sidewalks and pathways as a part of 

the street design that supports pedestrians and pedestrian safety? 

PT4.8 - Build new arterials, major collectors and neighborhood collectors based on the general 

location defined on the Transportation Maps in Appendix H and using the guidance of the Engineering 

Design and Development Standards.. 

1. Along transit routes turns at intersections need a radius that can accommodate 45’ 

vehicle turning movement. 

2. Vehicle lane widths need to accommodate the width of a transit coach (side mirrors, too). 

PT4.19 - Use traffic-calming devices to slow vehicles, where necessary, and especially when new 

streets are connected to existing neighborhoods. 

1. Coordination of where traffic calming devices are added and the design of the devise 

should be coordinated with Intercity Transit. Many calming devices mean the street can 

no longer be used for a transit route. 

PT4.20 - Pursue all street connections. If a street connection is opposed, analyze how not making the 

street connection will impact the street network. At a minimum, this evaluation will include: 

• Impact on directness of travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and 

motorists 

• Impact on directness of travel for emergency-, public-, and commercial-service 

vehicles. 

1. Intercity Transit is supportive of the need to analyze the potential impacts that potentially 

limit public access to or through neighborhoods or developments. The loss of access 

typically requires longer trips for pedestrians and the additional operating costs for public 


2) GT 5 - Pathways enhance the transportation network by providing direct and 

formal off-street routes for bicyclists and pedestrians.. 

1 Give priority to pathways connecting to transit routes.

3) GT6 - A network of regional and local trails enhances mobility for bicycles and pedestrians. 


1) Provide secure, bike parking at intersection of regional and local trails and transit routes. 

2) Provide adequate signage identifying trails and connections to transit routes and other uses. 

Finding Solutions to Congestion/Goals and Policies 

1) GT9 – In designated Strategy Corridors, when road widening is no longer an option, system 

capacity is added through increasing walking, biking and transit trips. 

PT9.1 - Add bike lanes and sidewalks, improve transit services, and use demand management 

measures to ensure that transit, bicycle and pedestrian transportation are attractive and easy to use 

during peak travel periods on all streets, but especially Strategy Corridors. 

1. Consider adding ‘access to bus stops’ as part of transit services. 

PT10.2 - Separate voluntary concurrency mitigation measures from other transportation mitigation 

measures required by either State Environmental Policy Act or the City’s Transportation Impact Fee 

policies and programs. 

1. Would the City’s Commute Trip Reduction ordinance for employers be a possible 

component of this element? 

Linking Land Use and Transportation/Goals and Policies 

1) GT13 – Greater density along bus corridors optimizes investments in transit and makes transit and 

inviting mode of travel. (see Appendix I, the Corridors map for Bus Corridors.) 

1 Discourage location of auto-oriented or low-density developments along bus corridors. 

PT13.2 - Guide transit-dependent land uses to locate on bus corridors. This includes schools, public 

services, major employers, and multi-family housing. 

1. Consider identifying ‘senior housing’ as a component of this item. Senior housing projects 

should not be developed in isolated or auto-dependent locations given their general need 

for public transportation. 

2. Locating developments along transit corridors will be a big step in the right direction for 

encouraging transit use. But proximity to a bus stop is another element to consider. A 

general rule of thumb for drawing people to a transit stop is around a ¼ mile distance, 

about a 5 - 10 minute walk for many people. A building or development wouldn’t 

necessarily have to be directly on the corridor but proximity and convenience to transit 

service would be key element. 

PT 14.4 - Partner with the cities of Lacey and Tumwater to pursue the land-use and transportation 

measures identified for the Urban Corridors of Martin Way, east 4th and State Avenues, Pacific 

Avenue and portions of Capitol Way. 

1. Cross jurisdictional consistency in land-use development will be a vital component for 

improving transit related services along these corridors, which span across geo-political 

boundaries. 

Fast and Frequent Bus Service/Goals & Policies 

1) GT 16 - Bus corridors have high-quality transit service allowing people to ride the bus 

spontaneously, and easily replace car trips with trips by bus. 

PT16.1 - Develop a system of bus corridors with fast, frequent and predictable transit service


1. Roadway infrastructure and traffic signal technology will need to be integrated into 

corridor development, which will contribute to allowing and maintaining this type of 

service. 

2) GT 17 – Intercity Transit’s short and long range plans are supported. 

PT 17.7 – Encourage Intercity Transit to provide service to passenger rail stations. 

1. Replace “passenger rail stations” with “intermodal facilities.” 

PT 17.8 – Delete the reference to a specific vehicle type. Suggest reference the City will work with 

Intercity Transit and Thurston Regional Planning to consider using higher capacity vehicle 

types that may require dedicated right-of-way. 

3) GT 18 – The region is prepared to advance high-capacity transit. 

1. The reference should be to “high-capacity transportation” 

PT 18.1 – Delete “right-of-way” purchase.” 

PT 18.4 – This assumes rail will be achievable when in reality no studies have come to that 

conclusion. Eliminate it or reference that dense urban centers will be developed around 

“high capacity transportation services.” 

PT 18.5 – This assumes passenger rail service will occur within Olympia. Delete this item or add that 

the effort will be toward working with Thurston Regional Planning to study and consider 

high capacity transportation options. 

Inviting People to Walk/Goals & Policies 

1) GT 21 – Sidewalks make streets safe and inviting for walking. 

PT 21.1 – Add adequate street lighting will be provided to help improve visibility. 

PT 21.2 – Add, “Priority will be given to crossings providing access to transit stops.” 

2) GT 22 – Pedestrian crossing improvements remove barriers for pedestrians on major streets, 

especially wide streets with high-vehicle volumes. 

Add “PT 22.6” – Priority will be given to crossings providing access to transit stops. 

3) GT 23 – Streetscapes buffer pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic, enhance the experience of 

walking, and increase the attractiveness of an area. 

Add “PT 23.8” – Incorporate ADA accessible bus stop waiting area, including shelters where 

appropriate, into new sidewalk construction and streetscape design. 

Bicyclists Share our Streets/Goals & Policies 

1) GT24 - Bicycling is safe and inviting, and more people bike for transportation. 

1. Build secure bike parking areas at intersection of trails and bike paths with transit routes.

Fewer Car Trips, Big Benefits/Goals & Policies 

1) GT25 - Walking, biking, riding the bus and carpooling are inviting for trips to work or school. 

Fewer drive-alone trips will reduce pollution, energy consumption, and the growth in traffic 

congestion. 


PT25.14 – Add “and use public transportation”. 

2) GT26 - Parking is provided in a way that reduces drive-alone commute trips by employees. 

Add PT26.5 - Publicly provided parking should be designed for shopping and customers with pricing 

established to discourage long-term parking. (This is similar to PT26.1 but is a little more direct.) 

Funding Brings Vision to Reality/Goals & Policies 

1) GT27 – Transportation facilities and services are funded to advance the goals of the City and 

the region. Future transportation needs are identified to provide a comprehensive view of the 

system we envision, and to be prepared for funding and other opportunities. 

1. Support and partner with other agencies such as Intercity Transit and the Thurston Regional 

Planning Council to obtain funding to improve public transportation services and planning for 

a sustainable community. 

Working with Our Neighbors/Goals & Policies 

1) GT29 – Olympia engages with neighboring jurisdictions to advance common goals and solve 

regional problems. 

PT29.3 – add “and Thurston County”. 

Other Comments/Observations 

• Intercity Transit’s Olympia Transit Center is a regional transportation hub. Both Grays Harbor 

Transit and Mason Transit serve it (Pierce Transit only recently dropped service to Olympia) and 

Greyhound service will be relocated to this facility within the next couple of years. 

Appendix F: Transportation Facilities 

• Park & Ride Lots served by transit: 

o Lacey - Martin Way P&R, Hawks Prairie P&R (opening in fall of 2012) 

o Thurston Co – Centennial Station P&R 

• Park & Ride Lots – WSDOT – Mud Bay P&R 

Comprehensive Plan section on Land Use and Urban Design: 

1. Concurrency - can mitigation fees be applied to assist with costs of providing transit service? 

2. Senior Housing/Multi-family zoning: can there be standards applied to suggest that senior housing 

be located along or near transit service corridors?

From: Clark Gilman 

To: Sophie Stimson; Kerry Tarullo; Amy Buckler; ImagineOlympia 

Cc: Anne Fritzel 

Subject: BPAC Comments on April 2012 First Draft Olympia Comprehensive Plan 


June 12, 2012 

RE: BPAC Comments on April 2012 First Draft Olympia Comprehensive Plan 

To Planning and Public Works Staff (via email): 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the first draft of our community’s new 

comprehensive plan. We hope our letter effectively supports all the good things we see in the 

plan, reflects what we hear from the community, and provides our best advice to Olympia’s 

city council on multimodal transportation issues. 

We think the vision for transportation in the new comprehensive plan is terrific and 

reflects what we heard during the Imagine Olympia meetings. 

Olympians value transportation options 

• Whenever possible, we walk, bike, carpool, or ride on public transit rather than 

driving alone 

• We integrate our transportation, land use and community design decisions 

• Our transportation systems allow us to conveniently move throughout the community 

We have reviewed the plan from the perspective of implementing the vision for 

transportation through policy priorities for transportation facilities and programs, and through 

supportive land use policies. 

We really liked the draft of our plan, but we wish it were more concise. 

We like that the best of the previous comp plan is brought forward, presenting a strong vision 

for multimodal transportation. We encourage you to go further in the next draft, and continue 

to consolidate and clarify the policies so that, over time, the vision will become reality. At

present, the plan is very long, and contains over 700 policies, almost 200 in the transportation 

element alone. It will be difficult for citizens to read, remember, and have clear expectations 

about our community’s implementation of the vast number of policies. We suggest that 

setting priorities for implementing these policies would be a way to organize so much detail. 

We love that the good work represented in the 2009 Mobility Strategy is living in the 

comprehensive plan with policies for multimodal transportation and complete streets now 

incorporated into the transportation element. The mobility strategy addressed six key themes: 

integrating land use and transportation planning, making streets work for all modes, 

enhancing connections for all modes, managing parking, and finding fair ways of addressing 

multimodal transportation funding through our concurrency, impact fee, and development 

mitigation systems. We are pleased to see policies that will provide the authority to address 

these recommendations going forward. We have specific comments as well. 

We like the strong language about parking management under Transportation Goals 25 

and 26, which supports the vision for a community that bikes, walks and takes the bus. We 

like the prioritization of parking for business patrons and support for employee commuting 

options in the greater downtown area. We feel that our vision for a walkable, friendly 

downtown encourages walking between the core and the library and post-office, and the 

other places we love about our downtown. The addition of several recommendations in the 

Mobility Strategy would assist in implementing the transportation vision such as: 

• Move towards employing clear parking maximums and reducing effective minimum 

parking requirements, especially downtown and along CTN corridors. 

• Require builders to unbundle the cost of parking from residential units so that people 

have a choice to not purchase parking when buying a condominium or renting an 

apartment. 

Make streets work for all modes. The 2009 Mobility Strategy proposed developing a 

formalized, comprehensive “complete streets” policy and typology to clarify the types of 

facilities that are planned on each type of street, and how development should interact with 

the street. Such a typology could help to reduce the number of policies related to street 

design under Goals 1 through 4, and 20 through 23, by clarifying which streets should have 

which kinds of design. The city of Tacoma recently completed such a street plan, which is 

an inspiring example. 

We like the focus on enhancing connections for all modes. We see this clearly in the new 

plan, and we like the policy PT 4.2, requiring an assessment if new development does not 

propose an interconnected street system. 

Address the impacts of growth by developing and funding a balanced multimodal 

transportation system. We especially appreciate goals 7 through 10 and associated policies

such as: 

• Policy PT 10.1, to pursue a person-trip concurrency program in order to allow 

construction of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit system improvements as concurrency 

mitigation. 

• Policy PT 27.8, focus transportation investments along urban corridors and in the 

downtown to help simulate development and achieve land use densification goals. 

• Policy PT 27.5, prioritizing bus corridors, which will help to achieve the vision. 

• Policy PT 7.4, accepting lower levels of service where building to meet them is not 

possible WILL change the character of our neighborhoods. 

We are very interested in and supportive of the sub-area planning initiative, and we like 

that it is proposed to center around elementary school catchment areas using a planning scale 

to which families and households can relate. We think that transportation is an important part 

of this sub-area planning, and want to emphasize the importance of integrating neighborhood 

planning with planned urban corridors and bus corridors, and assessing opportunities to 

support envisioned land uses with walking, bicycling, and transit opportunities all ages. In 

the interest of clear expectations, we encourage the addition of detail on how much additional 

population is expected in these corridors and sub-areas, to illustrate our strategy to absorb our 

future population projections. 

Education policies are important to promote safety for all. We appreciate policies PT 

20.1, for walking, and PT 24.7, for bicyclists, and PT 24.11, for both, which address safety 

education and supports city actions to promote education on how multiple users can exist on 

the road together safely. 

Focus Items that BPAC would like to see addressed in the next draft: 

At the "Imagine Olympia" visioning meeting, members of our committee clearly heard 

themes that were not addressed in the first draft of the comprehensive plan. This support 

was summarized in the Downtown Non-Motorized Mobility notes on the city’s web site. 

These comments revealed that a bike- and pedestrian-friendly city is important to the 

community. 

• Over 50% of those who discussed this topic expressed the desire for the downtown 

district to cater more toward those using non-motorized transportation methods (Pedestrianfriendly 

downtown, 18 ideas, 30.51%; Bike-friendly downtown, 15 ideas, 25.42%). 

• Participants expressed the need for safer bike lanes (5 ideas, 8.47%). 

• In addition to bike lanes, over one-fifth of the non-motorized mobility ideas requested 

building more bikeways (14 ideas, 23.73%) from downtown to other parts of the region (i.e. 

SPSCC, Capital Mall, Tumwater). 

• A number of participants also requested that certain streets in downtown should be

primarily for bikes/pedestrians (7 ideas, 11.86%). Noteworthy ideas include car-free 

pedestrian malls or 5 MPH speed limits in retail/arts districts downtown. 

The following are focus items that we feel would address the public comments in support of a 

bike- and pedestrian-friendly city. 

Explore options for novice and family friendly bicycling routes across and through 

town. BPAC would like to be sure that a policy is added to “Look for bike boulevard 

opportunities to support novice and family cycling,” likely under Goal 24. Portland and 

Vancouver BC have both had great success encouraging novice cyclists with the use of more 

trails and bicycle boulevards. Maybe connect this with trails in Goal GC 4 of the Parks, Arts, 

Recreation, and Historic Preservation Element. 

Facilitate more pedestrian-dominated street for festivals, music, food carts, etc. was 

another topic we repeatedly heard at the visioning meetings. Please add a policy such as 

"Strengthen pedestrian-dominant areas in the downtown. Experiment with different 

approaches. Create a pedestrian block downtown that is periodically car-free." In this way, 

food carts and other urban delights would be located in areas that provide views, parks, or 

have limited traffic, and offer a delightful outdoor place to linger and spend money in our 

downtown. 

Value alleys. Recently, we viewed the work of the Heritage Commission on our downtown 

alleys. We think that policies relating to the use of alleys would increase the pedestrian and 

place-making function of these facilities. Ideas include creating crosswalks at alleys to 

encourage alley use, public art or community art in alleys, encouraging businesses to have 

outdoor seating. This could be accomplished as part of a streets typology. 

As a committee, we have concerns about using "encourage" when the policy would be 

implemented by standards in the development regulations, and may be built. For example, 

we like policy PT 5.2, which requires that developers look for pathways to provide direct 

bicycle and pedestrian routes. We also suggest that the policy, or street typology provide 

more context, by indicating on which streets or street types they would be required. Other 

examples are PT 4.16, which should require signs for street stub-outs, and PT 17.6 which 

should require transit amenities. Many policies use the words “build” or “develop”, when it 

is expected that the city designs and constructs these facilities. We suggest that these policies 

be carefully reviewed to ensure the language results in streets matching the community’s 

vision, regardless of who builds them. 

Awnings are part of our history, and important in our climate. We recommend that 

"Require" is used for awnings for new development, or substantial redevelopment, instead of 

"encourage" (Policy PL 12.3). Awnings are consistent with historic architecture, minimizing 

security and safety risks, creating pedestrian interest, and supporting sociable uses such as

cultural events, entertainment, and tourism. Policy PT23.4 “Use awnings along building 

frontages in densely developed areas to protect pedestrians from weather.” Could be 

combined with 12.3, likely in a design or land use element, to eliminate duplication, and a 

single policy should say “require”. This is one of the 63 policy focus areas where aligning 

the policy to be consistent with regulation was considered. We think the policy should be 

clear that awnings are required in the downtown area and along transit corridors, and we 

think the regulation should be changed to match the policy. 

Pathway policies could be strengthened: Goal 5, regarding pathways, has been the focus of 

our committee’s recent work plans – yet the goal and policy do not describe what pathways 

are, nor give much policy strength to the concept. Our committee would be happy to work 

with you on these policies to define more clear expectations about the role and location of 

public pathways. 

Maintenance policies need strengthening: Two policies under goals 20 and 24 should be 

carefully reworded to ensure a safe, continuous route of travel for bicycles and pedestrians 

during construction and maintenance, and that traffic signals are responsive to these modes. 

PT20.4 Consider pedestrians in street maintenance practices and traffic signal system 

operations. PT20.5 Use construction and maintenance practices that do not unnecessarily 

obstruct pedestrian travel. These policies could be reworded to say “Ensure the construction 

practices include a safe and continuous route for bicyclists and pedestrians. Ensure that 

maintenance practices and traffic signal system operation provide safe and inviting facilities 

for bicyclists and pedestrians.” 

Suggested changes to the comprehensive plan 

Add a policy to allow an in-lieu-fee for sidewalks so that sidewalks can be placed in the 

locations they are most needed. In this way, Olympia can make highest and best of use 

development-provided facilities, and can fund projects in high priority locations. 

Easy to comprehend pedestrian system plan. The 2009 Mobility Strategy recommended 

the development of a full pedestrian system plan. Olympia currently has plans for different 

components of the pedestrian system. We agree with the statement that Olympia should 

consider preparing a pedestrian system plan (similar to the Bicycle Master Plan) that 

identifies system-wide pedestrian crossings, prioritized improvements (with mapping), so that 

citizens can more easily understand the relative priorities for investments in the pedestrian 

system. As BPAC members, even we have difficulty understanding the proposed investments 

and priorities, and would like to see a more accessible portrayal of the proposed investments, 

using mapping, or a 5, 10, and 20 year list in order to create realistic citizen expectations. 

Be clear about the role of transportation in climate change, and plans to mitigate the 

impacts of climate change. BPAC would like to comment on the effects of climate change on

our community and its role in multimodal transport. Because we believe that one way to 

reduce carbon emissions is to increase pedestrian, bicycle and public transportation usage, we 

think it is necessary to be clear about transportation-related contributions to climate change. 

Although the Environment Element mentions the need for alternative forms of energy for all 

of our energy needs, including motor vehicles, there is no mention of encouraging walking, 

biking, or public transport as a way to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Until alternative 

fuel technologies are in place, an immediate goal should be to reduce the use of motor 

vehicles. PN8.3 would be a perfect place to mention encouraging the use of other modes of 

transportation. Also, policy PN8.4 could be more robust by listing specific plans for various 

climate issues, such as a plan to replace single occupant vehicle trips to reduce CO2 and a 

plan to address sea level rise, severe storm events (trees, electricity, flooding) and other 

issues brought on by climate change. 

We are excited about an implementation strategy to establish priorities and set out specific 

timeframes and actions for implementing the plan. It will determine how we will measure 

progress toward our goals and help citizens to understand how this plan turns into action. 

BPAC would like to see advisory committees included in the process of developing 

implementations strategies. BPAC would like to advise on the transportation-related actions 

the city will need to implement the comp plan. Steps could include regulations that need to 

be changed first, facilities that should be constructed first, and other actions that should be 

taken within the first 5 years to implement existing and new policies. The implementation 

strategy could also list 5-10, and 10-20 year actions needed to implement the plan. 

Thank you for the opportunity to help imagine a future Olympia and sculpt our community's 

new comprehensive plan. We look forward to staying in engaged in the process. 

Anne Fritzel and Clark Gilman, Co-chairs 

City of Olympia Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee 

(bicyclegoddess@gmail.com) (clarkgilman@gmail.com)

From: Terrilyn Burke 


Subject: City Comprehensive Plan -- Decatur to the Freeway 

Date: Monday, June 11, 2012 6:28:09 PM 

Hello, 

I am emailing you because I would like to give my input into the City of Olympia Comprehensive 

Plan. Please do away with, delete, the sections in the Comprehensive Plan that would allow the 

policy of the City of Olympia to open Decatur Street and 16th Avenue to the Freeway. That will 

only flood our southwest neighborhood with traffic. I am asking that you please permanently 

close both the Decatur Street and 16th Avenue to automobile traffic as outlined in the City of 

Olympia Comprehensive Plan. 

Thank you for your time and interest. 

Terrilyn Burke 

1424 12th Avenue SW 


From: Christine Ciancetta 


Subject: Draft Comprehensive Plan Comment 

Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:04:32 AM 

Dear City of Olympia Staff: 

This comment regards the Transportation section, Appendix A, section of the Draft Comprehensive 

Plan, Decatur Street to Caton Way. 

I am against the opening of Decatur for these reasons: 

No other collector street in our neighborhood (or in our city?) provides access to the freeway 

and therefore cannot be evaluated using standard procedures. 

Cut through traffic will increase significantly from folks outside our neighborhood. 

The current bike commuter route on Decatur will become hazardous due to increased traffic. 

The current safety for children at Decatur Woods Park will be compromised. 

The increase in cut-through traffic will negatively change the nature and safety in general of our 

neighborhood. 

I understand the thinking behind each attempt to open Decatur Street to increased vehicle traffic. But 

we must consider what is more important to our city: Community or Cars. Closing Decatur permanently 

sends a message that Community is our priority. Opening Decatur is a vote for cars. 

The Draft Comprehensive Plan states that "The majority of users of the Decatur Street connection 

would be residents of the Southwest Olympia Neighborhood'. Please reference the traffic study that 

supports this. I find it difficult to believe that major users of Decatur would NOT be cut-through traffic 

from many other areas. 

It's easy to become accustomed to driving wherever we want, whenever we want - with no thought to 

the negative impact of getting in our cars. This must change. Many comments from the 2008 Open 

Houses and phone conversations about opening Decatur have to do primarily with convenience driving. 

We must begin to craft ways of getting people *out* of cars and onto buses, bikes, etc. - or at least 

decreasing car trips. This will not be easy. Traffic in Olympia is a relatively new phenomena. It is also 

a useful tool in getting people to stop and think if they really need to make that trip. Having traffic as a 

*dis-incentive to driving, along with the high price of gas, is as important as having alternatives to 

driving in place. 

Decatur is now a relatively safe street. Why not keep it that way? 

Sincerely, 

Christine Ciancetta 

1418 11th Ave SW 


From: Amy Buckler 


Subject: FW: Incident 59620 update 


From: servicedesk@ci.olympia.wa.us [mailto:servicedesk@ci.olympia.wa.us] 

Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:59 PM 

To: Amy Buckler 

Subject: Incident 59620 update 

Hi Amy, 

Regarding your Incident 59620, we have the following question or update. 

The following feedback was received through our website. 

To check the status of your incident, please use our Self Service Portal 

Thank you. 

Addison Appleby 

========================================== 

Original Description: 

Website feedback received: 

Message received 6/12/2012 4:50:31 PM 

Email Address: laikodi@comcast.net 

Page URL: http://olympiawa.gov/plans/comp-plan/olympias-vision 

Comment Type: Select a comment type... 

Comment: 

2. "Olympians value our neighborhoods."Replace 'Citizens, developers, and 

the City work together to ensure when development is of a different scale, 

intensity or density that it is compatible with the existing neighborhood' with: 

"Citizens and the City, including urban designers, architects, and landscape 

architects, work together, in consultation with developers and others, to 

develop sub-area master plans at a scale that clearly shows how the area is 

intended to develop over time."3. "Olympians value our built and natural 

environment." Replace this vision with: "We accept our responsibility to 

prevent catastrophic climate change and to heal the earth."Replace bullet 

about "new buildings" with: "New buildings will minimize their environmental 

impact to the maximum extent possible, including meeting net-zero goals for 

water and energy use."6. "Olympians value planning for our future." Replace

first three bullets with: â€¢ We accommodate projected population growth only 

to the extent that it does not impair our environment or reduce our quality of 

life, or impose growth-related costs on the general population. â€¢ New 

infrastructure is designed to achieve net-zero energy and net-zero water use. 

â€¢ Growth pays its share of the cost of providing public facilities, including 

parks and environmental restoration. 7. "Olympians value innovation." Replace 

with: "We ensure that the condition and health of our water, air, wildlife and 

fish, farmland, soil, and ecological systems improve over time."Replace 1st 

bullet with: "We assess and measure the condition of our natural resources 

and ecological health on a biennial basis and ensure that population growth 

improves and restores, rather than impairs, their condition and health." 

Feedback: 

Enter your comment... 

71.231.208.178 - Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_8) 

AppleWebKit/536.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/19.0.1084.56 Safari/536.5 

========================================== 

{CMI: CSM029312}

From: servicedesk@ci.olympia.wa.us 


Subject: FW: OlympiaWA.gov Comment 

Date: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:30:55 AM 

The following Comp Plan comment was received via the website feedback button. 


Priority: None 

From: webserver@olympiawa.gov 

Sent: 6/1/2012 

To: (Website) website@ci.olympia.wa.us 

Cc: 

Subject: OlympiaWA.gov Comment 

Message received 6/1/2012 10:30:39 AM 

Email Address: sonam566@comcast.net 



Comment: 

Please include these visions, values and goals: 1. Olympia has been a leader in environmental preservation and 

sustainability. We should now maintain the current level of environmental protection and limit new initiatives to 

those that can be achieved with no cost increases to the public. 2. To attract more people to living within a 

compact and efficient city environment, Olympia should ensure that the cost of city services is cheaper than 

living in the County. -- Olympia should become a leader in containing the cost of city services for water, waste, 

and garbage. 3. A vibrant downtown business community is essential for making the urban environment 

attractive. Olympia should make sure that shops, restaurants, and services have reasonable costs for city 

services. 4. To encourage walking and short trips, neighborhoods need retail services and businesses. 

Neighborhood planning should should encourage neighborhood businesses and allow dynamic changes to 

neighborhoods that reduce the need for longer trips, support local jobs, and provide entertainment and social 

life. 

Feedback: 


{CMI: CSM029141}









Hi Amy, 


The following is feedback received through our website. 


Thank you. 


========================================== 




Email Address: laikodi@comcast.net 



Comment: 

Vision: "This plan is our strategy for accommodating that [population] growth 

while still creating a vibrant and sustainable city." This is not an adequate 

scope and sets forth the wrong priorities, regardless of what the Growth 

Management Act says. The scope must prioritize the environment and our 

quality of life over growth. Growth should only be accommodated to the extent 

that our environment and quality of life can be protected and restored. The 

community will not stand for environmental degr adation, loss of quality of life 

and higher costs just to accommodate more population. We need to focus on 

climate change and protection of farmland. Please substitute the preceding 

quote with the following: "This plan is our strategy for protecting our 

environment, including reaching a goal of city-wide carbon neutrality by 2050, 

and enhancing our quality of life, while accommodating projected population

growth only to the extent that it does not impair our environment or reduce our 

quality of life, or impose growth-related costs on the general population." 

Feedback: 


71.231.208.178 - Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_8) 

AppleWebKit/536.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/19.0.1084.56 Safari/536.5 

========================================== 

{CMI: CSM029311}









Hi Amy, 


This is a comment received through our web feedback button. 


Thank you. 


========================================== 




Email Address: nmckinney@spscc.ctc.edu 

Page URL: http://olympiawa.gov/plans/comp-plan 


Comment: 

This plan is very comprehensive and very easy to understand. There are many 

new policies and goals within this new plan. I'm concerned about the possible 

new requirements that may be promulgated by these policies and goals. The 

college has experienced budget reductions by the state legislature over the 

past 5 years and operating costs have not been reduced, so I'm concerned 

about rising costs for day-to-day operatons and development that may result 

from new requirements. Has there been analysis done on implementati on, 

operating, and fiscal impacts to the expanded policies and goals? 

Feedback: 


134.39.243.117 - Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1;

Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 

3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; .NET4.0C; InfoPath.3; .NET4.0E) 

========================================== 

{CMI: CSM029310}

From: Martyc513@aol.com 


Subject: Proposed Urban Corridor 

Date: Friday, June 15, 2012 3:28:53 PM 

When I recently heard of Olympia's plan to allow high density 

construction in the Carlyon North and Governor Stevens neighborhoods I 

was dumbfounded. Thirty years ago when I purchased my residence on 

Moore Street, one of the biggest assets was the quiet, residential feel 

of the neighborhood. Being a sub division of Washington States' first 

governor's farm was an added bonus since my family has roots in the 

South Sound area since the 1850s. My great great grandfather was 

stationed at Fort Nisqually. 

I can't voice myself strongly enough that Olympia drops this proposal 

for a number of reasons. These neighborhoods are a natural, Southern 

extension of the South Capital residential area North of I5. The 

proposal would allow a strip mall setting all the way to Tumwater. This 

destroys the serenity, charm, and frankly, makes little sense. 

This area is already a fairly closely packed residential area with very 

limited parking, making any useful commercial use along Capitol 

Boulevard problematic. The businesses surrounding Custer Way and 

Capital attest to that. Many former businesses in this area have moved 

or failed. Adding more commercial use is not only promoting urban 

sprawl that is already exists, but creates more traffic congestion 

while destroying an otherwise quiet community. 

This plan is not needed to promote commercial business in Olympia. The 

empty businesses in the area point to inherent problems that would only 

be magnified if this plan were to move forward. Are more empty 

breweries needed? Is Olympia looking to have another traffic snarl like 

Trosper Road? How would our already declining property values affect 

any resale potential if our homes are surrounded by store fronts? Does 

Olympia want to promote an exodus of long time tax payers seeking a 

quality life elsewhere? 

I've raised two children in a quality environment that would be 

threatened if this plan proceeds. I have grandchildren visiting. Please 

keep our neighborhood family friendly. Be proud of the quality we now 

enjoy and allow it to remain undiminished, for us, our children, and 

our children's children. 

Martin K. Collamore 

2915 Moore St SE 

Olympia WA 98501

From: Thomasina Cooper 


Subject: Comp Plan citizen input 

Date: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:52:14 PM 

Attachments: Comp Plan citizen input.pdf 

Hi there- Attached please find my letter regarding the designation of the area of Capitol Blvd 

from the I-5 Bridge to the Tumwater border as an urban corridor. I urge the city to 

reconsider this designation. 

Thank you kindly, 

Thomasina Cooper 

Resident, Carlyon North Neighborhood 

360-455-4149

June 9, 2012 

City of Olympia 

PO Box 1967 


RE: Comprehensive Plan 


719 Carlyon Ave SE 


(360) 455-4149 • thomasinacooper@hotmail.com 

Dear city staff and members of the Olympia Planning Commission: 

Please accept this letter as constituent input regarding the City of Olympia’s revised 

Comprehensive Plan. In reading the comprehensive plan, I see that the proposal designates 

the area of Capitol Blvd from the I-5 Bridge to the Tumwater border and within about ¼ 

mile on either side as an urban corridor. 

This is concerning because the urban corridor designation is distinctly at odds with the 

historic residential character of the neighborhood. Our neighborhood, the Carlyon North 

Neighborhood, has been in existence for nearly a century, and it is critical that we maintain 

its character accordingly. This belief is supported in a number of ways, including from the 

Park, Arts, Recreation and Historic Preservation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan which 

requires that the city “establish zoning that is compatible with, and conducive to, continued 

preservation of historic neighborhoods and properties.” Additionally, the Historic 

Preservation Assessment and Action Plan calls out the Southeast Olympia neighborhood as 

one of five “selected historic neighborhoods.” 

In addition, the designation of urban corridor in this area is in direct conflict with goals set in 

other parts of the Comprehensive Plan, such as “require development in established 

neighborhoods to be of a type, scale, orientation and design that maintains or improves the 

character, aesthetic quality, and livability of the neighborhood” (Land Use and Urban Design, 

PL13.1). An urban corridor designation would result in development that is clearly out of line 

with the character, aesthetic quality and livability of our unique historical neighborhood. 

It seems clear that the designation of urban corridor in the Carlyon North Neighborhood is 

incongruent with other sections of the Comprehensive Plan and out of line with our broader 

city values. Please reconsider the urban corridor designation between Capitol Blvd from the 

I-5 Bridge to the Tumwater border, and show respect for the significance and importance of 

preserving historic neighborhoods in our community. 

Sincerely, 


Resident, Carlyon North Neighborhood

From: Phil Cornell 


Subject: Comprehensive Plan 


I am a resident of West Olympia and I am strongly against any consideration of opening Decatur or 

16th to traffic. 

Decatur Street to Caton Way and 16th Avenue as a vehicular connection must never be opened to 

vehicle traffic. The neighborhood will be dissected by a very busy street. Crime will increase with 

easy entry and exit for criminals and you have taken away funding for the Block Watch program. 

Noise will increase. Traffic on Cooper Point and Black Lake will not change. 

You contradict yourselves in the Transportation section, Appendix A, section of the Draft 

Comprehensive Plan. You state that you want these street sections to be major arterials, “Decatur 

Street is a proposed major collector connecting 9th Avenue to Caton Way.” And you also state that 

“Traffic around this connection should be monitored to assure that the new connection is serving 

mostly local circulation needs” which it is now with the connections closed. 

If you proceed with opening these connections, make the posted speed limit on Decatur 10MPH. 

Traffic calming devices only tend to increase speed in between the devices. I drive this 

neighborhood at 20-25 MPH and I constantly have cars backed up behind me. I slow to 15MPH for 

the calming devices. I have never seen a speed watch setup on Decatur south of 9th . The West 

Olympia Access Study Phase II is not complete until a speed study has been done on Decatur. 

In a time of budget constraints it makes no sense to spend money, taxpayer money, on something 

that the local residents are vehemently against. 

Phil Cornell 

1502 15th Ave SW 

Olympia 98502 

360-236-8184

From: Stacey Ray 


Subject: FW: Other comments on the April draft 





360-753-8046 

sray@ci.olympia.wa.us 


From: Liz Hoenig 

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 9:39 AM 


Cc: Laura Keehan 

Subject: FW: Other comments on the April draft 

Number 2 from Thad 


From: Thad Curtz [mailto:curtzt@nuprometheus.com] 

Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 9:21 PM 

To: Liz Hoenig 

Subject: Other comments on the April draft 

Hi, Liz. You've probably already got the note I've sent everybody about the new language I said I''d 

draft, after the committee's discussion a while ago about how the April Draft's version of Goal PO1.1 

didn't really say what we wanted to say about integrated environmental planning. 

This note has some other comments from me personally. 

1. I'm not sure what PP 4.5 is intended to say beyond what PP4.1 says. 

2. PP5.5 needs revision. (For starters, that second thing isn't a sentence...) 

3. Section PN3 says nothing about supporting and increasing the presence of big, majestic (or historic) 

trees in the city and on the skyline. See, for example, Portland (as usual...): 

> Heritage Trees of Portland - http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?c=40280 

> 

> This ordinance calls for the City Forester to annually prepare a list of trees that - because of their 

age, size, type, historical association or horticultural value - are of special importance to the City. Upon 

recommendation of the Urban Forestry Commission, the City Council may designate a tree as a Heritage 

Tree provided the tree's health, aerial space, and open ground area for the root system have been 

certified as sufficient. 

4. I don't see anything in PN1 about how the City develops its infrastructure - how about a new item 

between PN1.1 and PN 1.2 saying: "Develop and repair the city's streets and sidewalks and other 

infrastructure in ways that minimize their negative environmental impacts." 

5. I'd like to see PU9.1 (and maybe other places) include something like "Research and publicize costeffective 

locally applicable ways for homeowners to reduce their environmental impacts and actively

encourage their adoption." 

6. Earthquake planning - public and private... 

7. There seems to me to be a fair amount of redundancy between PU 12 and PU 13. 

8. GU 16 should include "and allow larger trees." 

9. PU.8 - Are there areas in which we can't get houses off failing septic without using new STEP 

systems...? (I think so...) If so, how's that fit with these policy statements? 

10. PU.19 - Explore providing public access to the Internet through municipal wireless and fiber 

services. Include laying municipal fiber for possible future use in all street piping installation and 

replacement projects. 

11. PT - Somewhere in the transportation section, we need some goals about supporting car-sharing 

and electric cars (including plug-in hybrids). Such as - Provide sufficient reserved parking spaces 

throughout the City to support car-sharing projects as they develop. Support all electric cars and plug-in 

hybrids by allowing charging stations in the right-of-way in residential neighborhoods. Develop reserved 

street parking spaces with charging facilities in the downtown core. 

12. I'm quite struck by the difference in the level of specificity in the Connecting Streets section, and 

the actual legal requirements that will generate, and the level of generality about other issues. (I 

assume this is the result of effective work by certain members of the Olympia Safe Streets Campaign 

(maybe the only members by now...). (And in fact, a number of those specifics - like a denser street 

grid, and requiring sidewalks on both sides of the street everywhere, and wider sidewalks downtown - 

imply more impervious surface and more stormwater problems to deal with.) I would like to see a 

significantly increased level of specificity about the transportation and infrastructure issues that will help 

with stormwater, water quality and aquatic habitat issues (and some rethinking of these goals with an 

eye to their other negative environmental consequences.) For example - "Require the use of permeable 

pavement in all new and reconstructed parking areas, and in all new and reconstructed sidewalks, 

unless clear evidence that it won't work effectively in that application is presented." "Install sidewalks 

without curbs on the downhill side of the street in residential areas where its absence will allow 

infiltration, or provide other ways for stormwater to pass through the sidewalk area and infiltrate." You 

get the idea, I assume... (Compare, for contrast, "PT4.1 Connect streets in a grid-like pattern of smaller 

blocks. Ideal block sizes should range from 250 feet to a maximum of 550 feet," as well as other 20 

quite particular policies in the connected streets section and other related items elsewhere in the 

chapter like PT 5.2, with what I think is the only policy in the whole Transportation chapter about how 

street and sidewalk and parking lot design should take account of our concerns - PT 2.10.) 

13. PT - Add an item - "Convert one significant North/South and one significant East/West city wide 

route to bikeways that fully separate bicyclists from traffic, increase safety, and encourage bicycle use 

by people of all ages and abilities." 

14. I think that PT 14.2 will suck divert potential state office building whose workers would support life 

downtown out to the suburbs. 

In addition, getting to downtown from the suburbs is only one bus ride. Getting from anywhere in the 

suburbs to someplace else in the suburbs is at least two bus rides with a transfer, even if where you're 

going is on the same side of town, because our whole transit grid is organized as a ring focused on 

downtown connections. You have to ride downtown, transfer, and then ride out of downtown to where 

you're going... you can't ride directly across town from somewhere on the Westside, say, to somewhere 

else on the Westside like Jim Morris' future development.) So I do not think that the assumption 14.2 is 

based on is a valid one. 

(In fact, we should cancel the State leasing area that was recently established on the Westside for 

Morris, but that nothing has yet been built in...) 

Best, 

Thad



Subject: FW: Some more 





360-753-8046 







Subject: FW: Some more 

Number 3 from Thad 




To: Liz Hoenig 

Subject: Some more 

Protect reserved tree tracts through required fencing, signage, an ordinance providing fines for 

violations, and a clause in the homeowners' association agreement requiring an annual professional 

inspection of the tract including a report to the City on its condition. 

Some similar policy about signage, plantings, maintenance, and an annual independent report on 

stormwater ponds where we have a maintenance agreement with the homeownwrs' association? 

Best, 

Thad



Subject: FW: Comp Plan Update Language 





360-753-8046 







Subject: FW: Comp Plan Update Language 

Hi Stacey - I got a series of emails from Thad re: Comp Plan that I am forwarding along to you to make 

them official. You'll get two more after this one. - Liz 



Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 12:46 PM 

To: Barbara Day; Jennifer Sievert; Liz Hoenig; Richard Doenges; David Dunn; Michael Young; Lindsay 

Marquez; Thad Curtz; Loralei Walker; Carol Law; Chris Ward; Margaret Drennan 

Subject: Comp Plan Update Language 

Hi, all. As those of you who on the committee at that point may remember, when we discussed the April 

Draft of the new Comprehensive Plan in April we spent some time on item PO1.1 because we didn't 

think that it really expressed the point that we've been trying to make about the need for a process to 

compare the costs and potential benefits of environmental investments being proposed independently in 

different departments' budgets. 

Section 3 of our earlier letter to the Planning Commission about this stressed: "The need for a 

framework with targets and goals that guides city staff in analyzing and prioritizing environmental 

choices across departments and budgets, and is shared with city residents as well as advisory 

committees and commissions," and it said: 

> Presumably, the staff in each department does an analysis of alternative investments as part of 

making planning decisions with the limits of its own budget allocation and the defined scope of its 

activities. 

> 

> However, the City currently has no integrated framework for analyzing and prioritizing these choices 

across the city's budget. To pick a single example, the City decided to invest a significant amount of 

additional money to make the new City Hall meet LEED gold standards rather than LEED silver 

standards. Had the funds required to get from silver to gold LEED standards been directed towards low 

income weatherization programs or conservation easements or residential street trees, would more have 

been accomplished in terms of the city’s overall environmental goals and targets? We don’t know. 

Obviously, answering these questions necessarily involves lots of estimation and uncertain forecasting. 

Moreover, these estimates would never determine decisions. But a framework for considering alternative 

investments would help bring a much needed whole systems perspective to our environmental goals, 

rather than our current piece-meal department by department perspective.

The Visions section of the April Draft of the next Comprehensive Plan converts this to the following 

Goal: 

PO1.1 Balance community goals and objectives, and consider environmental, economic and social 

factors when making decisions. 

After we talked about the differences between what this says and what we'd urged, I said I'd send Liz 

some language that I thought said what we wanted to say instead or in addition to the different (and 

very vague) goal of the item in the current draft. (Then the deadline for comments got extended, and I 

got busy, so I've been putting it off...) Here it is: 

> Increase the effectiveness of environmental investments by using an integrated city-wide framework 

to compare and prioritize the relative costs and benefits of proposed projects in different departments' 

budget areas. 

I'm sorry I didn't get this too you sooner, but you do still have until tomorrow at 5:00 to suggest 

modifications to this - or to send in your own comments and suggestions about anything else in the 

draft - and there are still a couple of rounds to go... 

Best wishes, 

Thad

From: Lauren Danner 


Subject: Comprehensive Plan comments 


To Whom it May Concern: 

We are writing to express our concerns about the draft Comprehensive Plan; specifically, about the Urban 

Corridor designation being proposed for our neighborhood. We have lived on Carlyon Avenue SE for nearly eight 

years, having moved here from the west side of Olympia. We wanted to live close to downtown; walk, bike, or 

bus to services; and have our daughter be able to bike or walk to school. Our house is perfect for all of that. 

While we support increased density and applaud the City’s efforts to reduce sprawl, we do not support the Urban 

Corridor designation for our area. 

First, the Carlyon/North and Governor Stevens areas are historic, established residential neighborhoods. The 

Urban Corridor designation would likely result in zoning guidelines that would irrevocably change that character. 

There is very little land available for high-density construction of the type envisioned by the Urban Corridor 

proposal. The neighborhood is built out, including the historic, single-family homes on Capitol Boulevard between 

Carlyon and 27th Avenue SE. Further, the Comprehensive Plan itself proposes that development in established 

neighborhoods improve “character, aesthetic quality, and livability” and would prohibit converting existing housing 

to commercial use. 

Second, the Urban Corridor proposal conflicts with the City’s existing historic preservation goals. The Parks, Arts, 

Recreation, and Historic Preservation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan requires that the city “[s]afeguard and promote 

sites, buildings, districts, structures and objects which reflect significant elements of the City's history,” and “[e]stablish 

zoning that is compatible with, and conducive to, continued preservation of historic neighborhoods and properties.” The 

entire area is called out as one of five “selected historic neighborhoods” in the Historic Preservation Assessment 

and Action Plan, noting “This area remained substantially rural well into the 20th century. Streetcars carried crowds to the 

original Thurston County Fairgrounds...In 1922 developer J.T. Otis platted the first residential subdivision here.” In fact, the 

rich history of the area is a key element that attracts residents. Lots are small, houses are generally modest, and 

virtually every home is at least 60 years old--many are more than 80, including ours. Adding new development 

and/or tearing out existing homes runs counter to historic preservation tenets and would ruin one of the most 

desirable neighborhoods in the City. 

Third, the Urban Corridor proposal calls for high-density development along Capitol Boulevard from the I-5 bridge 

to the Tumwater boundary. The entire west side of Capitol Boulevard along that stretch comprises unbuildable, 

steep slopes. Moreover, the Comprehensive Plan designates that area as a “significant public viewpoint” for 

Capitol Lake. Only the east side would be eligible for the kind of high-density development called for under the 

Urban Corridor designation--and that side is completely built out with historic single-family homes and the historic 

Wildwood Shopping Center. There is literally no room for further development. 

Fourth, area schools are already at full capacity. The proposal does not specify how increased population would 

be assimilated into neighborhood schools. 

Fifth, the Urban Corridor concept needs to be carefully applied. The South Capitol neighborhood is very similar to 

the Carlyon/North-Governor Stevens area, but is not proposed for Urban Corridor designation. Yet South Capitol 

has much more commercial development along Capitol Way: the medical office building, the dentist’s office, the 

Frog Pond, a Reiki Center, the State Capital Museum, and the BIAW building. 

We encourage the City to apply judiciously the Urban Corridor designation. Historic, residential neighborhoods 

should be maintained, and more appropriate methods of increasing density promoted, including allowing 

Accessory Dwelling Units and working with the City of Tumwater to increase density in the commercial district 

centered on the Tumwater Safeway. The Carlyon/North-Governor Stevens area is not appropriate for Urban 

Corridor designation and should not be proposed for it in the Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We appreciate the City’s effort to receive feedback from citizens. 

Sincerely, 

Lauren and David Danner

From: Barb Day 


Cc: Dan Leahy 

Subject: Street Extention Issue 


I can't believe after all the dispute concerning this issue in the Southwest 

Olympia Neighborhood, et al, that 

opening up Decatur Street to future traffic is still in the Comprehensive 

Plan. 

I sincerely hope this is just an error ..... lack of omission. 

Sincerely, 

Barb Day 

Twenty-year Resident of SW Neighborhood.



Subject: FW: Comp Plan Comment 

Date: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:32:21 AM 

Already replied… 




360-753-8046 


From: Barb Day [mailto:barbsailor@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:55 PM 


Cc: Liz Hoenig 

Subject: Comp Plan Comment 

Just a quick comment on the Comp Plan. 

It seems to me that a focus on more high-rise residence buildings would be in order. We 

need to 

reduce the human footprint and leave space for gardens, trees, etc if we are to maintain 

any 

grip on our environment. We have had lots of conversations about trees etc., but I do 

not see 

enough improvement in our building codes. 

Hong Kong towers might be a bit extreme, but I have spent time in them and there is 

much to be said 

for emphasis on better land use. The area near the Capitol Mall/Target would be ideal as 

a start...with 

great views of the Olympics to encourage people that there are advantages they have not 

explored; 

walking to shops, public transport, more parks and public spaces. 

Also earthquake proofing is amazing in its advances. I would like to see some exploration 

in this area of 

building in the next ten years. We can learn and teach at the same time. 

We also need to not only follow, but set a better example for the rest of the world in 

reducing our human foot print. 

Thanks for the opportunity to give input. 

Barb Day 

Vice Chair 

UAC

From: Laura Doherty 


Subject: Carlyon north and Governor Stevens Neighborhoods 


This is in response to the proposal of the "Urban Corridor" in our neighborhood. We strongly object to 

the plan to increase population density in the blocks proposed. We have been in our house since 1980 

and have increased the value of our residence instead of moving to the suburbs. We love to live in the 

urban setting and have a great neighborhood which would be negatively impacted by the "corridor". 

Is the plan to take property by imminent domain to create this "corridor"? The plan talks about 

increasing density on both sides of Capitol Way south of the I-5 bridge to the Tumwater line. There 

are no building sites on the West side of Capitol Way from the bridge to the Tumwater line. Where will 

the building be built? Please do not execute this plan! 

Mike and Laura Doherty 

2933 Maringo Road SE 


From: StateWrkr1@aol.com 


Subject: Comments to Carlyon North "Urban Corridor" proposal. 


To whom it may concern, 

Below are my comments to the Carlyon North "Urban Corridor" proposed pilot program for one side of 

the street garbage pickup. 

I am against changing the garbage to the proposed "one side of the street" for the following reasons: 

1. I am getting older. I have numerous health problems. It makes it harder to lug the 

garbage/recycle containers across the street and back again. 

2. I resent having people take up parking area in front of my house for garbage day. I use that area. 

3. Not everyone pulls in there garbage can the same day. I would resent a garbage can parked in 

front of my house for 3-4 days like some of the people have been doing. And since some people don't 

ever wash them out, they stink. I don't want to smell that in front of my house, wafting through the 

front door in the summer. 

The garbage and vehicle traffic issue was never a problem until one person moved into the 

neighborhood. She also has wanted the airplanes to move their approach among many other things. 

The city accommodated her when she wanted the school boundaries moved. Now she states that 

the proposal would impact schools that are already at full capacity. Who's fault is that? 

I personally wish the city would quit catering to a few people that want change. 

The city should poll all affected households, not an association, to see what they want. 

Sincerely, 

Randy Donner 

3226 Pear St. S.E. 

Olympia, WA. 98501

From: Johan Genberg 


Subject: Close Decatur Street permanently to automobile traffic 


Hi, 

My name is Johan Genberg, I'm a resident of the Olympia South West 

Neighborhood. I live on 709 Percival Street SW with my wife Rochelle and our two 

small daughters, 3 years and 6 months. 

I read the draft of the Comprehensive Plan, and this is my comment to the plan. 

The section about opening up Decatur Street (currently a bike path) and/or 16th 

Street connections to our neighborhood to thru traffic between downtown and the 

auto mall, worries me when I think of the safety of our children. It seems like a 

thinly veiled attempt to open up Decatur Street, despite the clear voice of the 

neighborhood speaking out against it. 

I ask that you delete this whole section from the comprehensive plan and 

that both the Decatur and 16th Street connections to our residential 

neighborhood be permanently closed to automobile traffic. 

Already, despite "traffic-calming devices", Percival St serves as a through way from 

Black Lake Blvd to the traffic circles above downtown, and stop signs are continually 

ignored, and rushed commuters run by way over the speed limit, a couple of feet 

away from where I would like our kids to be able to play, as the should be able to in 

a safe neighborhood. The only "traffic-calming device" that will work is to keep the 

neighborhood closed, so that it remains a neighborhood, and doesn't become an 

offramp to I-5. 

It seems absurd to me to keep accommodating increased car traffic, instead of 

investing heavily in improving the public transit system, which would give people a 

true option to the car-insanity that we are currently witnessing. 

Johan 

www.trickleupfilms.org 

www.trickleupweb.com



Subject: FW: Response to Comp Plan Update 

Date: Friday, May 04, 2012 4:13:02 PM 




360-753-8046 


From: kandjgoddard@comcast.net [mailto:kandjgoddard@comcast.net] 

Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:42 PM 

To: Keith Stahley 

Cc: Amy Buckler; jkenney@ci.olympia.wa.us; Stacey Ray 

Subject: Re: Response to Comp Plan Update 

Hi Keith, 

I very much appreciate your response, and I won't take much more of your time. 

The architect with the City of Everett actually is assigned to Facilities. Perhaps 

Jennifer can speak directly with him to learn more? 

I'm glad to know that the City understands the importance of strengthening the 

collaboration with the State and the Port and will be taking steps to advance that 

tricky goal. 

And I'm also really heartened that the Comp Plan update completion horizon looks to 

be farther out than I'd surmised. That is truly great news. 

Finally, I'm delighted that you will be looking for strong urban design skills in your 

next-hired Associate Planner, and I hope you'll continue adding that requirement as 

you bring other Planners to your Department. You and I both know that I want the 

Moon when it comes to downtown planning and revitalization, but every step forward 

counts. 

Thanks again. 

Kris

From: "Keith Stahley" 

To: "kandjgoddard@comcast.net" 

Cc: "Rob Richards" , "Roger Horn" 

, "Paul Ingman" , "Judy Bardin" 

, "Jerome Parker" , 

"Agnieska Kiska" , "James Reddick" , 

"Larry Leveen" , "Amy' 'Tousley" 

, "Steve Hall" , "Stacey Ray" 

, "Todd Stamm" 

Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 2:02:57 PM 

Subject: RE: Response to Comp Plan Update 

Hi Kris: 

Thank you for your comments on the Comp Plan. We see the master plan for downtown as one of 

the several significant work plan items that may come out of the comp plan update process and 

that we anticipated sorting and scoping through the implementation strategy (aka Action Plan). 

Your comments certainly provide good guidance for that process. Right now these significant items 

include: public participation process, sub-area planning, updating our land development 

regulations and the downtown master plan. We will provide a better description of our intentions 

as they pertain to the downtown master plan in the June Draft of the Comp Plan Update. 

I agree that a strong relationship with the Port and State are critical components of successfully 

implementing our plan. We will take a look at that language and see if we can strengthen it. This 

may be a policy that is included as part of our implementation strategy and helps to fix 

responsibility for its implementation. 

I agree with that generally quality should not prevail over expedience, however, there’s nothing 

like a clear deadline to focus ones attention on the real work at hand. That being said, we are 

looking at the schedule for the Comp Plan update and recognize that it is very tight. There is an 

item on the May 8th City Council Meeting Agenda that proposes that City Council will not take up 

the Comp Plan until they are finished with the SMP. This will provide several additional months for 

the public and Planning Commission to participate in the Comp Plan update process. The Planning 

Commission will be developing a Charter for the update for consideration by the City Council on 

June 19th. This Charter should provide more details around that schedule and opportunities for 

continued public involvement. 

We have had many budget challenges over the past several years and certainly the near term 

doesn’t look much different. I’ve asked Jennifer to give you a call and find out more about the 

Everett position that you mention. We are recruiting for an Associate Planner presently and we 

will be sure to look for strong urban design skills in that person. 

Thanks again for your comments and I hope you can stay involved and active throughout the 

update process.

Cheers 

Keith Stahley, Community Planning and Development Director 


P.O. Box 1967 

601 4th Ave NE 

Olympia, WA 98507-1967 

Office: (360) 753- 8227 

FAX: (360) 753-8087 

Email: Kstahley@ci.olympia.wa.us 

Note: This message and any reply may be subject to public disclosure. 

From: kandjgoddard@comcast.net [mailto:kandjgoddard@comcast.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 8:34 AM 

To: Keith Stahley; Stacey Ray 

Cc: Rob Richards; Roger Horn; Paul Ingman; Judy Bardin; Jerome Parker; Agnieska Kiska; James 

Reddick; Larry Leveen 

Subject: Response to Comp Plan Update 

Please see the attached. 

Kris

From: Benjamin Ruder 


Cc: areichman@comcast.net; Ben Ruder; Bill Clarke; Bug; Carol and Don Kraege; Gretchen Steiger; Gustavo 

Portaro; jacobsoly@aol.com; Joshua; Ewan Whitaker 

Subject: Governor Stevens Neighborhood Association commentary to proposed urban corridor 


Attachments: GSNA Comments.CompPlan.June2012[1].doc 

On behalf of the Governor Stevens Neighorhood Association, please find attached a 

document with commentary referencing the recent proposal for development of 

Urban Corridors, as outlined in the recent City of Olympia Comprehensive Plan. 

Should you have any questions related specifically to our comments, please feel free 

to contact me. Thank you for your consideration. 

Benjamin D. Ruder 

Governor Stevens Neighborhood Association, President 

703 Governor Stevens Ave SE 


ben.ruder@gmail.com 

-- 

Benjamin D. Ruder, DDS 

Diplomate, American Board of Pediatric Dentistry 

Small to Tall Pediatric Dentistry 

222 Lilly Road NE 


(360) 459-5885 

www.smalltotall.info

Olympia Comprehensive Plan Comment 

Submitted on behalf of the Governor Stevens Neighborhood Association 

June 12, 2012 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this staff draft of Olympia’s proposed 

Comprehensive Plan. We greatly appreciate the continued efforts to encourage public 

comments in this plan’s development. The Carlyon/North and Governor Stevens Neighborhood 

Association board of directors jointly submitted a recent comment that includes many of the 

following point. The Governor Stevens Neighborhood Association would also like to draw 

attention to a fifth comment, which can be found at the latter part of this document. Again, thank 

you for allowing our residents the opportunity to offer feedback towards developing a city that 

can best serve all people. 

Of particular concern to our neighborhood is a proposal to designate Capitol Boulevard* 

between the I-5 bridge and the Tumwater border, and areas “within about 1/4 mile” on either 

side, as an Urban Corridor. The inclusion of this area as an urban corridor/high density corridor 

is a change from the 1994-current comprehensive plan, as made clear by a comparison of the 

“Future Land Use” map included in each plan. The current proposal for this area is also a 

change from existing zoning based on the “2011 Official Zoning Map”, effective January 1, 2011 

and as currently linked to on the City of Olympia website. 

As noted in the plan, an Urban Corridor designation would allow “more intense commercial uses 

and larger structures” along Capitol Boulevard (Comp Plan, Land Use and Urban Design, 

Appendix A). The Plan notes, “Urban Corridors are the major arterials in our system, that 

correspond with the highest density land uses.” (Comp Plan, Transportation, Urban Corridors, 

Strategy Corridors, and Bus Corridors Section) 

*Please note that the current version of the proposed Comprehensive Plan requires a technical 

change throughout to recognize that “Capitol Way” becomes “Capitol Boulevard” at the curve 

just north of the bridge across I-5. For example, all descriptions of the Urban Corridor south of 

the I-5 bridge refer to Capitol Way, but should refer to Capitol Boulevard. 

POINTS OF CONCERN: 

1. Negative Impact on Neighborhoods’ Residential Character: The urban corridor 

proposal would result in zoning guidelines reducing the historic and residential character of our 

neighborhoods. This is at odds with what we believe is best for the city, and at odds with other 

Comprehensive Plan proposals. These proposals require development in established 

neighborhoods to improve its character, aesthetic quality and livability, and prohibit the 

conversion of housing in residential districts to commercial use. (Comp Plan, Land Use and 

Urban Design, PL 13.1 & PL 13.2) 

2. Conflicts with Existing Historic Preservation Goals: Olympia’s current Historic 

Preservation Assessment and Action Plan calls out the Southeast Olympia neighborhood-which 

includes Carlyon/North, Governor Stevens, and Wildwood neighborhoods – as one of five 

“selected historic neighborhoods.” 

The Comprehensive Plan proposes to “Safeguard and promote sites, buildings, districts, 

structures and objects which reflect significant elements of the City's history,” and to “Establish

zoning that is compatible with, and conducive to, continued preservation of historic 

neighborhoods and properties.” (Comp Plan, Parks, Arts, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, 

PL 11.2, PL 11.4). 

3. Negative Impact on Schools: Proposal does not account for increased population 

pressure on neighborhood schools that are already at full capacity. 

4. Support Thoughtful Use of Urban Corridors: The urban corridor concept is valuable 

for our region, but it needs to be thoughtfully applied. Historic, residential neighborhoods should 

be maintained, as is provided for in the South Capitol neighborhood. More appropriate methods 

of increasing density along the Capitol Boulevard corridor include: 

• Allowing for Accessory Dwelling Units (such as mother-in-law and garage apartments), as 

proposed in the comprehensive plan. 

• Increasing residential and commercial density in the commercial district around the 

Tumwater Safeway. 

5. Misplaced Urban Corridors Conflict With Other City Objectives: By designating Urban 

Corridors in residential areas where they don’t belong, the City undermines its own efforts to 

improve true urban areas - namely downtown Olympia. For a number of years, Olympia’s 

downtown has struggled in the effort to create the right balance and location of affordable 

housing, commerce, parks and open space, and protection of shoreline view and historic views. 

Conversely, many neighborhoods, including the Carlyon/North and Governor Stevens 

Neighborhoods have achieved this balance. Rather than disturbing the balance achieved in 

some of the city's best neighborhoods, the City should focus its "urban corridor" objectives in the 

city's primary urban area that deserves the most attention: downtown. 

Governor Stevens Neighborhood Association 

Benjamin D. Ruder, President 

ben.ruder@gmail.com

From: peter guttchen 

To: Jennifer Kenny; Keith Stahley; Steve Friddle; Steve Hall; CityCouncil; Cathie Butler; ImagineOlympia; 

olyhank@juno.com; Todd Stamm 

Cc: Phil Schulte; Bob Jones 

Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update 


To the Imagine Olympia folks, 

Thank you for extending the deadline for providing comments on the Comprehensive Plan until June 12 

to provide citizens and groups like the Coalition of Neighborhood Associations more time to review this 

important and lengthy document. Having the Plan posted on-line has made it easier to 

access. However, the inability to search the Plan has made it challenging to review by making it difficult 

to identify the important links between topics that are referenced in multiple chapters of Plan. 

The first week the Plan was posted on-line for comment in April, I sent in a suggestion that the Plan 

be made searchable, a request I understand others have made as well. What I've been told is that 

you've been working on it, but that it's not an easy thing to build this functionality into the Web version 

of the Plan. 

One simple way (although it may not be as simple as I think it is) to make the Plan searchable would 

be to post the entire document as a PDF. Adobe Reader has a Search function that would provide at 

least some search functionality. Having the Plan in a PDF format would also make it easier for folks 

to get a sense of the Plan in its entirety, and to print selected portions of the Plan. 

Even after the comment period ends, I think it would be helpful to post a PDF version of the draft Plan 

and a PDF version of the final Plan after Council takes action to adopt it. 

Thank you for again for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Plan. 

Peter Guttchen 

1310 Central St. NE 


943-578

From: peter guttchen 

To: ImagineOlympia; CityCouncil 

Cc: olympianeighborhoods-steering@googlegroups.com; nena-board@googlegroups.com; Jennifer Kenny; Keith 

Stahley; Steve Friddle; Steve Hall; Cathie Butler; Todd Stamm; Amy Buckler 

Subject: Comments on the City"s Comprehensive Plan Update 


Attachments: PeterGuttchenCompPlanComments_ 6-12-12.docx 

To the Olympia City Council and Planning Commission members, 

Attached are my comments on the Comprehensive Plan update. 

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions. 




pguttchen@gmail.com 

360-943-8578

June 12, 2012 

To the Olympia City Council and Planning Commission members, 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the City’s Comprehensive Plan update (Plan). 

These comments primarily address the public involvement elements in the Plan and reflect my strong 

belief in the fundamental role of effective public involvement in creating and sustaining a healthy and 

resilient community. 

Public involvement is a core function of local government. Without effective public involvement, we will 

not be able to reach agreement as a community on how to implement the policies and achieve the 

ambitious goals laid out in the Plan. 

A flawed public involvement process on an important issue results in increased polarization, more 

distrust, lots of misinformation and confusion, higher costs, and an increased risk that important 

projects and programs never get implemented. And the consequences of poor public involvement 

extend beyond individual projects or issues because they damage the relationship between the City and 

the people it serves. This, in turn, makes it more difficult for us to come together to address and solve 

serious community problems in the future. 

What I like in the Plan update 

There are many parts of the draft Plan update I like and support. They include: 

• The reintroduction of a sub-area planning process to the Plan. 

• Support for development that maintains and improves neighborhood character. 

• Support for urban agriculture and local food production. 

• Support for development and public improvements consistent with healthy and active lifestyles. 

• Support for early notification of and involvement by the community in land use decision-making 

processes. 

• Recognition that the community’s major neighborhoods are unique and have their own 

priorities and that we should not take a one-size-fits-all approach to planning and development. 

• An expanded public involvement chapter that recognizes and supports the essential role of 

neighborhood groups in defining and creating our community’s future. 

Recommendations to strengthen the Plan update 

Given the challenges our local and regional public agencies face as they struggle to engage citizens in 

shaping sustainable solutions to our sometimes controversial and vexing problems, I believe it is 

essential to include bold and strong public involvement language in the Plan. 

As noted above, I like many things about the draft Plan update, including some of the new language that 

reinforces and enhances the City’s public involvement processes. I also believe there are ways to 

improve the Plan to make it a more powerful public involvement blueprint and touchstone. Below are 

four specific recommendations I strongly encourage you to incorporate into the Plan. 

Peter Guttchen - Comments on Comp Plan Update 6-12-12 Page 1 of 3

1. Include a vision for public involvement in the Plan - The Olympia’s Vision chapter of the draft Plan 

update includes a list of the things that Olympians value including community, our neighborhoods, and 

planning for our future. It is a wonderful and inspiring list. 

However, there is nothing on this list about what we value and envision about how we will plan and 

work together as a community to realize the ambitious goals in the Plan. I believe adding a clearly 

defined vision for public involvement to this list is important for many reasons. They include: 

• The City’s lack of effective and consistent public involvement was – in one form or another – a 

common theme in the feedback provided to the City by neighborhood leaders and members of 

the larger community during the Plan update process. 

• The Planning Commission rated the City’s progress toward meeting the goal that’s included in 

the Public Involvement chapter in the 1994 Plan a “1,” meaning that the “least” progress has 

been made toward achieving this goal. 

• There are already compelling vision and values statements related to public involvement in the 

1994 Plan. This kind of language is not included in the draft Plan update. Here are a few 

examples of what’s in the 1994 Plan: 

� On page 23… “Olympia will be an increasingly united community which solves problems 

through full communication and community decision-making….Neighborhood groups will 

take an intimate role in the planning and decision-making affecting their neighborhoods… 

Each segment of the community will understand the larger picture and help determine the 

best interests of the whole.” 

� At the beginning of the Public Involvement chapter - “Successful communities are those that 

are able to face their challenges collectively, harnessing the energy of all different elements 

of the community. Successful public involvement strategies are essential to define the 

community's future vision and move toward it. Without the successful participation of 

citizens in community decision processes, it is all too easy to descend into political gridlock 

when struggling with difficult problems.” 

For these reasons, I strongly recommend you reintroduce language similar to the compelling language in 

the 1994 Plan defining our community’s vision and values for public involvement. 

2. Add a core set of public involvement principles to the Plan 

To reinforce and help clarify our community’s public involvement values and vision, I recommend you 

include a core set of public involvement principles in the Plan update modeled after the ones below 

which were developed by the International Institute for Public Participation: 

a. Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right 

to be involved in the decision-making process. 

b. Public participation includes the promise that the public's contribution will influence the 

decision. 

c. Public participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communicating the 

needs and interests of all participants, including decision makers. 


d. Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or 

interested in a decision. 

e. Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate. 

f. Public participation provides participants with the information they need to participate in a 

meaningful way. 

g. Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision. 

3. Include goals and policies in the Plan that strengthen the community’s capacity to design and 

implement effective public involvement strategies – I recommend you include language in the Plan that 

supports and accelerates the development of City staff and community leaders who understand the 

importance of public involvement and have the skills to do it well. 

Designing and implementing effective, focused and objective-driven public involvement strategies 

requires a unique set of skills. Without these skills, public officials usually fall back on the same tools 

regardless of the issue and the people who will be impacted. 

Some City staff have exceptional public involvement skills and do an extraordinary job engaging and 

collaborating with the community on important issues and projects. However, there is currently a great 

deal of variability and inconsistency in the both the quality and the approach the City takes to designing 

and implementing public involvement strategies. 

This is not simply a professional development or training issue. Given the City’s and the community’s 

lack of progress toward achieving the goals and implementing the public involvement policies in the 

current Plan, I believe it is important to address this need directly in the Plan update. 

4. Include goals and policies in the Plan to ensure there is evaluation of and accountability for the 

quality and effectiveness of the City’s public involvement work - To this end, I recommend adding 

language in the Plan that provides a framework for measuring progress toward meeting our public 

involvement goals and for holding the City and the community accountable for meeting those goals. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Thank you again for the opportunity to 

participate in this important process. 




pguttchen@gmail.com 

360-943-8578 


From: Carol Hamilton 

To: ImagineOlympia; Fran Eide 

Cc: hambone15@comcast.net 

Subject: Street illumination 

Date: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 9:21:58 AM 

Hello, 

I'm not sure to whom I should address this, so I'll send it as a comment on both the 

Comprehensive Plan and the 2012 EDDS. 

Simply put, has anyone considered changing our current sidewalk luminaires to a 

more down-focused style? The current choice, while attractive in a retro Victorian 

motif, would be better suited if modern illumination wasn't brighter than a gaslight. As 

it is, those high-wattage globes shine unwanted light into peoples' homes and drivers' 

eyes, lots of uplight pollution into the night sky, and some on the sidewalk. A much 

better design would direct all light downward, requiring less wattage and eliminating 

all that light pollution. 

According to the new Comprehensive Plan, Sect. GN9 says public lighting is to be 

"minimized to protect wildlife, vegetation, and the night sky." PN9.1 states that it 

should be directed "where it is needed". (The EDDS 4F.020 has me linked to the 

Planning and Development website for specs for streetlights.) 

While the Planning Commission/City Council has continued to table the Dark Skies 

Initiative, Tumwater and the Port of Olympia have made commitments to decrease 

light pollution. I would hope we in Olympia could make this small change going 

forward, especially since we have so many new street upgrades happening this 

summer! Could it happen that fast? Is there some way I could volunteer to help 

make this happen? 

Every time I drive by or through a new neighborhood, especially in dark, rural area of 

the UGA, there they are--those very urban-designed beacons creating an island of 

light not unlike a tiny Auto Mall. Please do give this some consideration. 

Thank you, 

Carol Hamilton 

2613 French Rd NW 

867-1484

From: Carol Hamilton 

To: Randy Wesselman 

Cc: Fran Eide; ImagineOlympia; Lee Keech 

Subject: Re: Street illumination 

Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012 6:33:20 PM 

Dear Mr. Wesselman: 

Thanks for summarizing our streetlight inventory. I have 2 questions concerning the 

lamps. 

What kind of lamps are in the acorns? Incandescent vs flourescent vs high-pressure 

sodium, all have different outputs, right? And, why, if the updated version of the 

acorns is more efficient in directing light downward, do we use 100w lamps in them 

instead of the 70w used in the old style? 

I'd also like to reiterate my question concerning changing the style of fixture 

altogether. It seems a shame to continue using the acorn style since even if it is 

made "dark sky compliant", that style will always create higher angle light than is 

needed for lighting a sidewalk. High angle light is the cause of glare, light pollution 

and trespass. A photometric comparing acorns to other fixtures would illustrate that. 

Another design flaw of the acorn is that they are held in space from the bottom; 

there's a shadow directly under the fixture. They were designed (a hundred+ years 

ago) to glow in all directions but down, the antithesis of our Comprehensive Plan's 

goal of directing light "where it is needed", as I referenced in my previous email. 

I don't believe we need to wait for our Plan to be implemented or our Council to adopt 

the Dark Skies Initiative to change these fixtures. I'd like to believe someone could 

just take this ball and run with it. I know there are so many other things more 

important right now and that funds are tight. But, we're buying fixtures for all the new 

street improvements, aren't we? I am willing to do what you allow me to to get this to 

the next step. I just need to know what the next step is, please. 

Thanks for your time and I'm looking forward to hearing from you. 

Sincerely, 


867-1484 

From: "Randy Wesselman" 

To: "hambone15@comcast.net" 

Cc: "Fran Eide" , "ImagineOlympia"

, "Lee Keech" 

Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 4:40:46 PM 

Subject: RE: Street illumination 

Dear Ms. Hamilton: 

This is in response to your email concerning the type of streetlights the City of Olympia uses. The 

following summarizes the type of streetlights used: 

Local Access Streets 

The pedestrian-style acorn fixture used on local access streets has a mechanism built into the 

fixture that directs light downward and toward the street to help minimize light pollution and light 

trespass (light going onto adjacent property). This fixture is mounted on a lamppost-style pole. 

The lamp in this fixture is 100 watt. We use a low wattage lamp in these streetlight fixtures to 

minimize glare, light pollution and light trespass. 

In 2005, the City updated our streetlight equipment standards to require a style of acorn fixture, 

Type III light pattern with cutoff light distribution, with a mechanism built into the fixture that 

directs more light downward and toward the street. This was in response to further address light 

pollution concerns/dark sky concerns. 

Neighborhood Collector Streets 

On neighborhood collector streets, the City uses a combination of high-mast streetlight poles with 

a pedestrian-style acorn fixture mounted at a lower height and lamppost-style streetlight poles 

with a pedestrian-style acorn fixture mounted on top. 

The pedestrian-style acorn fixture used on the lamppost is the same as the fixture used on local 

access streets. The lamp wattage does vary. On the high-mast streetlight poles, a 50-Watt lamp is 

used for the acorn fixture and on the lamppost streetlight pole a 100-Watt lamp is used. 

Major Collector and Arterial Streets 

On arterial and major collector streets, the City uses high-mast streetlight poles with a pedestrianstyle 

acorn fixture mounted at a lower height. 

The pedestrian-style acorn fixture used on the high-mast streetlight pole is the same style fixture 

used on the high-mast streetlight pole used on neighborhood collector and local access streets. It 

is not the intent to light the street with this fixture. We use a 50-Watt lamp in the acorn fixture on 

these streets. 

“Cobra Head-Style” Streetlight Fixtures 

The City currently uses a cobra head-style streetlight fixture on the high-mast streetlight pole to 

light the street. It is designed to direct light downward and toward the street to minimize light 

pollution and light trespass. 

Older Pedestrian-style Acorn Fixtures 

This City is continuing to look for ways to retrofit existing pedestrian-style acorn fixtures that do

not have mechanisms built into the fixture that directs light downward and toward the street. 

These fixtures have 50 Watt or 75 Watt lamps in them which minimizes the level of upward 

lighting, however there is still upward lighting. There are approximately 150 of these fixtures. As 

these fixtures wear out, they are replaced with newer fixtures that minimize light pollution and 

light trespass. 

Other Streetlight Issues 

As technology is changing, we continue to explore the use of more energy efficient and dark-skies 

compliant fixtures. For example, we are using Light Emitting Diode (LED) fixtures for certain 

wattages of cobra head-style streetlight fixtures for energy savings purposes. 

I checked with staff from our Community Planning and Development Department, Dark Skies will 

not be reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2012, though perhaps in 2013. It is however 

referenced in the April draft of the Comprehensive Plan update. 

The issue is addressed in the Natural Environment Chapter and comments are being accepted on 

this draft until June 11th . 

http://olympiawa.gov/plans/comp-plan/natural-environment 

We acknowledge and recognize the importance of minimizing light pollution and light trespass. We 

continue to look for new streetlight fixtures/technology to address this issue. Please feel free to 

contact me if you have additional questions or need additional information. My contact 

information is listed below. 

Sincerely, 

Randy Wesselman 

Transportation Engineering and Planning Manager 

Olympia Public Works Department, Transportation 

(360) 753-8477 

FAX (360) 709-2797 

P.O. Box 1967, Olympia, WA 98507-1967 

601 4th Avenue E 

rwesselm@ci.olympia.wa.us 

City Website: www.olympiawa.gov 

(This message and any reply are subject to public disclosure) 

From: Carol Hamilton [mailto:hambone15@comcast.net] 


To: ImagineOlympia; Fran Eide 

Cc: hambone15@comcast.net 

Subject: Street illumination 

Hello,

I'm not sure to whom I should address this, so I'll send it as a comment on both the 

Comprehensive Plan and the 2012 EDDS. 

Simply put, has anyone considered changing our current sidewalk luminaires to a 

more down-focused style? The current choice, while attractive in a retro Victorian 

motif, would be better suited if modern illumination wasn't brighter than a gaslight. As 

it is, those high-wattage globes shine unwanted light into peoples' homes and drivers' 

eyes, lots of uplight pollution into the night sky, and some on the sidewalk. A much 

better design would direct all light downward, requiring less wattage and eliminating 

all that light pollution. 

According to the new Comprehensive Plan, Sect. GN9 says public lighting is to be 

"minimized to protect wildlife, vegetation, and the night sky." PN9.1 states that it 

should be directed "where it is needed". (The EDDS 4F.020 has me linked to the 

Planning and Development website for specs for streetlights.) 

While the Planning Commission/City Council has continued to table the Dark Skies 

Initiative, Tumwater and the Port of Olympia have made commitments to decrease 

light pollution. I would hope we in Olympia could make this small change going 

forward, especially since we have so many new street upgrades happening this 

summer! Could it happen that fast? Is there some way I could volunteer to help 

make this happen? 

Every time I drive by or through a new neighborhood, especially in dark, rural area of 

the UGA, there they are--those very urban-designed beacons creating an island of 

light not unlike a tiny Auto Mall. Please do give this some consideration. 

Thank you, 


2613 French Rd NW 

867-1484



Subject: FW: Response to Comp Plan Update 





360-753-8046 


From: Zena Hartung [mailto:zhartung@gmail.com] 


To: kandjgoddard@comcast.net; Keith Stahley; Stacey Ray 

Cc: Rob Richards; Roger Horn; Paul Ingman; Judy Bardin; Jerome Parker; Agnieska Kiska; James 

Reddick; Larry Leveen 

Subject: Re: Response to Comp Plan Update 

Kris 

Your criticisms are, as usual, spot on and would constitute important improvements, if implemented. You 

have shown us all what good leadership is in Vision 2020; let's work to bring about a downtown that 

follows from community involvement and buy-in. 

Zena 

On 5/1/12 8:33 AM, "kandjgoddard@comcast.net" wrote: 

Please see the attached. 

Kris



Subject: FW: Comp plan comment 

Date: Friday, May 04, 2012 10:26:22 AM 

From: Andy Haub 

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:14 AM 


Subject: Comp plan comment 

Hi Stacey, 

Roger Horn didn’t write it down, but we need to incorporate his comment about sustainability not 

being a clear driver of the Plan at the chapter level. He suggested more narrative either in the 

beginning of the Plan or the beginning of the chapters to reinforce sustainability. Andy



Subject: FW: Light Pollution 

Date: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:53:00 AM 




360-753-8046 



Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 12:12 PM 

To: 'DeMay, James (ECY)' 

Subject: RE: Light Pollution 

Hi James, 

Thank you for forwarding the comment below and passing along my contact information. I can 

incorporate Mr. Haugen’s comment into our Comprehensive Plan update process. 

Thank you, 




360-753-8046 


From: DeMay, James (ECY) [mailto:jade461@ECY.WA.GOV] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:26 AM 


Subject: Light Pollution 

Hey, I’m forwarding you an email I received during our public comment period for a cleanup 

at the Port of Olympia. I was forwarded your name when I called the city’s planning office. 

I sent Lee your name and number as well so he may be contacting you. 

Thanks, 

James DeMay 

Dept. of Ecology

From: leerob@comcast.net [mailto:leerob@comcast.net] 

Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:05 PM 

To: DeMay, James (ECY) 

Subject: Port polution 

Mr. DeMay, 

I am very concerned about water and sediment pollution in Bud Inlet and am very supportive of 

efforts to identify and remediate the pollution there. I am also very concerned about light pollution 

and, living just off West Bay Dr., I am very aware that the port is a major source of light pollution. I 

realize that you may not be able to address that problem, but I would like to make my observations 

known. There are very simple ways to direct light downward to the areas that need illumination. 

There is no need to be a "beacon onto the world." We have to close our blinds and drapes at night 

to keep the unwanted light out. 

I would like you to forward my message to whomever may be able to address this problem. 

Thank you, 

Lee Haugen 

708 Sherman St. NW 

360-753-2983

From: chawkins@scattercreek.com 


Subject: Comments on the April 2012 Draft - Olympia Comprehensive Plan 


Dear City of Olympia Long-range Planning, 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the new draft of the Olympia 

Comprehensive Plan. I appreciate the interactive web-based format that allows 

greater access to and participation in the plan by local residents. My comments are 

in two areas: those about the Land Use and Urban Design chapter and others about 

the Transportation chapter. 

Land Use: 

- Please give more further description and acknowledgment of the important 

linkages between land use, transportation and public health. Health and safety are 

primary purposes of zoning and land use rules, and increasingly demand attention in 

a wide array of development practices and capital facilities that help (or hinder) 

healthy eating or physical activity. Making healthy choices easier for local residents 

should be an explicit goal of the City of Olympia’s growth management and vision 

for future community development, beyond the new policy PL 13.5 (i.e. some 

discussion before this about the importance to community health of creating access 

to physical activity and healthy food options would be helpful). 

- Perhaps include some of the mention of linking land use and transportation and 

integration that occurs in the “Transportation” chapter in the Land Use and Urban 

Design chapter. 

- Please discuss bicycling, walking and transit on par with personal motor vehicle 

(automobile) transportation. In a couple of instances they are lumped together as 

“alternative transportation” 

Transportation: 

- Discuss bicycling, walking and transit on par with personal motor vehicle 

(automobile) transportation. Sometimes walking and bicycling are described as 

“non-motorized” transportation; this should be stated in a more positive frame, like 

“active transportation”, since it is something that the city envisions supporting more 

of in the future. Where you need to refer to “alternative modes” as a group, please 

consider “active transportation and transit” 

- Generally good integration of the Olympia Mobility Strategy; please consider 

including more mention of the physical activity benefits or objectives (as you do in 

the discussion of Complete Streets) that are another reason to promote an 

integrated multimodal transportation system that rebalances support of modes to 

favor those modes that have often been neglected (i.e. walking and bicycling). 

Thank you again, good work so far, and I look forward to reading the next iteration. 

Sincerely, 

Chris 

Chris Hawkins, 1612 Thurston Ave. NE, Olympia, WA 98506

360-943-8004

From: Chris Hempleman 


Subject: Comp plan - Decatur connection comment 

Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 5:55:19 PM 

Thank you for accepting comments on the proposed Comprehensive 

Plan. I hope you will consider this comment, although I am a day late 

submitting. 

My comment addresses transportation proposals in Appx A, specifically: 

Decatur Street and 16th Avenue Connections 

Decatur Street is a proposed major collector connecting 9th Avenue to Caton Way. 

Today, a bike and pedestrian pathway exists but the street is not open to motor 

vehicles. Sixteenth Avenue connects Fern Street to Carriage Loop. This street was 

closed after the earthquake in 2001. The earthquake damaged the 4th Avenue bridge 

which changed traffic patterns in the southwest area, and increased use of this 

connection. City Council closed this street to motor vehicles after concerns were 

raised by residents near the connection. 

Any decision on whether to connect Decatur Street to Caton Way and open 16th 

Avenue as a vehicular connection will not be made until the West Olympia Access 

Study Phase II is complete. 

The majority of users of the Decatur Street connection would be residents of the 

Southwest Olympia Neighborhood, the residential area south of Harrison Avenue and 

east of Black Lake Boulevard. For these users, the facility represents an improved 

access route to Tumwater, the Courthouse area, and US 101, bypassing the congested 

Black Lake Boulevard corridor. 

While a connection to Caton Way would be convenient for those of us in 

the SW neighborhood, we would not be “the majority of users.” In spite 

of the traffic calming devises, we are already a big cut-through 

neighborhood. This proposal would greatly exacerbate an existing 

problem for us. Decatur south of 9th might be fine as a major connector, 

but all of the streets it connects to are overloaded now. We cannot 

handle the additional traffic this connection would generate. I live on 

8 th . Even now people avoid the calming devices on 9 th by speeding up 

8 th instead. Please reconsider this proposal. You will be creating one big 

problem by trying to solve another. 

Chris Hempleman 

1303 8th

From: Steve Hodes 


Subject: Opposing greater density near Capitol from I-5 south to Cleveland 


My name is Steve Hodes. I live at 3136 Maringo SE. 

I am a strong supporter of growth management and have been for well over twenty years. I know that 

there are times when increased density makes sense and would be appropriate, such as in the Briggs 

development on Henderson. 

However, I think the proposed plan to designate Capitol from I-5 south to Cleveland as an Urban 

Corridor, and the attendant density increase for 1/4 mile into the heart of our neighborhood is an 

extremely bad idea. 

This is a neighborhood of single-family homes, many dating back to the 1930's and earlier. There are 

virtually no multi-family buildings in the area. While less historic in character, in many ways the 

neighborhood functions as an extension of the South Capitol neighborhood just to the north across I-5. 

The only larger buildings in the area (other than Oly High) are the new extension to the old Sunset Life 

building and the small shopping area focused on the Safeway store on Cleveland and Capitol. 

Nothing in the area suggests that an upzone to 15 housing units an acre would be appropriate. Even if 

the commission, and later the City, determine that greater density on Capitol makes sense in this area 

(which seems strange, given the larger older homes, some historic, on and adjacent to the street) there 

is simply nothing appropriate about moving to higher density in the solely single-family area off of 

Capitol. 

Our own block would be within this area, and having walked it and biked it for over twenty years, I see 

nothing that suggests that it would make sense. 

Note: An earlier e-mail with this text was mistakenly sent from my daughter's g-mail account. I can be 

reached at: sjhodes@comcast.net.

From: JacobsOly@aol.com 


Cc: Stephanie Johnson; Stacey Ray 

Subject: Comments on Economy Chapter of Draft Comp Plan 

Date: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:30:36 PM 

Keith: 

Please accept this email as my personal comment on the Economy Chapter of the first staff draft of the 

new Comp Plan. 

After reading this chapter twice and marking it up, I have concluded that the best course of action 

would be to drop it from this document. 

Here are some of my reasons: 

1. This is not a required element of the Comp Plan. 

2. The city has very little impact on its economy other than to do what it would do anyhow, i.e., provide 

high quality services. By the way, economists agree that even the President has very little impact on 

the economy, so the fact that state and local governments have even less is not surprising. 

3. The chapter contains many erroneous ideas. This is no reflection on staff; the bulk of the material is 

reported to be carried forward from the current Comp Plan. Some specifics: 

a. The language in several instances touts diversity as a means of achieving a stable local 

economy. This is a good general rule, but a little analysis would show that it doesn't apply here. 

b. It advocates that the city promote population/job growth. That would make us bigger, but not 

better. 

c. It suggests that the city promote tourism. Bad idea. Growth in this industry above the level that 

occurs naturally would reduce our standard of living. And require more facilities and increase pollution. 

And the industry is quite capable of promoting itself, which it does well. This is definitely not an area 

that the city should venture into. 

d. It focuses on "living wage jobs", using salaries only, rather than the current average 

compensation level in the community (salaries and benefits). This would result in undesirable 

outcomes. 

On the other hand, there are a number of policies that would fit well in other chapters. And one policy 

on page six that is recommended for deletion that should be retained (deals with revenue concessions). 

I do not believe this chapter can be saved, even by severe editing. It is too deeply flawed. 

If the council wants to have an Economy Chapter, they can develop one in the future after a thorough 

study. Meanwhile, some policies can just be moved to other chapters. 

I would be glad to discuss this with staff. 

Best, 

Bob Jacobs

352-1346 

720 Governor Stevens Ave. SE 

Olympia 998501



Subject: FW: Comments on Economy Chapter of Draft Comp Plan 

Date: Friday, May 18, 2012 8:19:10 AM 




360-753-8046 


From: JacobsOly@aol.com [mailto:JacobsOly@aol.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:30 PM 


Cc: Stephanie Johnson; Stacey Ray 

Subject: Comments on Economy Chapter of Draft Comp Plan 

Keith: 

Please accept this email as my personal comment on the Economy Chapter of the first staff draft of 

the new Comp Plan. 

After reading this chapter twice and marking it up, I have concluded that the best course of action 

would be to drop it from this document. 

Here are some of my reasons: 

1. This is not a required element of the Comp Plan. 

2. The city has very little impact on its economy other than to do what it would do anyhow, i.e., provide 

high quality services. By the way, economists agree that even the President has very little impact on 

the economy, so the fact that state and local governments have even less is not surprising. 

3. The chapter contains many erroneous ideas. This is no reflection on staff; the bulk of the material is 

reported to be carried forward from the current Comp Plan. Some specifics: 

a. The language in several instances touts diversity as a means of achieving a stable local 

economy. This is a good general rule, but a little analysis would show that it doesn't apply here. 

b. It advocates that the city promote population/job growth. That would make us bigger, but not 

better. 

c. It suggests that the city promote tourism. Bad idea. Growth in this industry above the level that 

occurs naturally would reduce our standard of living. And require more facilities and increase 

pollution. And the industry is quite capable of promoting itself, which it does well. This is definitely not 

an area that the city should venture into. 

d. It focuses on "living wage jobs", using salaries only, rather than the current average 

compensation level in the community (salaries and benefits). This would result in undesirable

outcomes. 

On the other hand, there are a number of policies that would fit well in other chapters. And one policy 

on page six that is recommended for deletion that should be retained (deals with revenue concessions). 

I do not believe this chapter can be saved, even by severe editing. It is too deeply flawed. 

If the council wants to have an Economy Chapter, they can develop one in the future after a thorough 

study. Meanwhile, some policies can just be moved to other chapters. 

I would be glad to discuss this with staff. 

Best, 

Bob Jacobs 

352-1346 


Olympia 998501



Subject: Comp Plan Comment 


Please accept this email as an official comment on the draft Comp Plan. 

The Land Use and Urban Design section, on page 33 at the top, calls for urban corridors "within about 

one-quarter mile of certain major streets. This area would be characterized by "more intense 

commercial uses and larger structures" This would apply along all arterial streets, excepting only the 

South Capitol neighborhood. 

I suggest that the exemption be expanded to include not only South Capitol, but also other healthy, 

established residential neighborhoods like my own, the Governor Stevens Neighborhood. 

As it stands, this language does not comply with the intent of the GMA, nor several other provisions of 

this draft. The idea of siting denser housing and mixed residential/commercial/office areas in cities is to 

save forests and farms. But this language would destroy neighborhoods. In my own situation, my entire 

neighborhood would be wiped away. Certainly it is not the intent of the GMA to wipe out old, 

established, healthy neighborhoods. 

There are definitely portions of the arterial corridors that would readily lend themselves to greater 

density. The area around Ralph's and the "triangle" on the west side are two. 

Please expand the exception language to preserve our older residential neighborhoods. 

Thank you, 

Bob Jacobs 

352-1346



Cc: Amy Buckler; Jennifer Kenny 

Subject: Comments on Comp Plan 



There is one provision in the Public Participation and Partners section that I suggest be removed. 

PP5.5 calls for participation in a Transfer of Development Rights program. 

TDR seems like a nice idea at first glance. But after some contemplation it becomes clear that it is 

awkward at best and ineffective at worst. It is a very poor substitute for the proper use of city and 

county zoning powers to direct growth as desired. I hope the city doesn't get involved in this practice. 

And I therefore suggest that this provision be removed from the comp plan. 

Bob Jacobs 

352-1346 

720 Governor Stevens Ave. SE



Cc: Stacey Ray 

Subject: Comp Plan Comments 



I have the following substantive comments about the Natural Environment chapter: 

1. On page 9 of 17, I suggest that the following wording be added to PN4.4: "and earthquake-induced 

liquefaction." Liquefaction is at least as important a potential threat as sea-level rise. Inexplicably, city 

planning documents have not, to date, included this risk. It's time. 

2. On page 11 of 17, I suggest that PN6.4 be strengthened by deleting the words "achieve ... striving 

to". We need to get serious about environmental restoration. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Bob Jacobs 

352-1346 




Cc: Todd Stamm 

Subject: Comp Plan Comments -- Land Use and Urban Design 



I have the following substantive comments on the Land Use section: 

1. On page 4 of 34, bottom, I suggest you add a bullet with the wording "preserve forested areas for 

precipitation management purposes." Research on this topic indicates clearly the at least 65% of our 

land area must be in mature coniferous forest in order for our streams and Puget Sound to be healthy. 

2. On page 8 of 34, I suggest that the word "vistas" be used instead of "view corridors". Many people 

equate the term "corridor" with a narrow space, and this is not what is -- or should be -- intended for 

view preservation. 

3. On pages 8 and 9 of 34, I strongly suggest that the list of significant public viewpoints be developed 

via a separate public process. This is a very sensitive issue, and unless there is a full public process, 

the list will not be acceptable to many people. 

4. On pages 10 and 11 of 34, GL5 and PL5.1 both suggest that the city engage in efforts to diversify 

the local economy. While economic diversification is a well-accepted method of achieving economic 

stability, in the unique case of Olympia, economic diversity of the industrial type contemplated here 

actually has the opposite effect. So while a city whose main employer is a steel mill would be very 

wise to seek diversification, Olympia would be unwise to do so. Thus, I strongly recommend that 

references to economic diversification be deleted. 

5. On page 21 of 34, I suggest that PL10.11 be re-worded to read as follows: " Require that multifamily 

structures be location near a collector street with transit, near an arterial street, or near a 

neighborhood center, and that they be designed for compatibility with adjacent lower density housing, 

including being "stepped back"; also that they be "stepped" to conform with topography." It is important 

that large buildings be stepped back in the areas next to lower developments. 

6. On page 31 of 34, it appears that PL 17.9 would not allow "65-0" development, which is needed for 

healthy streams and Puget Sound. I suggest it be altered to allow this kind of development. In fact, all 

development should preserve at least 65% mature conifer forest. 

7. On page 33 of 34, see earlier email regarding the need to exempt additional neighborhoods from the 

urban corridor category, in order to preserve residential neighborhoods as called from elsewhere in this 

comp plan. 


Bob Jacobs 

352-1346 




Cc: Sophie Stimson 

Subject: Comments re Comp Plan 



I have the following substantive comments on the Transportation section. 

1. On page 4 of 53, PT1.4, add the following language: "with few, well-justified exceptions." This would 

provide needed flexibility. 

2. Same item, add a new sentence as follows: "Speed limits shall not be lower than the design speed 

of the street unless deviations are well justified." I suggest this because in recent years the city has 

set speed limits on some streets far below their design speeds and far below what is necessary for 

safety. Examples include 22nd Avenue and Capitol Way through south of the Capitol Campus. The 

result has been the creation of speed traps where tons of speeding tickets can be written, and a 

generally uncomfortable driving situation. 

3. On page 6 of 53, PT 2.6 I strongly recommend that speed bumps not be placed on collector streets. 

Other devices such as bulb-outs are appropriate. Speed bumps slow traffic to unreasonably low 

speeds on such streets. Good examples are Eskridge Boulevard and Elliot Street. 

4. On page 23 of 53, delete PT23.6. It is inappropriate for the city to subsidize development in this 

fashion. Developments should pay their own way. 


Bob Jacobs 

352-1346 







I have the following comments about the Parks, Arts, Recreation, and Historic Preservation chapter: 

1. On page 2 of 15, PC1.1, eliminate "bring tourism to Olympia, attract private investment, and increase 

property values" and substitute the following: "contribute to our high quality of life". As written, our 

parks are viewed as a business venture, which is not their primary purpose. 

2. On page 8 of 15, PC5.5, strengthen this language be changing the wording to: Acquire saltwater 

shoreline property interests, including easements and rights-of-way, to create public access. 


Bob Jacobs 

352-1346 




Subject: Comp Plan Comments 



I have the following substantive comment on the Services for the Public section: 

On page 8 of 13, I suggest that PS 13.6 be eliminated. This appears to be an undefined and 

inappropriate objective. What we need is a high quality of service. Whether we are considered a 

"leader" is irrelevant. 


Bob Jacobs 

352-1346 




Cc: Keith Stahley 




I have the following general comments to add to the more detailed comments I provided directly to staff 

and via email: 

1. I suggest that staff strive to eliminate jargon in the next draft. Two words are especially worthy of 

elimination -- "leverage" and "vibrant". Surely clearer words can be found. 

2. Several suggestions to help achieve the objective of shortening the document: 

a. eliminate Economy chapter (moving the historic material to another chapter, e.g., Parks), as 

previously suggested. 

b. eliminate pictures. These pictures are very nice and made reading the document more 

interesting. But please think about the purpose of this document. It's not a magazine. It's a collection 

of policy statements. People don't sit down and read it, they go to it when necessary to find something. 

The pictures are unnecessary and expensive and add many pages. 


Bob Jacobs 

352-1346 




Subject: FW: Stacey will make arrangements with you to get copies of the document to aid with our public review of the 

draft web Comp Plan. 


Attachments: SRTC Cover Ltr Format for Sustianble Economy Issues Paper 1.doc 

Issue Paper No 7 2-28-12 (Recovered) Revised z edited 1 PDF.pdf 

report to TF presented on 11-28-11.pdf 

Presentation power point to TF on 11-28-11.pdf 




360-753-8046 



From: Jeffrey Jaksich [mailto:eastbay4@comcast.net] 

Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:35 AM 

To: Stacey Ray; Bob & Bonnie Jacobs 

Cc: bobjonesmilitary@comcast.net; kandjgoddard@comcast.net; philschulte@comcast.net; Steve Hall; 

Steven Langer; Michael Cade 

Subject: FW: Stacey will make arrangements with you to get copies of the document to aid with our 

public review of the draft web Comp Plan. 

Stacey and Bob, 

I talked to Stacy Ray yesterday pursuant to our discussion about securing the document that links the 

1994 Olympia Comp Plan goals and supporting policies to the to the new draft 200 page web based 

staff written Olympia Comp Plan. My initial e-mail went out prematurely. 

Stacey will make arrangements with you to get copies of the document to you and others to aid with 

our public review, analysis, and comments on the web based staff written Olympia Comp Plan. 

I am sharing some papers, cover letter, and PPT that related to some aspects of the web based staff 

written Olympia Comp Plan: 

1. Performance measures in the draft web based Olympia Comp Plan update need to be measurable 

(quantitative measures and/or relative operational measures based on performance formulas 

2. Some performance measures may be graphic, such as pictures and/or conceptual designs, like the 

Baltimore waterfront, etc., including measures of showing the public's access and the use (usability) of 

the saltwater shoreline. (The graphics, pictures of actual or conceptual designs must have supportive 

operational measures, including related performance measure formulas for generating outcome 

standards. These performance measures must be in the appropriate and related zoning language as the 

same performance measures or add up to the same performance measures. The linked graphics and 

related measures in the Olympia Comp Plan should be the same as those in the implementing zoning 

and other related implementing Olympia Ordinances. 

3. The use of static maps in the web Comp Plan until amended makes sense, but links to web site 

applications can be used to inform the public discussion. 

4. GIS applications from public domain, funded by foundations or ESRI Foundation resources allow local 

logical partner organizations, like the Thurston Economic Development Council, to provide and supply 

the Sustainability Roundtable of Thurston County issues paper submitted to Thurston Regional Planning

Council "Sustainable Development") 

Over the next few years; we, the people of Thurston County, are working to make our Thurston County 

more sustainable. 

I think that this can be done a number of ways in order to organize the GIS effort in support of 

"Sustainable Development" within Thurston County. Some additional SRTC input may be required as 

follows in order to shape a successful effort: 

The Thurston Geo-Data Center, City of Olympia, etc. have additional GIS data layers that can be used 

to create jobs, evaluate progress, etc. 

Many complicated aspects of "Sustainable Development" can be analyzed and coordinated based on 

common geographies. Please note my "Sustainable Economy" recommendation in my SRTC issues 

paper. 

Jeff Jaksich



Subject: FW: [waterfrontcore] Forming a Committee to Develop an FOW Position on the C... 


Attachments: Citizens-TasK-Force-Report-to-BoCC-5-6-08.pdf 

O_Chapter Goals_Wall Board Display_All Chapters.pdf 

O_Chapter Goals_Wall Board Display_All Chapters.pdf 

ChapterSubstantiveChanges.MASTER.PDF 

Ellis Creek AAR Report FINAL.DOCX 






360-753-8046 





Cc: Steve Hall; Stephen Buxbaum; Steven Langer 


Stacey, 

Here is one of the efforts to expand public involvement and input of residents of Olympia with 

regard to not only the goals and supporting policy transition from the 1994 Olympia Comp Plan to 

the Olympia staff written draft of the Olympia Comp Plan with goals and supporting policies and 

some discussion of the related performance measures that link the new Olympia Comp Plan 

update to the appropriate zoning and other implementing ordinances. 

Please share with Keith Stahley, as I could not find his e-mail address on the web site. The 

following is an example of the types of feedback from those not able to attend today. It shows our 

Olympia Planning staff and Keith Stahley that we can do much better to secure more public 

involvement and input. It is always possible and we did not use any web site applications and/or 

social media which is cost effective. Working with CNA, service clubs, etc. can do much more. 

For example, I am trying to work with and through other neighborhoods, CNA, and other 

community groups. It is not easy, but possible. We could really use an adaptive “SIM” city like 

website application. This application can illicit more public input and/or involvement from others 

with regard to the Priorities of Government (POG) Budgeting Process for the City of Olympia. It 

ranges to public involvement and input with regard to the Olympia Comp Plan update, etc. 

1. I have been recommending to the Olympia City Council that we have an Olympia Citizen

Budget Task Force for a two month stint to review Olympia revenues (sources) and 

projected (likely) expenditures holding some variables constant and constant making 

changes looking at likely impacts on levels of service that ought to be integral to Olympia’s 

budget and recommending two lesser levels of expenditure to right size Olympia’s 

government. 

The Olympia Citizen Budget Task Force can also review one or more City of Olympia Departments, 

such as Public Works, looking at the Ellis Cove Culvert Project, San Francisco Ave. NE Sidewalk 

Project-Phase 2, with an eye toward recommendations to restructure and build better 

accountability to prevent failed projects, like Ellis Cove Culvert Project, and damages to neighbors 

and injuries to Olympians adjacent residents, etc. A review of the problem Public works capital 

improvement projects, like Ellis Cove Culvert Project, San Francisco Ave NE sidewalk Project— 

Phase 2 , can create a win-win for the City , Olympia residents, Olympia City Council, etc. The Ellis 

Creek Cove Culvert Review Report, etc. should be the basis for an on-going process improvement 

process to improve successes for the City and provide a minimum level of reasonable accountability 

on these Olympia capital improvement Projects. 

Attached a document regarding the Ellis Creek Culvert Project, where the document sets a partial 

example of what can be done to fix problems and as the basis for an Olympia Process Improvement 

Process. This is needed for other problematic Olympia Capital Improvement Projects. 

Jeff Jaksich 

From: waterfrontcore@yahoogroups.com [mailto:waterfrontcore@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of 

JacobsOly@aol.com 


To: eastbay4@comcast.net; laikodi@comcast.net; smsegall@comcast.net; mdahlen@ix.netcom.com; 

seaolympia@gmail.com 

Cc: waterfrontcore@yahoogroups.com 

Subject: Re: [waterfrontcore] Forming a Committee to Develop an FOW Position on the C... 

All -- 

1. Thanks to Jeff for all his work. 

2. Here are the sections that I've identified as waterfront-related as of now: 

Natural Environment 

p. 6 

p. 9 

Parks 

pp. 7 and 8 

p. 13 (views) 

Land Use 

p.7 (reference) 

pp. 8 and 9 -- PL 3.9 -- Views 

p. 19 (views)

I'm still working my way thru the Land Use chapter. 

This exercise reminds me of my favorite quote from "Amadeus" -- "too many notes". There are a lot of 

words; no wonder that almost nobody reads the whole thing. 

See you at 1:00 here. 

BobJ 

In a message dated 4/24/2012 11:23:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, eastbay4@comcast.net writes: 

Bob, et al, 

Enclosed are sections in the draft April 2012 web based Olympia Comp Plan written 

by staff that you identified for review and comment located at 

http://olympiawa.gov/plans/comp-plan. I attached three documents to help you review, 

and comment analyze on the draft Olympia Comp Plan update written by Olympia 

Planning staff. 

As you went through all the stations at Saturday's Comp Plan open house, the 

Olympia planning staff identified the following sections of the draft comp plan where 

waterfront issues are mentioned: 

1. Parks chapter, esp. GC-5 

2. Environment chapter. 

3. Land Use chapter, esp. Policy 3.10 and LU 12.8 dealing with scenic views and 

dome views, respectively. 

4. SMP, whose 

The draft Olympia Comp Plan was re-written by Olympia planning staff from scratch 

based on the “Imagine Olympia” public involvement and input effort. 

1. Attached is the Binder1.change… file that reflects a staff disclaimer with 

regard to transferring all the 1994 Olympia Comp Plan goals and supporting 

policies to the new staff written web based Olympia Comp Plan update. 

2. Attached ChapterSubstactiveChanges.MASTER… file that reflects 

Comprehensive Plan Update “Substantive Change List” 

3. Attached O Chapter Goals Wall board… file that reflects Olympia’s stated 

values, new goals, old goals, etc. 

4. Attached O Chapter Wall board Display all Chapters.docx (44 KB) file that 

reflects Olympia’s values, new goals, and old goals, etc. 

1994 Olympia Comp Plan goals and supporting policies at 

http://olympiawa.gov/~/media/Files/CPD/Planning/LongRange/Forms/CPCoverPages.ashx 

and compare them with those goals and supporting policies found at 

http://olympiawa.gov/plans/comp-plan. the latter includes some enhancements with 

some new goals that were highlighted in red. 

I'd suggest we start by reviewing the sections listed above and compare the four 

sections identified by Olympia planning staff, then read other sections as time permits

to see if there are other waterfront-related items. 

I will see you at 1 PM on Wednesday at Bob’s house. I have a 2:30 PM Wednesday 

meeting, so may need to leave early. 

Thanks, Jeff Jaksich Cell 584-5536 

From: waterfrontcore@yahoogroups.com [mailto:waterfrontcore@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf 

Of JacobsOly@aol.com 

Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 8:23 PM 

To: laikodi@comcast.net; smsegall@comcast.net; mdahlen@ix.netcom.com; 



Subject: Fwd: [waterfrontcore] Forming a Committee to Develop an FOW Position on the C... 

All -- 

I got the sections with waterfront implications (see below) and now we need to meet. 

I'm suggesting no earlier than Tuesday afternoon, so we'll have a chance to review the draft comp 

plan ahead of time. And no later than Wednesday, so there will be time to draft up a FOW position 

and distribute it before Friday's meeting. 

Steve, Mark, Susan, and Carole have indicated interest in participating. Others may want to join 

in. We can use my house. 

Please let me know of your availability Tuesday afternoon and all day Wednesday, then I can 

pick the best time and announce it. 

I met with the staff at all the stations at Saturday's Comp Plan open house. They identified the 

following sections of the draft comp plan where waterfront issues are mentioned: 



3. Land Use chapter, esp. Policy 3.10 and LU 12.8 dealing with scenic views and dome views, 

respectively. 

4. SMP, whose policy sections will become a part of the Comp Plan after SMP adoption, but about 

which we could express our opinion now if we wanted to. 

5. Other 

I'd suggest we start by reviewing the sections listed above, then read other sections as time permits 

to see if there are other waterfront-related items. 

Please let me know your availability Tuesday afternoon and all day Wednesday. 

Thanks, Bob 


To: waterfrontcore@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: 4/19/2012 10:27:38 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time 

Subj: [waterfrontcore] Forming a Committee to Develop an FOW Position on the 

Comp Plan

All -- 

It's become clear to several of us that we need to develop an official FOW position 

on the portions of the Comp Plan that relate directly to the waterfront. 

That could include the likes of view protection and SMP policies (the SMP policy 

sections will become a part of the Comp Plan when adopted). 

It would be good to meet early next week and develop a draft FOW position which 

would go to the Friday, April 27 meeting for review/amendment/approval and then 

be delivered to the city at its second Open House Saturday, April 28. 

Please let me know if you are interested in being a member of this committee. 

When I have all the names, I'll contact everyone to set up a meeting early next week. 

Thanks, BobJ 

PS In the meantime, it would be a good idea to scan thru the draft staff comp plan 

(see Olympia website, first page) and identify areas we need to comment on. 

__._,_.___ 

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic 

Messages in this topic (7) 

RECENT ACTIVITY: 

Visit Your Group 

Yahoo! Groups 

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use 

. 

__,_._,___








360-753-8046 






Stacey, et al, 

Here is a sample of the type of feedback that we have received from Olympia residents that were 

not able to come to the 1 PM FOW Committee meeting for more input on the Olympia web based 

Olympia comp Plan update goals, supporting policies and beginning thought on the related 

performance measures that might help link the Comp Plan goals, supporting policies, and related 

performance measures to the appropriate zoning and implementing ordinances. 

Jeff Jaksich 

Cell: 5840-5536 

From: james lengenfelder [mailto:emilyrayjimlengenfelder@msn.com] 


To: Jeff Jaksich; Bob Jacobs; Carole Richmond; Steve Segall; Mark Dahlen; Susan Ahlschwede 


Subject: RE: [waterfrontcore] Forming a Committee to Develop an FOW Position on the C... 

I have just spent about 40 minutes scanning these documents, admittedly with a jet-lagged brain. 

Overall, I am impressed. Some of the editing marks aren't clear to me--for example, double brackets 

around some letters and numerals leading paragraphs. And sometimes colored font is used. I surmise 

that different people worked on different sections, leading to some variation in styles. 

There may be surprises in the SMP document. However, on the CP draft, I am pretty impressed, 

particularly with the staff's or Planning Commission's attempts to make all the changes clear. A number 

of important topics have been added, such as electromagnetic fields and climate change. Overall, I 

felt comfortable with the treatment of views, neighborhoods, historical values, natural areas, parks, etc. 

I will miss the meeting today; off to visit an ill relative of Jim's in Kent.

Emily 

To: JacobsOly@aol.com; laikodi@comcast.net; smsegall@comcast.net; mdahlen@ix.netcom.com; 


CC: waterfrontcore@yahoogroups.com 

From: eastbay4@comcast.net 

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 23:23:51 -0700 

Subject: RE: [waterfrontcore] Forming a Committee to Develop an FOW Position on the C... 

Bob, et al, 

Enclosed are sections in the draft April 2012 web based Olympia Comp Plan written by 

staff that you identified for review and comment located at 

http://olympiawa.gov/plans/comp-plan. I attached three documents to help you review, 

and comment analyze on the draft Olympia Comp Plan update written by Olympia 

Planning staff. 

As you went through all the stations at Saturday's Comp Plan open house, the Olympia 

planning staff identified the following sections of the draft comp plan where waterfront 

issues are mentioned: 



3. Land Use chapter, esp. Policy 3.10 and LU 12.8 dealing with scenic views and dome 

views, respectively. 

4. SMP, whose 

The draft Olympia Comp Plan was re-written by Olympia planning staff from scratch 

based on the “Imagine Olympia” public involvement and input effort. 

1. Attached is the Binder1.change… file that reflects a staff disclaimer with regard to 

transferring all the 1994 Olympia Comp Plan goals and supporting policies to the new 

staff written web based Olympia Comp Plan update. 

2. Attached ChapterSubstactiveChanges.MASTER… file that reflects Comprehensive Plan 

Update “Substantive Change List” 

3. Attached O Chapter Goals Wall board… file that reflects Olympia’s stated values, new 

goals, old goals, etc. 

4. Attached O Chapter Wall board Display all Chapters.docx (44 KB) file that reflects 

Olympia’s values, new goals, and old goals, etc. 

1994 Olympia Comp Plan goals and supporting policies at 

http://olympiawa.gov/~/media/Files/CPD/Planning/LongRange/Forms/CPCoverPages.ashx 

and compare them with those goals and supporting policies found at 

http://olympiawa.gov/plans/comp-plan. the latter includes some enhancements with 

some new goals that were highlighted in red. 

I'd suggest we start by reviewing the sections listed above and compare the four sections 

identified by Olympia planning staff, then read other sections as time permits to see if 

there are other waterfront-related items. 

I will see you at 1 PM on Wednesday at Bob’s house. I have a 2:30 PM Wednesday 

meeting, so may need to leave early. 

Thanks, Jeff Jaksich Cell 584-5536




To: laikodi@comcast.net; smsegall@comcast.net; mdahlen@ix.netcom.com; seaolympia@gmail.com 


Subject: Fwd: [waterfrontcore] Forming a Committee to Develop an FOW Position on the C... 

All -- 

I got the sections with waterfront implications (see below) and now we need to meet. 

I'm suggesting no earlier than Tuesday afternoon, so we'll have a chance to review the draft comp plan 

ahead of time. And no later than Wednesday, so there will be time to draft up a FOW position and 

distribute it before Friday's meeting. 

Steve, Mark, Susan, and Carole have indicated interest in participating. Others may want to join in. We 

can use my house. 

Please let me know of your availability Tuesday afternoon and all day Wednesday, then I 

can pick the best time and announce it. 

I met with the staff at all the stations at Saturday's Comp Plan open house. They identified the 

following sections of the draft comp plan where waterfront issues are mentioned: 



3. Land Use chapter, esp. Policy 3.10 and LU 12.8 dealing with scenic views and dome views, 

respectively. 

4. SMP, whose policy sections will become a part of the Comp Plan after SMP adoption, but about 

which we could express our opinion now if we wanted to. 

5. Other 

I'd suggest we start by reviewing the sections listed above, then read other sections as time permits to 

see if there are other waterfront-related items. 

Please let me know your availability Tuesday afternoon and all day Wednesday. 

Thanks, Bob 


To: waterfrontcore@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: 4/19/2012 10:27:38 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time 

Subj: [waterfrontcore] Forming a Committee to Develop an FOW Position on the Comp 

Plan 

All -- 

It's become clear to several of us that we need to develop an official FOW position on the 

portions of the Comp Plan that relate directly to the waterfront. 

That could include the likes of view protection and SMP policies (the SMP policy sections 

will become a part of the Comp Plan when adopted). 

It would be good to meet early next week and develop a draft FOW position which would 

go to the Friday, April 27 meeting for review/amendment/approval and then be delivered 

to the city at its second Open House Saturday, April 28.

Please let me know if you are interested in being a member of this committee. 

When I have all the names, I'll contact everyone to set up a meeting early next week. 

Thanks, BobJ 

PS In the meantime, it would be a good idea to scan thru the draft staff comp plan (see 

Olympia website, first page) and identify areas we need to comment on. 

__._,_.___ 



RECENT ACTIVITY: 


Yahoo! Groups 


. 

__,_._,___



Subject: FW: Comments, update and additions 





360-753-8046 




To: Keith Stahley; Stacey Ray 

Cc: Michael Cade 

Subject: RE: Comments, update and additions 

As a member of the Friends of the Waterfront (FOW) I want to endorse the following suggestions 

and comments with regard to the first staff draft of the Olympia Comprehensive Plan update 

currently undergoing public review. The FOW review was limited to sections that appear to be 

related to the Olympia waterfront, i.e., Budd Inlet and Capitol Lake. 

The following are comments and suggestions for the redraft of the Olympia Comprehensive Plan 

update: 

1. The draft appears to be generally in good condition, with relatively few substantive 

or editorial problems. FOW and I commend city staff for their efforts. 

2. On page 9 of the Natural Environment section, FOW and I suggest the following 

words be added to PN4.4: “and earthquake-induced liquefaction”. The next 

subduction zone earthquake is expected to cause far more local damage than sealevel 

rise; thus it merits action. 

3. On page 11 of the Natural Environment section, PN 6.4, FOW and I suggest the 

following words be stricken: “achieve no overall net loss in the functions and values 

of remaining wetlands, while striving to”. The “no net loss” standard is inadequate 

because our waterfront areas are badly damaged in many cases. We need to 

restore/enhance degraded areas. 

4. FOW and I strongly support GC5 and its subsidiary policies on pages 7 and 8 of the 

Parks section. 

5. We suggest the following words be added to PC5.4 of Parks page 8: “The Olympia

Waterfront Trail should be wide enough to accommodate a heavy volume of 

walkers, bikers, skaters, roller-bladers, wheelchairs, etc.” The legal minimum trail 

width is inadequate. 

6. On page 8 of the Parks section, PC6.2, FOW and I suggest that “separate,” be 

inserted before “sustainable”. This would assure that non-parks budget items would 

not cannibalize parks budgets. 

7. We suggest that PC5.5 on Parks page 8 be re-drafted to read as follows: “Encourage 

acquisition of saltwater shoreline property interests, including easements and rightsof-way, 

to create public access.” 

8. On page 13 of the Parks section, PC11.1, FOW and I suggest that “southwest side of 

the” be stricken and the final word be changed from “Campus” to “Group of historic 

buildings”. We also suggest that “as envisioned in the historic Wilder and White and 

Olmsted plans”. 

9. On page 8 of the Land Use section, PL3.9, line 2, FOW and I suggest the word 

“public” before “buildings” be deleted. We also suggest that “view corridors” be 

changed to “vistas” in both places where it appears. The term “view corridor” could 

be interpreted as a very narrow swath, narrower than we believe most people 

would be comfortable with. 

10. FOW and I support the new approach to view protection suggested on pages 8 and 

9 of the Land Use section, PL 3.10. This approach seems reasonable. However, 

because this change would result in a significant reduction in view protections, and 

because view protection is so important to Olympia residents, FOW and I believe 

that a high-profile public process must be undertaken to identify the specific views 

to be protected at a minimum, before the new approach is adopted. Such a process 

would require public outreach and meetings, but FOW and I believe it could be 

completed within the current schedule. 

11. On page 22 of the Land Use section, under “Downtown Olympia”, there is a note 

regarding a new “Downtown Master Plan” to replace the current “Vision for 

Downtown.” FOW and I understand that staff’s intention is to include the current 

wording of the “Vision for Downtown” in the new Comprehensive Plan. The current 

wording should be published as part of future drafts, so that the public can see the 

entire document which is intended to be adopted. It may be that minor edits will be 

needed in the downtown section now to assure consistency and accuracy (even 

though we understand that a full update of this section will not be completed at 

this time). 

12. Performance measure(s) (metrics, formula and projected results, and/or graphics 

(conceptual design, picture, etc. ) are needed to link the Staff rewrite of the 1994 Olympia

Comp Plan and updates based on additional public input from the “Imagine Olympia” 

public involvement process to the April 2012 April Olympia web site Comp Plan 2012 staff 

rewrite. 

13. CITY OF OLYMPIA GOALS FOR THE ECONOMY (Model “Sustainable Economy” Chapter Goals 

and Supporting Policies should be suggested through the TRPC Sustainable Development 

Grant Plan for consideration by the seven other local general local governments for their 

respective comprehensive plan update from now to 2016, with adoption of local 

“Sustainable Economy” Goals, supportive policies, and performance measure (s) for 5, 10, 

15, 20, 25. and 28 years (2040) Development ). 

Jeffrey J. Jaksich 


Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:00 PM 

To: 'Keith Stahley' 

Subject: RE: Comments 

Keith, 

As part of FOW, I worked on and want to endorse: 

Friends of the Waterfront has reviewed the first staff draft of the Comprehensive Plan currently 

undergoing public review. Our review was limited to sections that appear to be related to the 

Olympia waterfront, i.e., Budd Inlet and Capitol Lake. 

We offer the following comments and suggestions for the redraft of this document: 

1. The draft appears to be generally in good condition, with relatively few substantive or 

editorial problems. We commend city staff for their efforts. 

2. On page 9 of the Natural Environment section, we suggest the following words be added to 

PN4.4: “and earthquake-induced liquefaction”. The next subduction zone earthquake is 

expected to cause far more local damage than sea-level rise; thus it merits action. 

3. On page 11 of the Natural Environment section, PN 6.4, we suggest the following words be 

stricken: “achieve no overall net loss in the functions and values of remaining wetlands, 

while striving to”. 

4. We strongly support GC5 and its subsidiary policies on pages 7 and 8 of the Parks section. 

5. We suggest the following words be added to PC5.4 of Parks page 8: “The Olympia 

Waterfront Trail should be wide enough to accommodate a heavy volume of walkers, 

bikers, skaters/bladers, wheelchairs, etc.” 

6. We suggest that PC5.5 on Parks page 8 be re-drafted to read as follows: “Encourage 

acquisition of saltwater shoreline property interests, including easements and rights-ofway, 

to create public access. 

7. On page 13 of the Parks section, PC11.1, we suggest that “southwest side of the” be 

stricken and the final word be changed from “Campus” to “Group”.

8. On page 8 of the Land Use section, PL3.9, line 2, we suggest the word “public” before 

“buildings” be deleted. 

9. We support the new approach to view protection suggested on pages 8 and 9 of the Land 

Use section, PL 3.10. This approach seems reasonable. However, because this change 

would result in a significant reduction in view protections, and because view protection is 

so important to Olympia residents, we believe that a high-profile public process must be 

undertaken to identify the specific views to be protected at a minimum, before the new 

approach is adopted. Such a process would require public outreach and meetings. 

10. On page 22 of the Land Use section, under “Downtown Olympia”, there is a note regarding 

a new “Downtown Master Plan” to replace the current “Vision for Downtown.” We 

understand that staff’s intention is to include the current wording of the Vision for 

Downtown in the new Comprehensive Plan, then update it as time and budget allow. This 

being the case, we believe that the current wording should be published along with future 

drafts, so that the public can see the entire document which is intended to be adopted. It 

may be that minor edits will be needed in the downtown section now to assure consistency 

and accuracy.” 

I also want to work with and through CNAA to provide additional comments. 

I plan to work with and through the Thurston EDC to enhance the goals and supporting policies in 

the Olympia Comp Plan “Sustainable Economy” chapter goals and supporting policies with some 

performance measures so that we can model these goals, supportive policies, and performance 

measures for the seven other local general governments for their consideration and adoption in 

their next Comp Plan update to building a more sustainable common future for all of us that reside 

in Thurston County consistent with current and developing SRTC issues papers, etc. and in support 

of CNA’s efforts. 

I am, working with Phil Schulte tonight to discuss what additional enhancements or comment for 

the web based 2012 Olympia Comp Plan update consistent with SRTC posted and as of yet unposted 

SRTC issues papers and other sustainability citizen efforts in our community. 

Jeff 

From: Keith Stahley [mailto:kstahley@ci.olympia.wa.us] 


To: 'eastbay4@comcast.net' 

Subject: Comments 

Hi Jeff, 

Thanks for sharing your comments with our writing team. We look forward to receiving additional 

feedback as your groups get deeper into the plan. We would also be happy to spend time with any 

group rolling up our sleeves and digging into the plan.

Sincerely, 

Keith Stahley, Community Planning and Development Director 


P.O. Box 1967 

601 4th Ave NE 


Office: (360) 753- 8227 

FAX: (360) 753-8087 

Email: Kstahley@ci.olympia.wa.us 

Note: This message and any reply may be subject to public disclosure.



Subject: FW: [waterfrontcore] Comments on Draft Comp Plan SEIS Scoping Report 


Attachments: Issue Paper No 7 2-28-12 (Recovered) Revised z edited 1 PDF.PDF 

Covr Letter March 16, 2012 Issue Paper No 7 2-28-12.pdf 




360-753-8046 



Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 6:16 PM 

To: Bob & Bonnie Jacobs 

Cc: Michael Cade; Keith Stahley; Stacey Ray; Steve Hall; Jay Burney; lmea2@esd.wa.gov; Don Krupp; 

philschulte@comcast.net; bobjonesmilitary@comcast.net; George Barner 

Subject: FW: [waterfrontcore] Comments on Draft Comp Plan SEIS Scoping Report 

Bob, 

Good job in your response to “Draft Comp Plan SEIS Scoping Report” for April 2012 Olympia Comp 

Plan update. The weakness just like Thurston County and the other six general local government Comp 

Plan updates is their lack of linking performance measures that directly link the local Comp Plan updates 

(goals and supporting policies) with their implementing zoning ordinances as well as other implementing 

ordinances. I think that this is especially important for what I hope can become a commonly used model 

for a “Sustainable Economy” chapter among all eight local general government Comp Plan updates in 

Thurston County by 2016. It may have value for other local governments around the State as part f a 

broader effort to create living wage jobs and a more diversified economy. I think that this can be a 

model for the other local governments in Washington State facing massive downsizing, right sizing, and 

local Washington government bond defaults, like the PFD Convention Center Bond default in Wenatchee 

last December 2011. Smart people can figure out the benefit of using existing information and 

resources in smart ways to better delivery government services and minimize economic damages to the 

residents of our State. Everything in these proposed Thurston County areas relates and could be made 

mutually beneficial for most public employees, the residents of these local general government areas, 

and elected politicians. 

I am starting a number of dialogs within Thurston County, while trying to prepare to fully retire. I need 

to fix some physical health problems and take some new trips to Europe, like the Greek Islands, etc. to 

recover. I have not been there since 1986. I do not want to leave to0 have fun in the sun knowing that 

there are some with newly developing government operational messes in 2012 and 2013. Many of these 

really threaten the financial viability of our State that pays my pension and local governments that 

impact my place of permanent residence. While I am pessimistic about the European economy, etc., I 

think that we can all help make Washington State and many of its local governments more sustainable 

with just a little effort and some smart communications among the right people. I have faith that the 

good citizens of our State will do the smart thing with some effective and timely information hared with 

them at the right time by smart political leadership. 

I attached a draft Sustainability Roundtable of Thurston County (SRTC) issues paper that I drafted. It 

will be posted when Cynthia Stewart returns from her trip to Italy. It will be added to our SRTC web site 

yet at http://www.sustainabilityroundtable.net/

My approved SRTC issues paper has been shared with the Thurston County Regional Planning (TRPC) 

staff for their review and placement on their web site. 

You can get most of what many of you need by skimming the issues paper on the first page. The rest is 

for discussion with the technical staff that should know and understand how to apply current data, 

summary information, etc. using existing GIS resources at the State and local level. 

My current concern is that currently employed staff are waiting for the financial ax to fall and not much 

constructive is being done with regard to creating a sustainable economy in Washington State, 

especially at the local level. Better information should lead to doing smart public administration, 

economic analysis, and/or applying common sense to current challenges with existing geo-coded data, 

relational data bases, and systems developed and designed to solve problems, support policy making, 

and s help with strategic thinking. This e-mail is to try to encourage all of the recipients to talk to each 

other and use existing data, information, and GIS resources to help make all the local general local 

governments in Thurston County more sustainable and help the State to become sustainable in 2012 

and 2013. 

Keeping it simple, my best idea is to initially use some common performance measures for the updated 

Olympia Comp Plan that currently exist at the local, state and federal levels. I attached several sites 

where such measures can be found and even used as the basis for more sophisticated performance 

measures. I can’t prescribe, as the users need to define and describe their needs. A Regional Economist 

should be able to help the local advisory committee select the best proxy and eventually the best value 

added measures for measuring progress toward sustainability. Some of these same proxy measures 

might also be used by the other seven local general government Comp Plan updates by 2016 within 

Thurston County. These common performance measures in what would be new “Sustainable Economy” 

Chapters in all eight general local government Comp Plan updates can result in some common planning 

and policy for measuring progress with regard to common “Sustainable Economy” progress in all of 

Thurston County. It initially crude, but can be evolved into value-added measures based on existing 

data, summary information, and some common critical needs to create a more sustainable future. A 

“Sustainable Economy” are just words used by politicians and mean nothing and have no benefit for 

the people until employers (industries) measurably expand. This practical and cost effective effort could 

also serve as a model for the Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch,( LMEA), which has hits some 

rough times while sitting on massive data, great summary information, access to and through other 

federal and state agencies to even more information and capabilities along with most local governments 

to access and use geo-coded data, summary information, etc. in smart ways through and in partnership 

with other local governments (RCW 50.13.060, etc. with Olympia, Thurston Regional Planning council 

(TRPC) has produced in the past that lead to national awards, etc. and places like Olympia being the 

number one small city in the United States of America in Money magazine in the 80’s. The prognoses 

for the State and local economies are little or no growth largely depending on some black swan events 

resulting from potential defaults by Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Ireland, etc. The data and summary 

information from athttps://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/home and other State websites can be 

used to generate the same performance measures and often chart out the history of the measure over 

the past year to ten years that would prove valuable for monitoring “Sustainability” progress for local 

general government Comp Plan updates as well as the related zoning and implementing regulations 

needed to make the vision in the local Comp Plan updates reality. This would help the current legal 

disconnect problem between the vision in the local comp Plan and the related zoning and other 

implementing ordinances. 

I am copying Michael Cade, who asked for such assistance in keeping with some other Sustainable 

Development recommendations and issues papers submitted by the Sustainable Roundtable of Thurston 

County (SRTC) to the TRPC “Sustainable Development “Grant Plan Task Force members, consultants, 

and even related TRPC staff funded by the Sustainable Development grant resources at TRPC. Stacey 

Ray, Keith Stahley, etc. have received similar e-mails and attachments. These performance measures 

can be very complicated and I suggest that we development some proxy measures initially that can be 

evolved into more sophisticated value added measures with help from the local Regional Economist, Jim 

Vleming, with help from the likes of 

http://www.wa.gov/esd/1stop/policies/documents/guidance/WAB_10-11.pdf 

t, We have always advocated an urban and rural project to jumpstart other local private and public 

partnerships especially with regard to “Sustainable Economy” and creating living wage jobs within

Thurston County with a smart set of private and public sustainable development projects, one urban 

and one urban. An easy starting place with the aid of the local LMEA Regional Economist is 

athttps://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/home 

The attached issues paper focused on a major information gap needed to support and measure 

progress of all aspects of “Sustainable Development” within Thurston County. I am thinking about 

using competitive 2012 and/or 2013 federal HUD, etc. grant funds and private sector match from local 

financial institutions who are not in compliance with the “Community Reinvestment” and the massive 

liquidity build up among local financial institutions risking their liquidity on short-term supposedly federal 

guaranteed Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac short term bonds that may lose U.S. federal grantees with large 

discounts from a massive rise in interest rates for similar non-guaranteed bonds with the full faith and 

credit of the US, as it was before 2008. The local liquidity would then be freed up for less safe, but 

higher yielding local commercial loans, etc. 2013 funding from the State and federal government is 

likely to be less, so apply for 2013 funding in 2012 this summer and fall. Reprogram existing funds, 

consolidate, and re-plan/program unspent federal funds for 2013. Simply, you really have to hustle like 

we used to do; when I worked for the State of Washington or helped administer federal funding for 

State and local government uses. I have lots of smart ideas, so don’t let me leave for my travels before 

you get some of them and some of my suggestions for networking to critical resources, staff, and 

opportunities. I have no horse in this race, except to have a stable and sustainable community for our 

local children in the future. 

The focus of these efforts need to be on expanding existing firms and increasing import substitutes and 

exports from Thurston County. This is baseline economic development and sets the basis for start-ups, 

diversification by existing firms and local consolidations and redevelopment. 

I am going to leave to Michael Cade as the Thurston EDC Director and Thurston Regional Planning 

Council consultant to convene a new TRPC “Sustainable Economy” Blue Ribbon Panel Advisory Body 

with regard to a model “Sustainable Economy” Comp Plan update chapter with not only common goals, 

supporting policies, and the related performance measures. 

Jeff Jaksich 



Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 12:57 PM 

To: chornbei@ci.olympia.wa.us 

Cc: waterfrontcore@yahoogroups.com; growthtalk@yahoogroups.com 

Subject: [waterfrontcore] Comments on Draft Comp Plan SEIS Scoping Report 

Cari -- 

Please accept this email as my official comment on the Draft Comp Plan SEIS Scoping Report dated 

April 2, 2012 

And please confirm receipt. 

1. On Page 2, under "Earth", the second bullet reads "this may include higher density developments to 

maximize land." This item is obviously incomplete. The public has a right to know what is intended 

here. 

2. On page 3, under "Environment", I suggest the addition of two items: 

a. Address potential subduction zone earthquake damage, including liquefaction of fill areas and 

destruction of infrastructure city-wide (water, sewer, roads, electric/phone, etc.) 

b. Address the need, per research, for the use of low stormwater impact development techniques, 

commonly called 65-10-0, to prevent further destruction of our streams and Puget Sound.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I look forward to the next step in this process. 

Bob Jacobs 

352-1346 



jacobsoly@aol.com 

__._,_.___ 



Recent Activity: 



. 

__,_._,___



Subject: FW: For your Review and Policy Action 

Date: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 2:37:50 PM 

From: CityCouncil 

Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:45 AM 

To: 'Jeffrey Jaksich' 

Cc: Councilmembers; Steve Hall; Keith Stahley; Amy Buckler; Stacey Ray 

Subject: RE: For your Review and Policy Action 

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

Mary Nolan 

Executive Secretary 

CITY OF OLYMPIA 

PO Box 1967 


(360) 753-8244 

Please note that all correspondence is subject to public review. 



To: CityCouncil 

Subject: FW: For your Review and Policy Action 

Karen, Stephen, et al, 

This e-mail is to follow up on earlier phone calls and e-mails to City of Olympia staff and/or 

Olympia City Council members from a diverse group of Olympia residence trying to fix problems 

since 2008 and restore and improve our quality of life consistent with the values and priorities 

reflected in the 1994 and prior Olympia Comprehensive Plans. The visions in our Comp Plan over 

the last 18 years have somewhat been ignored by Olympia planning and development staff since 

the 2001-2003 economic slowdown that followed the high tech bubble. Some might call what we 

are experiencing a recession, but some of the economic metrics mixed the potential threat for the 

residents of Olympia and the rest of Thurston County. Olympia needs more public involvement and 

input with regard to their representatives final policies. The same is true for the residents of the 

other seven local general government areas for a variety of good government reasons. Citizens 

have been trying to provide input and influence Olympia city policies decisions. The same is true for 

the rest of the county. The local citizens have been working very hard to elect new elected officials 

since 2008 to make needed changes and prevent bad policies or correct them from the 2008

Olympia city council. The citizens of Thurston County voted down the $103 million dollar ARC (new 

County jail), only to have the Sheriff’s Department and their Corrections staff with the help of 

Commission Diane Oberquill and Kathy Wolf build a $44 million subset of the proposed ARC. The 

current County commissioner’s including Kathy Wolf are talking about operating the ARC 100,000 

square foot jail causing the County to spend all its reserves in 2013. Olympia has many similar 

fiascos that will cause the city of Olympia a major financial crises in 2013. The point is that the 

2008 Olympia City Council violated State Conflict of Interest policies and City of Olympia policy 

without any accountability. I am recommending that we have a Olympia Citizen Budget Task Force 

to review and analysis the City of Olympia finances. I am sharing a copy of a report produced by the 

Thurston County Citizen Budget Task Force. A similar report is possible without having Olympia 

spend limited City of Olympia working with and through the Coalition of Neighborhood 

Associations. 

Please note the following recommendations that could just as easily apply to Olympia based on my 

analysis of the City since 2008. Jane Kirkemo help be to capture the Priority of Government 

Budgeting concept, which I applied to the best budgeting practice of Washington State agencies to 

the Thurston County government. 

Jeffrey J. Jaksich 

812 San Francisco Ave. NE 

Olympia, Wa 98506

From: Gail James 


Subject: Via Website 

Date: Saturday, May 05, 2012 8:15:04 AM 

Hi There, 

This may not be the correct portal to express this sentiment but here 

goes anyway and maybe if you know a better place for my suggestion to 

land, I'd appreciate your forwarding it on to that dept. 

I love Olympia and enjoy many of its charms. However, navigating Fones 

Rd. at Pacific is not one of them. I know times are tough but is there 

some plan making its way down the pike to address the absolutely 

nightmarish conditions that exist at that intersection? Huge trucks, 

people trying to get in and out of the taco restaurant, the other 

shopping center, and through the light at Pacific just makes for a 

lengthy, frustrating, dangerous situation. I think the solution should 

be found soon. 

I hate to be a "complainer" but I also know that input helps direct your 

plans so here is my two cents worth. Thanks for reading. 

Gail James

From: waltjorgensen@comcast.net 


Subject: Olympia Comprehensive Plan – My Comments 


Attachments: Olympia Comp Plan - My Comments, June 2012.doc 

Imagine Olympia, If possible, because there is a submittal deadline involved, could 

someone acknowledge receipt of my comments? Thank you. Walt 

Olympia Comprehensive Plan – My Comments 

June 12, 2012 

Submit an email to imagineolympia@ci.olympia.wa.us. 

My Comments in highlighted green 

Emphasis of plan text in highlighted yellow. 

Should include a section of definitions, as used in State RCW’s and WAC’s. A word 

should not be redundantly defined if its usage and intent is clear by applying the 

conventional “laws of the language.”The definition of a word should not be radically 

altered such that its meaning defies intuition and common usage. All words subject to 

local (to the planning documents) definitions should be italicized when appearing in 

the context of the documents. 

Graphics, photos, diagrams, cartoons, and other visual adjuncts should be 

generously used where ever there exists even a mild risk of ambiguity. 

Land Use and Urban Design 

“Our community’s future will be shaped by the land and environment, local and global 

population and economic trends, state planning laws and county-wide policies, and 

especially by community preferences and choices.” 

Population projections from OFM should not be treated as mandates. The County, 

and perhaps other jurisdictions, can at least opt to plan for the lower of the three 

projections provided. Ideally, the City should decide if, how much and how it wants to 

grow and plan to achieve that result. 

“…setting aside selected areas for open space and communing with nature,…” 

The danger here is countenancing the establishment of “tree zoos.” We do need 

open space which should be defined as unembellished nature, not soccer fields, but 

these areas are not substitutes for leaving natural elements in the close vicinity of our 

living spaces so that casual interaction with nature is a constant opportunity.

“…, or we can create homogenous subdivisions and isolated commercial areas. We 

can employ architecture and distinct urban forms consistent with Olympia’s unique 

character, or we can build places with little regard to the local landscape and climate. 

These choices will determine Olympia’s form for many generations.” 

Look around at our most recent additions. This is what we’ve been doing. We should 

stop this practice immediately with a moratorium. 

“Establish land use patterns that ensure residential densities sufficient to 

accommodate 20-year population growth” 

As long as we determine what the “20-year population growth” is going to be. 

“Focus higher residential densities downtown, along urban corridors, and near 

neighborhood centers” 

Apparently, “along urban corridors” has included Capitol Way from the 

Olympia/Tumwater boundary to some point north, maybe all the way to downtown 

(Union?) for some time, i.e., not a new update. The ongoing construction at the 

historically known “Sunset site” is tangible evidence. I believe the “corridor” extends 

¼ mile on either side of Capitol. I would guess that most of the residents in the City’s 

most historically significant area are not aware of their peril. This is why visual 

elements and clear language of possibilities is essential for communicating to the 

public before something irrevocable occurs. 

“… by establishing development densities and site designs that protect 

environmentally sensitive areas and reflect the capacity of natural systems, we can 

provide a quality community for coming generations.” 

This is a great objective but this is not what the City has been doing. Retention ponds 

are counterproductive. Denuding building sites of all natural vegetation, including 

large trees and the top 12” of topsoil absolutely “removes” nature from the equation. 

Filling back in with grass from turf farms and juvenile trees does not replace nature. It 

turns a new neighborhood into a repetitive Disneyland that often is impossible to 

maintain. 

“The aesthetic form of the built environment” 

With the new City Hall as the City’s latest offering in the arena of “aesthetic form,” it is 

essential for the City to seek out the professional services of a competent design 

consultant. The City Hall is an abysmal failure. It has been likened to a mortuary 

supply warehouse and a 1950s Western Electric manufacturing plant. While the cost 

and appearance are bad enough, the lost opportunity to have created an inspiring 

structure is devastating. We will be stuck with this symbol of the City for decades. 

View Future Land Use Map of Olympia and its Urban Growth Area 

The inclusion of a land use map is commendable, but, even at maximum

magnification, the omission of all but major street references renders it useful only as 

a decoration. 

Continuing cooperation between the State and the City, among the local 

governments, and with special function agencies such as the Port of Olympia and the 

school districts is critical. 

It is important for the City in the form of Council prerogatives to remember that they 

are the land use authority, surely in relation to the port and school districts, and other 

special function agencies, and to some extent with the State and other superior levels 

of government. Specifically, the Port of Olympia should get the land uses that the 

City of Olympia dictates to them. 

Obviously, I’ve only just scratched the surface of this document. I intend to comment 

further at the next opportunity for public input. 

Thank you, 

Walter R. Jorgensen 

823 North St SE 

Tumwater, WA 98501-3526 

waltjorgensen@comcast.net 

360-489-0764 (home)

Olympia Comprehensive Plan – My Comments 

June 12, 2012 

Submit an email to imagineolympia@ci.olympia.wa.us. 

My Comments in highlighted green 

Emphasis of plan text in highlighted yellow. 

Should include a section of definitions, as used in State RCW’s and WAC’s. A word 

should not be redundantly defined if its usage and intent is clear by applying the 

conventional “laws of the language.”The definition of a word should not be radically 

altered such that its meaning defies intuition and common usage. All words subject to 

local (to the planning documents) definitions should be italicized when appearing in the 

context of the documents. 

Graphics, photos, diagrams, cartoons, and other visual adjuncts should be generously 

used where ever there exists even a mild risk of ambiguity. 


“Our community’s future will be shaped by the land and environment, local and global 

population and economic trends, state planning laws and county-wide policies, and 

especially by community preferences and choices.” 

Population projections from OFM should not be treated as mandates. The County, and 

perhaps other jurisdictions, can at least opt to plan for the lower of the three projections 

provided. Ideally, the City should decide if, how much and how it wants to grow and 

plan to achieve that result. 

“…setting aside selected areas for open space and communing with nature,…” 

The danger here is countenancing the establishment of “tree zoos.” We do need open 

space which should be defined as unembellished nature, not soccer fields, but these 

areas are not substitutes for leaving natural elements in the close vicinity of our living 

spaces so that casual interaction with nature is a constant opportunity. 

“…, or we can create homogenous subdivisions and isolated commercial areas. We can 

employ architecture and distinct urban forms consistent with Olympia’s unique 

character, or we can build places with little regard to the local landscape and climate. 

These choices will determine Olympia’s form for many generations.” 

Look around at our most recent additions. This is what we’ve been doing. We should 

stop this practice immediately with a moratorium.

“Establish land use patterns that ensure residential densities sufficient to accommodate 

20-year population growth” 

As long as we determine what the “20-year population growth” is going to be. 

“Focus higher residential densities downtown, along urban corridors, and near 

neighborhood centers” 

Apparently, “along urban corridors” has included Capitol Way from the 

Olympia/Tumwater boundary to some point north, maybe all the way to downtown 

(Union?) for some time, i.e., not a new update. The ongoing construction at the 

historically known “Sunset site” is tangible evidence. I believe the “corridor” extends ¼ 

mile on either side of Capitol. I would guess that most of the residents in the City’s most 

historically significant area are not aware of their peril. This is why visual elements and 

clear language of possibilities is essential for communicating to the public before 

something irrevocable occurs. 

“… by establishing development densities and site designs that protect environmentally 

sensitive areas and reflect the capacity of natural systems, we can provide a quality 

community for coming generations.” 

This is a great objective but this is not what the City has been doing. Retention ponds 

are counterproductive. Denuding building sites of all natural vegetation, including large 

trees and the top 12” of topsoil absolutely “removes” nature from the equation. Filling 

back in with grass from turf farms and juvenile trees does not replace nature. It turns a 

new neighborhood into a repetitive Disneyland that often is impossible to maintain. 

“The aesthetic form of the built environment” 

With the new City Hall as the City’s latest offering in the arena of “aesthetic form,” it is 

essential for the City to seek out the professional services of a competent design 

consultant. The City Hall is an abysmal failure. It has been likened to a mortuary 

supply warehouse and a 1950s Western Electric manufacturing plant. While the cost 

and appearance are bad enough, the lost opportunity to have created an inspiring 

structure is devastating. We will be stuck with this symbol of the City for decades. 

View Future Land Use Map of Olympia and its Urban Growth Area 

The inclusion of a land use map is commendable, but, even at maximum magnification, 

the omission of all but major street references renders it useful only as a decoration. 

Continuing cooperation between the State and the City, among the local governments, 

and with special function agencies such as the Port of Olympia and the school districts 

is critical.

It is important for the City in the form of Council prerogatives to remember that they are 

the land use authority, surely in relation to the port and school districts, and other 

special function agencies, and to some extent with the State and other superior levels of 

government. Specifically, the Port of Olympia should get the land uses that the City of 

Olympia dictates to them. 

Obviously, I’ve only just scratched the surface of this document. I intend to comment 

further at the next opportunity for public input. 

Thank you, 

Walter R. Jorgensen 

823 North St SE 

Tumwater, WA 98501-3526 

waltjorgensen@comcast.net 

360-489-0764 (home)

From: Carmen Kardokus 


Subject: Urban Corridor Proposal 

Date: Sunday, June 10, 2012 3:04:42 PM 

City of Olympia: 

I am very concerned about the Urban Corridor Proposal and its impacts on the Carlyon North and 

Governor Stevens neighborhoods. I have lived in the neighborhood since 2007 and was drawn in by its 

privacy and quiet charm. I have grown to know my neighbors quite well and we look after each other 

and many of us are raising young children. We enjoy walking the streets and teaching our kids to ride 

their bikes without the worry of constant traffic posing a threat to our little ones. 

The character of our neighborhood includes many historic homes including ours which was built in 

1926 and moved to its current location due to the construction of I-5. Many of us are interested in 

preserving the historic look of the area and passing on this rich history to newcomers and our own 

children. 

Finally, I believe our neighborhood represents the charm that people love about Olympia-I know 

that is what attracted me to the area. My family is planning on living here for the long term and the 

people before us lived in this house for 20+ years. If this proposal is enacted we will certainly hesitate 

to invest any more time and resources into the area. In fact, we would have to consider relocating to a 

place where my kids can flourish and enjoy a great school environment and a safe and family oriented 

neighborhood. Please reconsider this proposal. I am certainly opposed to it. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Carmen Kardokus-resident of Governor Stevens neighborhood

From: Genevieve Keesecker 


Subject: comments on comprehensive plan 


Hi, 

Please accept my comments regarding the City's comprehensive plan. 

I own a home right off of Decatur st. and would be greatly impacted 

and disappointed if this street was to be opened. 

The street and surrounding infrastructure simply cannot handle the 

traffic flow that would result from this street being opened. The 

street ends in a T intersection and goes right by a park that does not 

have adequate parking as it is. It simply would not be feasible or 

safe, not to mention the impact on quality of life for the residents 

in the neighborhood. For these reasons, please delete this section 

from your comprehensive plan and consider that both Decatur and 16th 

Street connections to our residential neighborhood should be 

permanently closed to automobile traffic. 

Thank you, 

Gen Keesecker

From: Cornelia Kirkpatrick 


Subject: Public Comment - Comprehensive Plan Update 


My comment: 

I grew up living in the Wildwood neighborhood during the 1960 - 1970s (on a side street of 

O’Farrell with access to Capitol Boulevard). Ten years ago I returned to my childhood neighborhood 

and I now own a house off of Carlyon. I love that the neighborhood does not have many vacant 

lots available to build new structures on; consequently the area has retained its charm and 

character. This is a good thing. 

The city’s land use “Urban Corridor” designation proposal for Capitol Boulevard is not a good thing; 

please reconsider this zoning that would negatively impact the surrounding neighborhoods and 

reduce quality of life. 

corneliak2@gmail.com 

Cornelia Kirkpatrick 

3120 Hoadly St. SE 


From: steiner53@gmail.com 


Subject: Stop the Decatur Connection! 


I have lived in Olympia for 40 years and chose to buy a home and raise 

my children on the Westside. It's the kind of neighborhood people long 

for and residents brag about: I know my neighbors, children ride their 

bikes and skate around here, if a dog gets loose, someone walks it home, 

and my children talk about raising their children here. That will all change 

with increased traffic through the area. 

I read that "The majority of users of the Decatur Street connection would 

be residents of the Southwest Olympia Neighborhood, the residential area 

south of Harrison Avenue and east of Black Lake Boulevard. For these 

users, the facility represents an improved access route to Tumwater, the 

Courthouse area, and US 101, bypassing the congested Black Lake 

Boulevard corridor." If the Decatur connection is for me, then please drop 

it; I don't want or need an improved access route to Tumwater, etc., and 

rarely drive over to Black Lake Boulevard. 

Olympia is a progressive little town, and we should be and are moving 

away from our automobile-dependent lifestyles. I walk lots of places, and 

drive when I need to--and I sure don't need a Decatur connection. I 

imagine Olympia without it! 

Caroline Lacey 

1303 6th Ave. SW 


-- Sent from my HP TouchPad

From: Dan Leahy 


Cc: Jeannine Roe; Jim Cooper; Julie Hankins; Karen Rogers; Nathaniel Jones; Stephen Langer; Stephen Buxbaum 

Subject: Delete Decatur/16th Street Conections 


Dear Planners: 

This is my formal comment on the Comprehensive Plan. 

Despite 15 years of community opposition, the draft plan proposes to open all connections that are 

listed which include opening Decatur and 16th streets to automobile traffic and driving a freeway 

through our residential neighborhood. 

Please delete the below listed section from the Draft Comprehensive Plan and permanently close these 

two streets to automobile traffic. 

Sincerely, 

Dan Leahy 

(This statement below is in the Transportation section, Appendix A, section of the Draft Comprehensive 

Plan: http://olympiawa.gov/plans/comp-plan/transportation) 


Decatur Street is a proposed major collector connecting 9th Avenue to Caton Way. Today, a bike and 

pedestrian pathway exists but the street is not open to motor vehicles. Sixteenth Avenue connects 

Fern Street to Carriage Loop. This street was closed after the earthquake in 2001. The earthquake 

damaged the 4th Avenue bridge which changed traffic patterns in the southwest area, and increased 

use of this connection. City Council closed this street to motor vehicles after concerns were raised by 

residents near the connection. 

Any decision on whether to connect Decatur Street to Caton Way and open 16th Avenue as a vehicular 

connection will not be made until the West Olympia Access Study Phase II is complete.

The majority of users of the Decatur Street connection would be residents of the Southwest Olympia 

Neighborhood, the residential area south of Harrison Avenue and east of Black Lake Boulevard. For 

these users, the facility represents an improved access route to Tumwater, the Courthouse area, 

and US 101, bypassing the congested Black Lake Boulevard corridor. 

Some residents have raised concerns about the connection, and the impacts of increased traffic and 

changed traffic patterns in the residential area. A system of traffic-calming devices have been installed 

in the Southwest Olympia Neighborhood and on Decatur Street, and more are planned, in anticipation 

of the connection. These devices should be effective in reducing the volume of through-traffic from 

outside the immediate neighborhood, if this connection was made. Traffic around this connection 

should be monitored to assure that the new connection is serving mostly local circulation needs. 

(Ordinance #6389, 1/24/06)

From: Todd Stamm 


Subject: FW: Draft Comprehensive Plan Comments 


Attachments: Final Olympia draft Comp Plan letter 20120611 (4).pdf 

Specific Comments on the June 21012 CP.pdf 

From: Mike McCormick [mailto:mike.mccormick@comcast.net] 


To: Todd Stamm 

Cc: Leonard Bauer; Tim Trohimovich 

Subject: Draft Comprehensive Plan Comments 

Todd, 

Holly and I are submitting a joint letter with attached comments. An electronic copy is attached here for your 

convenience. The official hard copy will be delivered to City Hall shortly. As you will see, we are sending a copy 

to the Growth Management Program at the Washington State Department of Commerce and to Futurewise. 

Please make sure that everyone gets their copy. 

Thank you, Mike 

Michael J. McCormick, FAICP 

2420 Columbia St. SW 


360.754.2916

June 11, 2012 


P. O. Box 1967 


Dear Mayor, Council Members and Staff, 

We have followed Olympia's planning activities closely for some time. We have 

monitored the Planning Commission's activities and offered comments at both their 

meetings and community events. 

Planning is an important function here in Thurston County. Each local jurisdiction plays 

an important role. Inter jurisdictional coordination has helped our region plan more 

effectively than some of our neighbors. Inter jurisdictional cooperation predates the 

Growth Management Act here. Olympia has traditionally produced strong 

comprehensive plan. We can argue about how successful we've been with our 

implementing development regulations and actions. But the fact remains that a strong, 

progressive and well coordinated comprehensive plan is key to our future. 

Each of us has longstanding experience with planning in our state, particularly with the 

development and implementation of the Growth Management Act. Collectively we bring 

more than 60 years experience working in this arena. Holly adds 19 years of City 

Council and Mayoral activities to this mix. As long time residents of Olympia we are 

vested in our community. We want to see a strong, progressive vision supported by an 

articulate plan and comprehensive set of coordinated and consistent development 

regulations. We offer these comments on the April Draft of the Olympia Comprehensive 

Plan (CP). 

The stated intent for this draft was to capture the current vision and values, adjusting 

them using new information and 20 years of experience. Additionally, the current effort 

attempts to transform to a web based format accessible via the Internet. This draft 

attempts to simplify (and hopefully clarify) the goals. CP goals have been changed to 

reflect emerging priorities and group related topics. We support these efforts. 

We do have some observations and concerns: 

1. There is a fundamental principle of the GMA which appears at risk in the effort to 

date. That is consistency. The GMA requires internal and external consistency. We 

see no analysis addressing either. We are particularly concerned with the current 

planning schedule which calls for a delay in updating the City's development 

regulations. We understand the current budget and staffing limitations that would 

make such a schedule desirable. However, the current statutes and Hearings

Draft Olympia Comprehensive Plan Comments 

June 12, 2012 

Page 2 

Board's decisions show this violates the GMA and would result in the City's plan 

being found out of compliance. This, in turn, would create potential negative 

consequences to the City and its citizens. 

2. One GMA consistency requirement is the population allocation that forms the basis 

of the CP must be the same for all its elements. We are uncertain what actual 

population allocation forms the basis for this plan, whether the land use housing, 

transportation, and utilities element use the same population allocation and if the 

population allocation the CP is using is consistent with the plans of other Thurston 

County jurisdictions. 

3. A second fundamental principle of the GMA is the responsibility of each jurisdiction 

planning under the act to accommodate their fair share of future growth. We see no 

analysis that demonstrates that this plan meets this responsibility. Proposed new 

policies such as those addressing building heights, view corridors, urban density and 

the natural environment clearly articulate a significant change from the current plan. 

The potential reduction in the City's capacity needs to be calculated. The current 

discussions among the City Council and Planning Commission clearly sound like a 

collective intent is to significantly reduce our current capacity under the current plan. 

One only needs to look to the labored deliberations of the Planning Commission and 

their recommendations on the proposed Shoreline Master Program update to see 

these positions in action! New data from the U.S Census, TRPC and others 

suggests there are significant changes to our demographics and what we can expect 

to experience. Any meaningful analysis needs to address this. 

4. Another fundamental principle of the GMA is that urban densities, appropriately and 

timely serviced with the necessary utilities, are to be found in urban growth areas. 

Our reading of the Land Use and Urban Design and Natural Environment chapters 

reveal only goals and policies that would result in an overall reduction in densities in 

Olympia. The City's current position that 5 dwelling united per acre is an adequate 

minimum standard doesn't address the stated goal of supporting transit, our 

responsibility to meet the challenges of climate change nor what we find other 

progressive communities setting as their goals today. If the intent is to provide 

additional transit service, an analysis should identify how—or if—this is feasible at 

these low densities. 

5. The GMA identifies specific elements that are required. It is not clear to us that all 

the required topics are included in this draft. The GMA statute and the supporting 

WAC 365-196 articulate these requirements. A careful comparison between these 

requirements and the proposed new comprehensive plan needs to be made and

Draft Olympia Comprehensive Plan Comments 

June 12, 2012 

Page 3 

shared with the public. As one example, we were not able to identify how this 

proposal addresses the Housing Element requirements--both under the statute and 

as recommended in the WAC. 

We have attached specific comments on this draft to this letter. We appreciate this 

opportunity. We have been frustrated by the process to date. It hasn't been clear to us 

how the Imagine Olympia process would inform a meaningful update to the 

comprehensive plan. This draft provides an initial draft statement on where the City 

hopes to go. We hope our comments will help the City Council, Planning Commission 

and the Staff as we move forward. We look forward to the next iteration of the draft. We 

will be interested in how that draft, and other work products, address the concerns we 

have raised. 

Sincerely, 

Holly Gadbaw, AICP Mike McCormick, FAICP 

1625 Sylvester St. SW 2420 Columbia St. SW 

Olympia WA 98501 Olympia, WA 98501 

360-754-9401 360.754.2915 

CC: Leonard Bauer, Growth Management Program, WA Dept. of Commerce 

Tim Trohimovich, Planning Director, Futurewise

Specific Comments on the April Draft of Comprehensive Plan 

Policies and Narrative We Like: 

• PL3.2 Require commercial and residential buildings to face the street or a 

courtyard or other common area. 

• Commercial Use and Urban Corridors Introduction - To encourage more 

intensive use of these established commercial areas, major new commercial 

areas are not to be created. Instead, any new commercial areas will be limited to 

neighborhood-oriented businesses and services in the neighborhood centers of 

residential areas that reduce the need for residents to leave their neighborhoods 

for convenient shopping 

• West Bay Drive Area - Most of the industries have now relocated and only 

fragments of the waterborne commerce remain. The community foresees 

continued transition of the West Bay Drive area toward such a mix of urban uses 

and habitat improvements, while also allowing existing industries and shipping 

facilities to remain economically viable. The resulting mix of uses should form the 

foundation for a vibrant mix of light industrial, office, restaurant, commercial, 

recreational, and residential uses, that also provides for improved habitat for fish 

and wildlife in this waterfront location. Future development of land uses and 

street improvements in this corridor will be consistent with the West Bay Corridor 

Study of 2005. Comment: While we like this policy we are not sure from the 

deliberations that we have observed at the Planning Commission where the 

Shoreline Master Program (SMP) now being discussed will support this vision. 

• PL17.6 Require that villages retain the natural topography and major 

environmental features of the site and incorporate water bodies and stormwater 

ponds into the design to minimize environmental degradation. Comment: We 

like this policy, and think it should be required for all new subdivisions too. 

Stormwater ponds should be incorporated into the design of all new subdivisions, 

as well as Villages to enhance design. The City should move away from ugly, 

cyclone fenced stormwater ponds that are not incorporated into the design of 

subdivisions. 

• PL1.1Ensure that new development is built at urban densities or can be readily 

modified to achieve those densities; and require that development lacking 

municipal utility service be designed to cost-effectively transform when services 

become available. Another Policy: Clustered development to provide future 

urbanization opportunities will be required where urban utilities are not readily 

available. Comment: Development regulations need to support this throughout 

the Urban Growth Area (UGA). We are not sure this is the case. 

• PT4.20 Pursue all street connections. … Change explanation: This analysis will 

occur at the development review level, if a connection is opposed. Instead of the 

Page1

current practice of proving the need for a proposed connection, the assumption is 

all street connections are needed. This evaluation will be used to describe why a 

proposed connection is not considered valuable to the street network, and 

requires the opponent to make the case against a connection. Comment: This 

recognizes the importance of connected streets to making the regional 

transportation system work. 

• Permit System Policies: From Olympia Economic Profile Introduction: They can 

maintain efficient, fair, and predictable permitting processes to reduce uncertainty 

with costs and timelines for permit review. The decision making process should 

be transparent and equitable (i.e., no hidden rules). PE5.4 Create more 

predictability in the zoning and approval process to reduce costs, without 

eliminating protections. PE5.3 Continuously improve responsiveness of the 

permit system, identify log-jams in the process, and expedite those processes. 

Comment: These are good goals, but, from our observation, the city has a long 

way to go in achieving them. Both the city staff and the city council must be 

committed to these goals. The promise of the GMA is that policies and 

regulations be established and understood by the staff, council and public as 

they are being developed. Once adopted, developments that comply with the 

policies and regulations are required to be approved by the staff and council. 

The city owes predictability to both its citizens and developers. 

• Port policies: Coordinate with Port of Olympia to ensure long-term viability of Port 

peninsula industry, compatibility with surrounding uses, and continuation of 

marina uses along East Bay. Such coordination should at least address 

transportation, pedestrian and recreation facilities, environmental stewardship, 

and overwater development. From Olympia Economic Profile Introduction: 

Although the Port of Olympia is much less a factor in the local economy than 

state government, its potential is significant. Collaborate with the Port in its role 

of facilitating economic development, while continuing to exercise regulatory 

control over Port development and operations. Comment: Hopefully, the new 

SMP will support the Port’s significance. 

• PE6.4 Conduct preliminary studies for priority development sites (such as 

Downtown or Urban Corridors) to ease the development application process. 

Comment: This is important to promoting development in these areas and 

support funds for this being included in future city budgets.\ 

• Secure a sustainable funding source in order to maintain City landscape 

medians, roundabouts, entry corridors, street trees, City buildings, and other 

landscaped areas in street rights-of-way. Comment: A good goal that City 

budgets should support. 

• PC13.1 Facilitate the preservation of historic identity and important historic 

resources through the Olympia Heritage Commission, the Heritage Register and 

Page2

the historic marker program. Comment: We are glad to see you are retaining 

support for these programs. 

• PU 5.1 Reserve water supply rights for at least 50 years in advance of need, so 

that supplies can be protected from contamination and they are not committed to 

lower priority uses 

• PS5.3 Evaluate the possibility of providing density bonuses when builders 

provide low-income housing in market-rate developments, and of tying the bonus 

to affordability. Comment: We encourage the City to do this. 

• 16.2 Maximize the effectiveness of unallocated time to allow officers more time to 

address community problems proactively. Comment: Good policy. Does the 

operation of the police department support this? 

• PU8.5 Permit new STEP systems only for individual lots in neighborhoods 

currently served by STEP systems 

• .PF 2.1 Provide the capital facilities needed to adequately serve the future growth 

anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan, within projected funding capabilities. 

Good policy but must be supported with data required by the GMA, clearly 

referenced, and same population numbers as a basis for plan need to be used. 

• Utilitypolicies generally are good. 

• Capital facilities policies say the right thing about GMA requirements but we’re 

not sure have all the right data to meet GMA requirements. 

Policies Where We Have Concerns: 

• Note in regard to CP Land Map: High-Rise Multi-family category deleted 

because it was all within Heritage Park. Comment: Does this mean the High 

Rise Multi-family zone along Columbia where the restaurant swing is located has 

been eliminated? If so, we are strongly opposed to this change. It is not within 

Heritage Park. 

• PL1.7Enable frequent transit service, utilize existing infrastructure, provide public 

improvements and concentrate new major shopping, entertainment and office 

uses downtown, in the medical services area of Lilly Road, near the Capital Mall, 

and in the urban corridors. Comment: No mention of housing, which is a key 

component to making transit work. - Intro to Land Use Patterns: Land use 

patterns and development influence energy use and consumption. Blending of 

residential units with work places promotes energy efficiency. Higher densities 

contribute to the success of bus systems. Higher densities close to offices and 

commercial districts help reduce fuel consumption by reducing overall commuter 

and shopper mileage. In contrast, suburban densities and sprawl result in 

spending a lot of time and energy on transportation. - PL8.7… Areas nearest 

downtown should blend travel modes with priority for pedestrian, bicycle and 

transit systems; these areas should provide for a mix of low-intensity professional 

offices, small commercial uses and multi-family buildings (not exceeding three 

stories) forming a continuous and pedestrian-oriented edge along the arterial 

streets - Comment: These policies and narrative illustrate the inconsistencies of 

desiring better transit, without emphasizing the importance of housing in the mix 

Page3

uses while limiting the heights of buildings to three stories along urban corridors. 

This coupled with view restriction policies in the Land Use Chapter will make it 

difficult to achieve the desired 15 units per acre (PL 8.1). 

• PL 3.1 Require highly visible development—such as commercial development 

adjacent to freeways and public streets, in urban corridors, downtown, and at the 

Port, and all housing except detached homes on conventionally-sized lots (5,000 

square feet or larger) outside areas developed before WWII—to be designed to 

maintain or improve the character and livability of each area or neighborhood. 

Comment: We’re not sure of the intent of this policy? Why is the policy limited 

to areas developed after WW II? These neighborhoods are important to 

Olympia’s unique character and need policies to protect its character and 

livability. but more regulatory flexibility will be provided to acknowledge the 

existing suburban nature of these areas (see Capital Mall special area below) _ 

• PL 5.2 Designate and preserve sufficient land for industry consistent with the 

regional strategy and ‘build out’ of the community and competitive land prices. 

Comment: What regional strategy? Where is it defined? 

• PL 5.4 and explanation of change: Non-conflicting, non-industrial uses would be 

allowed in industrial areas. Former policy limited to industry and uses supporting 

industry. Comment: With little industrial land left in Olympia, good industrial land 

should be preserved for industrial uses. Stick with former policy. 

• PL8.7 ….but more regulatory flexibility will be provided to acknowledge the 

existing suburban nature of these areas. Comment: We are concerned that the 

policy will give the City direction to move away from zoning requirements that 

limit the placement and size of parking lots and design standards to limit big box 

stores and make the area more pedestrian friendly. The vision in the current 

CP, enforced by development regulations, was to make the area more pedestrian 

friendly, less auto orientated. We hope the City does not move away from this 

vision. 

• PL12.5Designate ‘pedestrian streets’ where most of the frontage will have 

‘people-oriented’ activities, and street-level buildings will have a high proportion 

of glass. Prohibit parking lots along these streets, except when preserving scenic 

views and instead provide for surface parking along other streets. Comment: 

We disagree with the policy. This seems to be directed at enabling the City to 

retain parking lots on near the waterfront. We think it’s important to have an 

interesting street edge here as in other parts of the Downtown and instead of 

preserving land for open space, albeit very unattractive open space. 

• PT1.3 Preserve a human-scale urban form by limiting streets to five lanes at midblock. 

If needed, turn lanes may be added beyond the five lanes, with careful 

consideration of pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Comment: We wonder if this 

is consistent with Regional Transportation Plan? 

• Parks Narrative: Current Parks, Arts and Recreation chapter of the 

Comprehensive Plan has a great deal of information that is also found in the 

Parks, Arts and Recreation Plan. Comment: Is the City going to adopt this as 

part of this plan. More Narrative: To address this, the City estimates that it 

needs to acquire three additional Neighborhood Park sites totaling approximately 

11 acres within 10 years. Comment: This estimate should be for 20 years. Will 

Page4

this be adopted by reference to meet GMA requirements? Does the recently 

adopted plan meet GMA requirements? For city owned facilities such as parks, 

the City needs to show how its Level of Service will be maintained over 20 years. 

While its capital facilities plan does not have to be as detailed as it is for 6 years, 

it should have a strategy on what facilities it plans to have, how it will finance 

these facilities, and how it will maintain its adopted level of service over the life of 

20 year plan. 

• PC6.5 Ensure adequate park maintenance and operation funding before new 

facilities are developed. Comment: Before acquiring property, the City should 

have a realistic estimate of whether property can be developed and maintained 

by the City. Acquire property that is needed and can be realistically developed, 

rather than to just prevent development, with no real intent for future park 

development. 

• PU8.3Limit and ultimately phase-out community septic systems in the Urban 

Growth Area. Comment: Don’t allow community septic systems at all. 

Community septic systems are not an urban service. Development on 

community septic systems will unlikely ever is more than four units an acre. 

Community septic systems promote low density sprawl. 

• Narrative in Utility Chapter: A small area of the downtown and Northeast 

neighborhood are still served by a combined sanitary/stormwater sewer, which 

routes flows to the LOTT treatment plant. Comment: The South Capitol 

Neighborhood is also served by combined sewers. 

• Assure adequate capacity in transportation, public and private utilities, storm 

drainage systems, municipal services, parks, and schools to accommodate 

planned growth. Comment: The capital facilities and utilities plans are required 

to include a strategy to address the facilities and how to finance these facilities 

over the life of a 20 year plan. These identified facilities should maintain an 

adopted level of service. The CP needs to include estimates of future needed 

capacity, estimates of how these will be paid for, and identification of future 

facilities to support this growth. This can be more general than the six-year plan, 

but must be included in the capital facilities plan. In this draft, all data required to 

fulfill the requirements of GMA required capital facilities plans is not readily 

available or clearly referenced. Also, how levels of service are to be maintained 

over the life of the plan is not clearly evident. 

• Allocate sewer and water connection fees primarily to capital improvements 

related to urban expansion Comment: This policy is OK as far as it goes. This 

policy needs to include or include another policy that says rates should be used 

to pay for operations and maintenance and adjusted as needed to assure 

adequate operation and maintenance. 

• Explanation for Goal GP5: The original Growth Management goals and policies 

have been reorganized and condensed. Details that reflect what is in Countywide 

Planning Policies were removed from policy language. The concept of 

"short-term" and "long-term" urban growth areas was removed from policy 

language because this 'two-tiered' approach was ultimately not included in the 

Joint Olympia-Thurston Comprehensive Plan. Comment: We suggest that the 

Page5

City work with the County to revive concept of short and long term urban growth 

boundaries to prevent the UGA being built out in low density sprawl. 

• PP6.1 All property within the Urban Growth Boundary may be annexed into the 

City. Comment: The GMA requires that the UGA be sized to accommodate 

growth that the city has been allocated. Therefore all of the UGA should become 

part of the City over the 20 year life of the plan. The size of the UGA should be 

evaluated with each update Change this policy to read, “All parts of the UGA will 

become part of the City.” 

• PP6.10 Property owners within an annexing area may be required to assume a 

share of the city’s bonded indebtedness. Comment: Under what 

circumstances would property owners not be required to assume the city’s 

bonded indebtedness? “may be” should be changed to “will”. 

• Explanation of Housing Data in Land Use Chapter: Data and specific 

demographics are now found in the Consolidated Plan. Comment: Any data 

that fulfills GMA housing requirements should be clearly referenced and adopted 

as part of the plan. Does the data in the Consolidated Plan use the same 

population projection as the rest of the CP? 

• Support the Fair Share Housing allocation process and work with other 

jurisdictions to monitor progress toward achieving agreed upon goals. 

Comment: Where is this defined? 

• PS7.6Encourage shelter and housing providers and programs to locate in the 

greater Olympia area, or near transportation arterial hubs, for easier access by 

residents. Comment: What is the Greater Olympia area? Is this defined 

anywhere? What not in Thurston County or within the three cities near 

transportation hub and near services? 

• Policing: PS16.1Provide a high quality of service in the traditional police agency 

functions. PS16.6Measure level of service not by inputs (such as officers per 

capita), but by outcomes related to problem-solving, such as elimination of 

problems and citizen satisfaction with the quality of officer interaction. 

Comment: Where is the actual level of service defined? This should be defined 

in the plan. 

• General Comment: There are no page numbers in the draft which makes it 

hard to reference comments and to keep track of them. Where policies or 

narrative have no number or references, it was because it was too time 

consuming to find them without page numbers. We’re sure they are there, 

though. 

Page6

From: Heather McPherson 


Subject: Urban Corridor for North Carlyon and Gov. Stevens Neighborhoods 


City of Olympia, 

I oppose zoning the North Carlyon and Gov. Stevens Neighborhoods as Urban Corridor. 

These neighborhoods have historic charm. When ever people visit my home for the first time they 

comment on how cute the neighborhood is and how all the houses are from a similar time period. 

Recently a small lot was bought in my neighbor and the house built on it was architecturally designed 

to fit in with the other older houses. To allow higher density houses would be a huge mistake and 

change the character of the neighborhood. 

The neighborhood has a walkable feel to it. I watch the same people each day walk past my house. 

Increasing traffic through the neighbors would have a negative effect on walkablity and ridability. 

Children currently ealk and ride their bikes to school. Increasing traffic would likely discourage from 

allowing their children to do this. 

The lots in these neighborhoods are oddly shaped and often back up to glacial potholes. Many house 

are very close to the roads, much less than the standard setbacks that are currently in place. Many of 

these house do not have functioning driveways or have driveways that can accommodate one car. Due 

to this there are major parking issues on some of the streets. This have cause very strained 

relationships and adding more cars into the area would be disastrous. I have had people block my 

driveway, not allowing me use of my car. 

It is also hard for emergency response vehicles to access all the streets in these neighborhods. I have 

seen emergency response vehicles stuck at the corner of Maringo and Eskridge several times. In 

addition on some of the narrow streets, when large trucks are parked on one site it is impossible of 

emergency vehicles to access areas. Since the houses are so close to the roads there is no way to 

widen roads. Adding extra cars in the area that would need to park is a major safety hazard for 

emergency vehicles to be able to reach homes in a timely manner. 

Please do not negatively change the charm of our historic neighborhood and make it harder for 

emergency response vehicles to reach our homes. Do not allow these neighborhoods to be zoned as 

urban corridors. 

Thanks, 

Heather McPherson 

2930 Maringo Rd SE 


From: Jonathon Turlove 


Subject: Forwarded feedback on Parks, Arts, Recreation and Historic Preservation Chapter of Comp Plan 


From: Julie McQuary [mailto:jamoly@comcast.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 4:06 AM 

To: Jonathon Turlove 

Subject: Comp Plan 

I noticed that in the draft comp plan that not all park names are accurate – Grass Lake 

Refuge, Kettle Park, etc. Scattered through several chapters. 

Julie Anne McQuary 

jamoly@comcast.net

From: Karen Messmer 


Subject: comments on staff draft of Comprehensive Plan 


Attachments: 4 Land Uses and Urban Design. staff Karen Messmer tracked comments June 2012.docx 

5 Transportation.Draft 4 staff draft in word Karen Messmer June 12.docx 

June 12 2012 comments on staff draft comp plan.docx 

I have attached three documents that make up my comments on the 

Comprehensive Plan. There are three files. One is a memo which should 

be read first and the other two are tracked changes on the Word 

documents of the Land Use and Transportation chapters. 

Please acknowledge receipt of these. 

Thank you 

Karen Messmer 

-- 

Karen Messmer 

(360) 357-8364

To: Olympia Planning Commission 

From: Karen Messmer 

Date: June 12, 2012 

Subject: Comments on Staff Draft of Olympia Comprehensive Plan 

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the staff draft of the Olympia Comprehensive Plan. As a 

former Planning Commission member and chair, former member of a number of City advisory 

committees as well as serving a term on City Council, I feel especially invested in the importance of the 

quality of our Comprehensive Plan. While I am a citizen representative on the Intercity Transit Authority, 

these comment are my alone. 

I have submitted my comments as follows: 

1. General, overall, language and intent comments contained here in this memo. 

2. Specific comments except the Land Use and Transportation chapter. These are listed later in this 

memo by chapter heading. 

3. Tracked recommended changes and comments within the Word document of each of the Land Use 

and Transportation Chapters. These have been submitted as separate electronic files with this memo. 

1. General overall language and intent comments 

In the first chapter “Olympia’s Vision” 

The “How to Use this Document” description says “That is because the Comprehensive Plan is not a 

regulatory document, rather it is a visionary goal and policy document to use to guide City budgets, 

master plans, development regulations and other community decisions.” 

The priority order of our decision making and enforcement must stem for the Comprehensive Plan and 

rely on it for the foundation of development approval and review. Therefore this statement should be 

changed as follows: 

The Comprehensive Plan is implemented, in part, through development code and the EDDS which should 

be maintained and interpreted at all times to be consistent with and implement the goals and policies of 

this Plan. 

Language Clarification 

The following suggestions are general. Specific changes have been recommended in the Land Use and 

Transportation chapters as well.

The word “pedestrian” is impersonal and passive. The simple word “walker” and “Walking” can usually 

be used in its place. 

The phrase “alternative transportation” is not descriptive enough and implies that the motor vehicle is 

the primary or original form of transportation. It is not. Every car trip begins and ends with walking. In 

the context of each goal or policy, it should be replaced with more descriptive and plain language such 

as walking, bicycling, active transportation and transit. 

The relationship of land uses to transit is expressed in several ways, for example ‘adjacent to transit’ or 

‘on a transit route’. This should be clarified in each context to indicate, for example neighborhoods, 

which may be walking distance to transit service. For some areas such as Urban Corridors, the intent is 

that transit is frequent and convenient. All areas of the city will not be served by high frequency, 

immediately adjacent transit service, so including variations for level or distance from service would be 

more descriptive. 

By Chapter 

Olympia’s Vision 

In the section “Sustainable Leadership and Decision Making” – - The infrastructure investments that the 

city has made that advance the community sustainability include a large emphasis on transportation 

efficiency and reduction of environmental impacts from transportation. This includes shifting the 

emphasis from motor vehicle travel to more efficient and lower impact forms of transportation. This 

should be noted in addition to the other activities described. 

Economy Chapter 

The city role in economic development is limited. Policy PE 2.4 – “Diversify the local economy…’” 

overstates the ability of local government to cause specific outcomes. 

Additional mention of walkability should be included in the ‘sense of place’ discussion. During public 

involvement processes, this topic has been brought up repeatedly. The contribution that ‘walkability’ 

can make to ‘sense of place’ is well known and should be described here. 

Capital Facilities Chapter 

PF.1.5 “Give Priority consideration to projects that:” [list of priority criteria] Item #7 in this list “Are 

substantially funded through grants or other funding.” should be deleted. 

A grant funded project requires local funds for capital as well as a commitment to ongoing operations 

and maintenance costs. The availability of ‘free money’ should not, by itself, bring priority to a project. 

The Council should make decisions on grant funded projects in the context of their placement with other 

priorities, the appropriate expense of local funds, and the ongoing operations and maintenance costs. 

#7 should not be a Comprehensive Plan policy. 

PF 3.9 – Add LID and commercial parking taxes to the list of potential revenue sources.

Utilities 

PU1.1 The option to NOT annex property is also available. 

PU.1.5 This is a good policy and should be repeated in the Transportation Chapter. 

PU3.2 This is a good policy and should be repeated in a similar form in the Transportation Chapter. 

PU 6.3 Add – “and implementing” to plans development 

GU 11 Olympia’s downtown is protected from future impacts of sea-level rise. NEW POLICIES 

Develop plans and cost estimates for protection and adaptation strategies. 

Examine possible land use plan changes to avoid future flooding costs and damage. 

PU 18.2 Change the words “Ensure that the” to the word Enforce and delete ‘includes standards that’. 

Natural Environment 

PN1.8 This policy indicates that the city will ‘…identify and evaluate new and innovative approaches to 

low impact development and green building.’ 

While the city should be aiming to adopt these practices, there are other organizations doing the 

research and providing technical assistance and training in this area, including public universities and 

private organizations. The city should evaluate the applicability of these, but not necessarily become the 

research body for development of these standards. 

PN 4.4 “Protect Olympia from the potential impacts of sea level rise.” See new policies above regarding 

the investigation of costs and strategies to deal with sea level rise including protection and adaptation. 

PN 8.2 “Monitor the greenhouse gas emissions from city operations and implement, energy efficiency 

and conservation measures, new technologies and alternative energy sources to reach established 

reduction goals. “ 

Parks Arts, Recreation and Historic Preservation 

Page 3 – language describing future parks: 

“During the next 20 years, Olympia faces a number of challenges for meeting park and open space 

needs: 

Acquiring Funding for Large Capital Projects: Completion of Percival Landing, the acquisition of a 40 

acres community park, and the completion of West Bay Park and Trail are all multi-million dollar 

projects. “[add trail] 

PC 4.4 “Encourage walking and bicycling for recreation and transportation by linking parks to walking 

routes, streets, and trails.”

PC 5.1 Complete West Bay Park and Trail and Percival Landing.” [reordered these and added trail] 

PC 5.3 “Develop West Bay Trail alignment that follows the shoreline and connects to Deschutes Parkway 

to the south.” 

GC 7 “Olympia parks, arts and recreation system investments are protected.” NEW POLICY PC 6.5 

[renumber current 6.5 as 6.6.] 

Implement the intent of the Parks and Sidewalks voted funding measure by using the funds to acquire 

parks lands and develop new parks for additional capacity above plans and budgets that existed in 2004. 

NEW POLICY to be placed after 7.4 

Incorporate art into practical public uses such as buildings, benches, bikes racks, transit stops. 

See two attachments for specific comments on Land Use and Transportation Chapters

Karen Messmer Comments June 2012 in tracked changes 


Contents 

• Introduction 

• General Land Use and Design 

• Industry 

• Commercial Uses and Urban Corridors 

• Housing 

• Downtown and other Neighborhoods 

• Appendix A – Future Land Use Map Designations 

Our community’s future will be shaped by the land and environment, local and global population and 

economic trends, state planning laws and county-wide policies, and especially by community 

preferences and choices. How we choose to live within and how we alter our landscape is critical to our 

quality of life, and to whether that quality of life can be sustained and improved. We can choose to 

isolate land uses and neighborhood, or blend them into a single vital community. We can create spaces 

separated by long travel distances, or provide for a variety of experiences in each part of the city. We 

can choose to use land efficiency for recreation, housing, and business while setting aside selected areas 

for open space and communing with nature, or we can create homogenous subdivisions and isolated 

commercial areas. We can employ architecture and distinct urban forms consistent with Olympia’s 

unique character, or we can build places with little regard to the local landscape and climate. These 

choices will determine Olympia’s form for many generations. 

The State’s Growth Management Act calls for Olympia to establish land use designations and densities 

sufficient for at least 20-years. [County-Wide Planning 

Policies](http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/planning/countywide/CWPP-07-02.pdf) adopted by Thurston 

County and the seven cities describe a common goal of concentrating growth in the urban areas "in 

ways that ensure livability, preservation of environmental quality and open space, varied and affordable 

housing, high quality urban services at least cost, and orderly transition of land from County to City." 

Our community seeks to: 

• Encourage infilling in urban areas where public services and facilities are present,.Phase urban 

development and facilities outward from the downtown area. 

• Establish land use patterns that ensure residential densities sufficient to accommodate 20-year 

population growth. 

• Focus higher residential densities downtown, along urban corridors, and near neighborhood 

center. 

• Employ innovative development techniques that create a better community. 

[[Photo: landuse_56.jpg align=horizontal caption=A new duplex on the fringe of downtown Olympia.]] 

1

Olympia’s Urban Design Vision and Strategy and sustainable community philosophy provided additional 

direction for this chapter. The sustainability policies call for us to consider the long-range implications of 

our land use decisions and to provide for a pattern of development that can be sustained and enjoyed 

by future generations. Mixed-use ‘villages’ and opportunities for residential development in commercial 

areas serve increasing densities by blending land uses. By enabling less reliance on automobiles; 

providing for compact development that requires less land and can be cost-effectively served by streets, 

utilities, and services; and by establishing development densities and site designs that protect 

environmentally sensitive areas and reflect the capacity of natural systems, we can provide a quality 

community for coming generations. 

We envision: 

• Spaces that are safe and pedestrian-friendly. 

• Development that minimizes or mitigates harm to the environment. 

• Densities and land use types consistent with many modes of transportation. 

• Places for quiet residential uses, and places where economic activity is emphasized. 

• Planning for walkable neighborhoods with centers and identity. 

• Development that complements the historic character of the community. 

• Recognition of the importance of lands near water. 

• A Plan-consistent process for exploring the unique possibilities of each area with attention given 

to Downtown, the Westside core area, the eleven planning ‘subareas,’ and other special 

geographic areas within the community. 

The focus here is on ‘built’ land uses such as housing and commercial structures and development 

patterns. Complementary parks, open spaces and natural areas are addressed in the City Vitality and 

Natural Environment chapters. These land uses cannot be isolated from economic topics, and 

employment in particular, addressed by the Economy chapter. Facilities and services to support this 

urban development pattern, including the critical transportation system, are described in the 

Transportation, Utilities, and Services chapters. In many cases the special area plans described in this 

chapter will touch on all of those topics and more. 

The City of Olympia, in cooperation with Thurston County, plays a major role in determining the 

location, intensity, and form of land uses in the community. This chapter addresses the proposed uses of 

land in Olympia’s urban growth area and the design and locations of buildings and other structures 

within that landscape. It includes: 

• The location and quantity of those land uses and their relation to each other. 

• The functional design of those land uses including buildings and surrounding spaces. 

• The aesthetic form of the built environment. 

[[Change: Future Land Use Map amended by aggregating 34 categories into 14 with less definite 

boundaries. Result would be that zoning is more flexible and more detailed land use decisions will be 

made when zoning is adopted or amended. Note: High-Rise Multi-family category deleted because it 

was all within Heritage Park.]] 

[[Change: Capitol Campus / Commercial Services - High Density deleted. Henderson Park development 

site at interchange changed to General Commercial (this was only private property in the designation) 

and Capitol Campus designated a planned development; the two Professional Office blocks near Justice 

2

Center added to City Center . Light industry on South Bay Road changed to Auto Services;Industry 

designation of LOTT wastewater treatment facility changed to Urban Waterfront]] 

The Future Land Use Map shows the approximate locations for a variety of land uses in Olympia’s urban 

growth area. This map is not a zoning map. Rather it provides guidance for zoning and other regulations 

to ensure uses of land and development consistent with this Plan. Although these map lines are 

approximate, all future land uses should be consistent with the intent of this map and the land use 

category descriptions in Appendix A__ as well as the goals and policies of this Plan. In general, zoning 

and land uses should not deviate from the Future Land Use Map boundaries by more than about 200 

feet. Compatible and supporting land uses, such as parks, schools, churches, public facilities and utilities, 

streets and similar features, are expected within these areas. See Figure __ regarding acreages, 

densities, and building heights of each use category. 

[[Chart: (in progress – updated version of Figure 1-5 with acreages added) align=horizontal caption=The 

Land Use Categories of the Future Land Use Map.]] 

[[Map: (in progress – revised version of Map 1-3 align=horizontal caption=Future Land Use Map of 

Olympia and its urban growth area.]] 

[[Chart: (in progress – which zone allowed in which categories align=horizontal caption=Land use 

districts and zones associated with each Future Land Use Map designation.]] 

The community employs regulations, such as zoning, design review, stormwater, engineering, building, 

and subdivision standards, to ensure that new development conforms to the goals and policies 

described in this Chapter. The regulations are administered by City staff and a Hearing Examiner 

selected by the City Council. Equally important to this land use and design vision is capital facility 

planning and construction by the City of Olympia and other public agencies of the area. Continuing 

cooperation between the State and the City, among the local governments, and with special function 

agencies such the Port of Olympia and the school districts is critical. And, as envisioned, substantial 

resources and the support of everyone in the community will be needed to focus more detailed efforts 

in neighborhoods and other special places. 

General Land Use and Design 

To achieve our vision of Olympia while accommodating our share of the region’s population , we need to 

plan for quantity at the same time as we pursue quality. Such a community is one in which pattern and 

mix of land uses supports healthy lifestyles, such as walking to nearby services instead of driving. We 

need to consider the implications of climate change, and how we can minimize our community’s 

contribution. We must be prepared to adapt our built environment to changing resource availability. 

And, at the same time, we need to consider the character of Olympian’s today, and those of the future. 

The needs and interests of a more diverse, more urban, and generally older population will differ from 

those of today. 

During the last fifty years Olympia’s land use pattern has gradually changed from a port-oriented 

community with a central business district and compact single-family neighborhoods to a more 

suburban pattern with commercial development outside of downtown and lower density 

neighborhoods with fewer street connections. Over the next 20 years, as Olympia becomes a more 

3

urban place, the pattern of land use and design of urban areas must be modified to accommodate the 

expanding population while retaining our city’s character and heritage. 

[[Map: (in progress – combination of maps 1-1 and 1-2) align=horizontal caption=Olympia has gradually 

expanded from a central core on Budd Inlet.]] 

This Plan envisions gradually increasing densities in Olympia accompanied by attractive streets and 

buildings arranged for the convenience of pedestrians. The location, mix and relationship of land uses to 

each other and to our streets will be crucial as will be the character of commercial and residential areas, 

parks, and open spaces. The Plan envisions new development that will reinforce the community's 

identity, urban design preferences, and historic form. Selected major streets will gradually transform 

into attractive, higher density, mixed residential and commercial “urban corridors” with frequent transit 

service. 

[[Map: (in progress – density map) align=horizontal caption=Development density varies but is generally 

greater downtown and along major street corridors.]] 

Housing will be available within and near shopping and employment areas. Development will be 

carefully designed to integrate with the adjacent transportation system, and with key features such as 

downtown and the hospitals. Neighborhoods and commercial areas will gradually be woven together 

into a cohesive urban fabric. The “ten-minute” neighborhoods will provide ready-access from homes to 

supporting business, and to parks, schools and other gathering places. 

The relationship between the transportation system and other land uses plays a key role in urban life. 

The Transportation chapter addresses the specific design of streets, such as the number of travel lanes, 

the presence of bike lanes, transit pull-outs, pedestrian amenities, street trees, and sidewalks. The 

relationship of these street features to adjacent land uses, the location and supply of parking, and the 

proximity of buildings to the street is critical to the experience and choices of pedestrians, bicyclists, 

transit riders and motorists. Thus, to integrate the streets and trails with adjacent uses, development 

must be carefully designed to integrate with the adjacent transportation system. Details must be suited 

to all users and to the form of the street. For example, major building entrances must face or be 

conveniently reached from streets, rather than parking lots. 

In addition to private activities, such as homes, businesses and industry, some of the lands within the 

City will be used for public purposes and facilities. Although some of such lands are identified in this 

Plan, such as the locations of future streets, other specific needs are identified in more detailed planning 

documents of the City, such as the Water System Plan which identifies utility’s need for new water tank 

sites. Olympia works with Thurston County and other local agencies to identify areas of shared need for 

public facilities. 

The purpose of the goals and policies below is to direct land use patterns, densities, and design 

standards which: 

• Reflect the community's urban design vision. 

• Maintain or improve the character of established neighborhoods. 

• Provide for a variety of transportation alternatives. 

• Provide people with opportunities to live close to work. 

• Create desirable, livable neighborhoods with a variety of housing opportunities, different 

lifestyles and income levels, and a sense of community. 

4

• Provide for a compact growth pattern. 

• Promote energy efficiency. 

• Reflect the land's physical and environmental capability. 

• Provide space for parks, open spaces, and other community facilities. 

• Protect valued views and features of the community’s landscape. 

[[GL1]] Land use patterns, densities and site designs support decreasing automobile reliance. 

[[PL1.1]] Ensure that new development is built at urban densities or can be readily modified to achieve 

those densities; and require that development lacking municipal utility service be designed to costeffectively 

transform when services become available. 

[[PL1.2]] Focus development in areas that enhance the community and have capacity and efficient 

supporting services, and where adverse environmental impacts can be avoided or minimized. 

[[PL1.3]] Direct high density development to areas with existing development where the terrain is 

conducive to walking, bicycling and transit use and sensitive drainage basins will not be impacted. 

[[Change: New policy]] 

[[PL1.4]] Require functional, and efficient and sustainable development by adopting and periodically 

updating zoning consistent with the Future Land Use Map. 

[[PL1.5]] Require development to meet appropriate minimum standards such as landscaping and design 

guidelines, stormwater and other engineering standards, and buildings codes; and require existing 

development to be gradually improved to such standards. 

[[PL1.6]] Provide for a compatible mix of housing and commercial uses in commercial districts and 

village sites that enables people to walk to work and shopping, supports transit, and includes 

convenience business for residents. Integrate adjacent uses with walkways and bike paths leading from 

residential areas to commercial districts and neighborhood-oriented businesses. 

[[PL1.7] Enable frequent transit service, utilize existing infrastructure, provide public improvements and 

concentrate new major shopping, entertainment and office uses downtown, in the medical services area 

of Lilly Road, near the Capital Mall, and in the urban corridors. 

[[PL1.8]] Buffer incompatible industrial, commercial and residential uses by requiring landscaped buffers 

or transitional uses, such as plazas, offices, or heavily landscaped parking; use natural buffers where 

possible and require clustering where warranted. 

[[PL1.9]] Require direct and convenient pedestrian access from streets, bus stops and parking lots to 

commercial and public buildings; and encourage provision of sheltered seating and infilling of vacant 

sections of the street edge. 

5 

Comment [K1]: The over-use of the word 

sustainable waters it down. The use in this instance 

implies that we can regulate to this goal, which we 

likely cannot.

[[PL1.10]] Require sidewalk awnings or other weather protection on new and substantially remodeled 

buildings, in pedestrian-oriented commercial areas . 

[[PL1.11]] Require businesses along transit routes to accommodate transit use by including building 

entrances near bus stops or other features such as transit shelters or on-site bus access. 

[[PL1.12]] Encourage display windows, small shops with separate entrances, and plazas with seating and 

other well-landscaped gathering spaces in major commercial projects. 

[[Change: Former policy encouraged bike parking in commercial ares, but did not require bike parking.]] 

[[PL1.13]] Require new, and eEncourage existing, businesses to provide bicycle parking. 

Land Use Patterns and Building Forms Determine Whether Energy is Used Efficiently 

Land use patterns and development influence energy use and consumption. Blending of residential units 

with work places promotes energy efficiency. Higher densities contribute to the success of bus systems. 

Higher densities close to offices and commercial districts help reduce fuel consumption by reducing 

overall commuter and shopper mileage. In contrast, suburban densities and sprawl result in spending a 

lot of time and energy on transportation. 

With a more compact development pattern and other transportation improvements, Thurston County's 

percentage of drive-alone commuters can be reduced from 85 to 60 percent. Park-and- ride lots, 

vanpooling, ridesharing and flexible work schedules can help reduce the number of vehicle miles and 

congestion. Both the public and private sectors can encourage transit use by offering bus passes and 

other incentives to employees. Over a decade or two we could accomplish a 10-15 percent energy 

savings from more use of transit and similar types of transportation. A well-laid-out transportation 

system will also aid in conserving energy. Smoother traffic flows can increase vehicle efficiency by up to 

five percent. Provisions for pedestrian and bicycle traffic can promote use of these energy saving means 

of commuting. 

The primary residential use of energy is for space-heating. Thus, strengthening building code 

requirements for energy efficiency is an effective way to reduce energy consumption. When combined 

with appropriate insulation levels, solar energy can meet half the heating needs of a home in Olympia. 

Effective layout of subdivisions can also increase energy efficiency by allowing for solar access and 

protection from winter winds. Public education on energy conservation promotes further reduction in 

consumption. 

The competitive environment stimulates energy efficiency to reduce production costs. Thus the 

combined industrial and commercial sectors do not use as much energy as either the transportation or 

residential sectors. Local governments can influence industrial and commercial energy use through 

education and incentives. 

The government sector is a very visible part of the energy picture and can set an example for efficient 

and conscientious energy use. Education in this sector includes both educating users, such as 

employees, and informing the public. Government buildings and equipment can be models of efficiency 

in the use of construction methods and materials, as well as utilizing efficient pumps, heating systems, 

6

and lighting. Government operations can also be models of use of alternative fuel sources and by 

encouraging non-motorized travel. 

[[GL2]] Buildings, commercial and industrial processes, and site designs use energy efficiently. 

[[PL2.1]] Promote energy efficient construction and lighting, low-energy designs such as readilyaccessible 

stairways as an alternative to elevator use, and weatherization including subsidizing materials 

for low-income citizens. 

[[PL2.2]] Promote public education and provide energy conservation and solar and other renewable 

energy information in cooperation with local utilities and others. 

[[PL2.3]] Encourage local ‘cogeneration’ of energy when environmentally sound and not in conflict with 

other land uses. 

[[PL2.4]] Encourage buildings and site designs that result in energy efficiency and use of solar and other 

renewable energy. 

[[PL2.5]] Support efforts to protect and use solar access. 

Urban Design and Built Form 

Olympia’s Urban Design Vision and Strategy of 1991 identified the design and architectural desires and 

preferences of community residents. This study continues to provide guidance for this Comprehensive 

Plan and future development. The Vision and Strategy identified the types of development that citizens 

feel are appropriate and inappropriate for our community. Some of the images from the urban design 

vision are included in this chapter. People participating in the study particularly valued the waterfront, 

downtown, the Capitol Campus, the older established neighborhoods, and views to the Olympic 

Mountains and the Black Hills. They favored streets that provide an attractive, safe, and inviting place 

for pedestrians, as well as provide for efficient traffic flow. Specifically, they liked the portions of 

downtown where buildings form a continuous edge along the street, where it is interesting to walk, and 

where awnings protect people from the rain. 

Further studies of Olympia and other communities indicate that including open space and appropriate 

landscaping within site designs improves developments by providing places for relaxing, restoration and 

outdoor activities in general. In particular, trees provide a valuable public resource, enhance the quality 

of the environment, provide visual buffers and natural beauty, preserve the natural character of an area, 

and soften the impact of buildings and streets. Trees and other landscaping help reduce air pollution, 

noise and glare, provide cooling in summer and wind protection insulation in winter, and in some cases 

provide materials and food for wildlife and humans. 

. [[Change: Formerly Parks goal 1]] 

[[GL3]] Community beauty is combined with unique neighborhood identities.]] 

[[Change: Design review extended to all commercial structures along public streets. Removed for 

projects adjacent to historic structures.]] 

7 

Comment [K2]: Trees typically do not actually 

provide insulation to buildings.

[[PL3.1]] Require highly visible development -- such as commercial development adjacent to freeways 

and public streets, in urban corridors, downtown, and at the Port, and all housing except detached 

homes on conventionally-sized lots (5,000 square feet or larger) outside areas developed before WWII -- 

to be designed to maintain or improve the character and livability of each area or neighborhood. 

[[PL3.2]] Require commercial and residential buildings to face the street or a courtyard or other 

common area. 

[[PL3.3]] Require multi-family housing to incorporate architectural forms and features common to 

nearby housing; to include porches, balconies, bay windows and similar details; to have entries oriented 

to streets or a courtyard, and include accessible open space; and to be reduced in size near lower 

density residential districts. 

[[PL3.4]] Ensure that parking areas do not dominate street frontages nor interrupt pedestrian routes and 

are screened from single-family housing. 

[[PL3.5]] Prohibit fences and walls that inhibit walking or isolate neighborhoods from streets, except to 

reduce noise, provide buffers, or create private rear yards. 

[[PL3.6]] Create attractive entry corridors to the community and neighborhoods, especially downtown 

and along urban corridors; to include adopting design standards and installing significant special 

landscaping along community entry corridors. 

[[PL3.7]] Enhance neighborhood identity by encouraging interested groups to beautify open spaces, 

streets and private property. 

[[PL3.8]] Require that buildings complement and enhance their surroundings, appeal to and provide for 

accommodate pedestrian uses, and facilitate transit use. 

[[Change: Expanded from Capitol Lake and Budd Inlet to all water bodies.]] 

[[PL3.9]] Preserve and enhance water view corridors by retaining public rights-of-way that abut or are 

within one block of water bodies and by not siting public buildings within associated view corridors. 

[[Photo: parks_percival_1.jpg align=horizontal caption=Percival Landing is enjoyable to view and to 

enjoy the view.]] 

[[Change: View protection narrowed to certain views; and view of downtown added.]] 

[[PL3.10]] Identify and designate significant public- viewpoints and – with consideration of trees and 

other enhancing landscaping -- protect, preserve and enhance particular views of the Capitol Campus, 

Budd Inlet, Downtown skyline, Mount Rainier, the Black Hills, Capitol Lake and surrounding treed slopes, 

and the Olympic mountains, such asg: , 

• 

• Capitol Group views of the Olympic Mountains. 

8

• West Bay Park views of Capitol Group 

• Existing West Bay Park views of Olympic Mountains 

• Olympic Way sidewalk and Fourth Avenue bridge viewpoint views of the Capitol Group. 

• Existing Fourth Avenue bridge views of the Olympic Mountains 

• Upper Sunrise Park views of Mount Rainier 

• Pacific Avenue sidewalk views of Mount Rainier from Bouleveard Road to Steele Street 

• Priest Point Park views of Capitol Group and Olympic Mountains 

• East Bay Waterfront Park views of Olympic Mountains 

• Existing Brawne and Foote intersection view of Budd Inlet 

• Upper Madison Scenic Park views of Capitol Campus and downtown 

• Capitol Boulevard west-sidewalk views of Capitol Lake 

• Percival Landing views of Capitol Group and Olympic Mountains 

[[Photo: parks_percival_18.jpg align=horizontal caption=Percival Landing with the Olympics in the 

distance.]] 

[[PL3.11]] Plant and protect trees that contribute to Olympia’s visual identity and sense of place. 

[[PL3.12]] Separate incompatible land uses and activities with treed areas, including buffering residential 

areas from major streets and freeways. 

[[GL4]] Built and natural environmental designs discourage criminal behavior. 

[[PL4.1]] Incorporate crime prevention principles in planning and development review and educate 

designers regarding those principles. 

[[PL4.2]] Design new and Modify existing public facilities and properties to enhanceachieve crime 

prevention. 

Industry 

Industrial uses represent a relatively small but key component of Olympia's jobs. Olympia's waterfront 

has supported forest-related industries and maritime shipping for decades. The Olympia area also 

contains a few scattered, relatively small, light-industrial districts which support a variety of uses. 

Industrial districts in Tumwater, Lacey, and in the county will likely absorb most of the area's new, nonwaterfront-dependent 

industrial uses. However, the industrial land along Budd Inlet provides the only 

sites in the area for water-dependent industrial uses. This Plan focuses industrial development in our 

community in this area, at the Mottman Industrial Park and along Fones Road, while encouraging 

opportunities for small-scale industry integrated with other uses of land. 

In particular, the Port of Olympia owns approximately two hundred acres and adjacent tidelands of what 

is known as the ‘Port peninsula,’ an area equivalent to about 80 city blocks. The Port peninsula is a 

mixed-use industrial, commercial, retail, and recreational facility. The centerpiece of the Port peninsula 

is the international marine or ocean terminal which is used for the import and export of products. The 

main feature of the East Bay waterfront is the East Bay Marina which offers moorage, boat launch, and 

9

support facilities. A 17-acre [Cascade Pole](http://www.portolympia.com/index.aspx?NID=208) site on 

the northern end of the peninsula was used by several companies from 1940 to 1986 to treat wood 

poles with creosote and other chemicals which contaminated the soil. Although clean-up of that site is 

underway, future use of the site will be restricted. 

[[Photo: land_use21.jpg align=horizontal caption=Batdorf and Bronson Coffee Roasters at the Port of 

Olympia.]] 

The industrial portion of the Port peninsula is to continue to be a key industrial center of the 

community. It has been and is expected to continue to be a source of local family-wage jobs. It will 

handle inbound and outbound cargo by rail, truck and ship. Large buildings are anticipated for boat 

building and repair. A one-stop, full service marine facility with a large vessel haul-out and repair center 

may be added. 

[[GL5]]Industry and related development with low environmental impact is well-located to help 

diversify the local economy. 

[[PL5.1]] Encourage industry that is compatible with surrounding land uses and diversifies and 

strengthens the local economy. 

[[PL5.2]] Designate and preserve sufficient land for industry consistent with the regional strategy and 

‘build out’ of the community and competitive land prices. 

[[PL5.3]] Encourage full, intensive use of industrial areas while safeguarding the environment. Ensure 

land use compatibility by buffering, transitional uses and height limits, landscaping, traffic routing, 

building design, operation and maintenance standards. 

[[Change: Non-conflicting, non-industrial uses would be allowed in industrial areas. Former policy 

limited to industry and uses supporting industry.]] 

[[PL5.4]] Limit non-industrial uses in industrial areas to those which do not conflict with industry; and 

eliminate or reduce the size of industrial areas only if not expected to be needed or not suitable for 

industry. 

[[Change: South Bay changed from industry to auto services; specific option for someday designating a 

fourth major industrial area deleted.]] 

[[PL5.5]] Focus major industries in locations with good freeway access, adequate utilities, minimal 

environmental constraints, sufficient space and minimal land use conflicts. Specific areas identified for 

industrial use include the Port peninsula, the Mottman industrial park, and the vicinity of Fones Road. 

[[PL5.6]] Coordinate with Port of Olympia to ensure long-term viability of Port peninsula industry, 

compatibility with surrounding uses, and continuation of marina uses along East Bay. Such coordination 

should at least address transportation, pedestrian and recreation facilities, environmental stewardship, 

and overwater development. 

[[PL5.7]] Design industrial areas for convenient freight access. 

10 

Comment [K3]: It is my opinion that it is not the 

city role to provide’ competitive prices.’ For private 

land – this is over-reaching what the city can do in 

terms of the land market.

[[Change: New policy re light industry.]] 

[[PL5.8]] Provide opportunities for light industrial uses in commercial areas consistent with the 

commercial and multi-family uses of those areas, such as low-impact production within buildings with 

retail storefronts. 

Commercial Uses and Urban Corridors 

Greater development intensity and activity in commercial areas will increase their vitality and facilitate 

provision of an excellent transit system and make better use of the street system. To encourage more 

intensive use of these established commercial areas, major new commercial areas are not to be created. 

Instead, any new commercial areas will be limited to neighborhood-oriented businesses and services in 

the neighborhood centers of residential areas that reduce the need for residents to leave their 

neighborhoods for convenient shopping. 

Over time, our vision is for existing commercial areas to become more attractive to pedestrians and 

other customers, and to accommodate a more balanced mix of commercial, residential, and recreational 

uses. Significant changes will need to occur in some of our commercial areas to increase their appeal as 

places to shop, live, work, and visit and to become more inviting for pedestrian and transit users, these 

higher-density, pedestrian- friendly, mixed-use areas. 

[[GL6]] Adequate commercial land conveniently serves local and regional trade areas. 

[[PL6.1]] Encourage increasing the intensity and diversity of development in existing commercial areas 

with a mix of commercial and multi-family development plus entertainment and cultural centers 

sufficient to reduce reliance on cars and enable people to work, shop, recreate and reside in the same 

area. 

[[PL6.2]] Provide incentives for housing in commercial districts near high frequency transit stops. 

[[PL6.3]] Work with developers to identify commercial areas for infill and redevelopment, to remove 

unnecessary barriers to such development, and to identify and construct needed infrastructure for 

intensive commercial and mixed use development. 

[[PL6.4]] Locate and size commercial areas to decrease reliance on cars, improve community life, and 

maintain the tax base. 

[[Change: Policy of not having on-street parking where it would “unduly slow traffic flow” deleted.]] 

[[PL6.5]] Encourage efficient use and design of commercial parking areas, reduce parking requirements 

(but avoid significant overflow into residential areas) and support parking structures, especially 

downtown and in urban corridors, and designate streets for on-street parking where safe. 

[[PL6.6]] Encourage new commercial uses adjacent to the arterial street edge and in mixed-use projects. 

[[PL6.7]] Provide convenient pedestrian access to and between businesses. 

11

[[PL6.8]] Prohibit new and expanded commercial ‘strips;’ and allow conversion of such existing uses to a 

multi-use development with greater depth and integration of residential units. 

[[PL6.9]] Provide for low-intensity auto-dependent commerce outside urban corridors; with wholesale 

businesses near major customers or where resulting traffic will not impact retail areas. 

[[GL7]] Commercial areas are attractive, functional and appealing. 

[[PL7.1]] Work with businesses and residents to improve the function and aesthetics of commercial 

areas. 

[[PL7.2]] Establish maximum building heights that are proportional to streets, retain scenic views and 

are compatible with adjoining development. 

[[PL7.3]] Seek opportunities to create or enhance town squares framed by commercial or civic buildings, 

pocket parks, plazas and other small public or private spaces in downtown or other high-density areas. 

[[PL7.4]] Ensure compatibility of commercial uses with adjoining residential districts through 

development regulations. This might include prohibiting reflective surfaces, regulating emissions, and 

requiring facades with architectural features that reduce perceived building scale, step backs and tiering 

above three stories, screening of solid waste and parking areas, and size-reductions and increased 

setbacks where within 100 feet of residential districts. 

[[PL7.5]] Require commercial and public building and site designs to complement existing development 

and maintain or improve the area’s appearance. This includes buildings with a defined bottom, middle, 

and top; architectural elements and details appealing to pedestrians such as windows, wall detailing, 

fountains, vendor stations, and sidewalk features; and use of balconies, stepped back stories, pitched 

roofs and other elements that reduce the perceived building scale. 

[[PL7.6]] Create visual continuity along arterial streets through coordinated site planning, landscaping, 

building designs, signage and streetscapes. 

[[PL7.7]] Require screening of unattractive site features such as mechanical equipment and large solid 

waste receptacles, consistent with access for collection and maintenance. 

[[PL7.8]] Use the EDDS and design standards to ensure direct, convenient access to commercial and 

public buildings for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

[[PL7.9]] Require parking to maintain aesthetics and minimize pedestrian barriers and inconvenience by 

requiring screening along streets and residential areas; limiting parking lots to one contiguous acre, and 

locating then at the rear of buildings, or if the rear is not possible then on the side but with minimal 

street frontage. 

[[PL7.10]] Ensure that business signs identify the business but do not create visual clutter or dominate 

the character of the area; require the use of low or façade-mounted signs where possible. 

12

Urban Corridors 

Portions of our major arterial streets are lined with low-density residential and office uses and typical 

strip commercial development. Driveways to each business interrupt and slow the flow of vehicular and 

pedestrian traffic; the pattern of buildings setback behind parking lots makes pedestrian access difficult 

and uninviting; and the disjointed signage, landscaping, and building designs are often unattractive. As a 

result, these areas have limited appeal as places to live, work, and shop. 

Over time, areas near certain major streets will change from areas dominated by strip commercial 

development and other low intensity uses into ‘urban corridors’ with a mix of high-density uses where 

people enjoy walking, shopping, working, and living. See map __. These urban corridors are a key to the 

community’s strategy for avoiding sprawl by providing an appealing housing alternative for people who 

want to live in an attractive, bustling urban environment close to transit, work and shopping. 

Redevelopment along these corridors will be focused in areas with the greatest potential for intensive 

mixed use development so that public and private investment will have maximum benefit. These 

corridors, first described in the 1993 Thurston Regional Transportation Plan, should include supporting 

land uses such as community centers, day care centers, social service offices, educational functions, and 

parks and other public open space. 

In cooperation with Lacey, Tumwater and Thurston County, this Plan calls for a gradual redevelopment 

of these urban corridors as described below with: 

• A compatible mixture of housing, such as apartments and townhouses, within or near 

commercial uses. 

• Excellent, frequent transit service. 

• Housing and employment densities sufficient to support that transit service. 

• Wide sidewalks with street trees, attractive landscaping, and benches. 

• Multi-story buildings oriented toward the street rather than to parking lots. 

• Parking spaces located behind the buildings or in structures. 

[[Illustration: (from top of page 52 of current plan) align=horizontal caption=Urban Corridors: Converting 

from this to this.]] 

[[Illustration: (two illustrations of page 56) align=horizontal caption=Or from this to this. 

Slightly less intensive land uses at the fringes of the corridors will provide for a gradual transition from 

the intense activity of the major street edge to less dense areas about one-quarter mile from the main 

street. Similarly, areas furthest from the downtown core are expected to infill and redevelop with 

excellent support for those using alternative transportation to and through the area while continuing to 

support those arriving by car. 

[[Change: Covered-walkways deleted from “HDC-3”.]] 

Features of these outer reaches of the urban corridors will include buildings and walkways located for 

safer and easier pedestrian access, walkway linking bus stop with stores, pedestrian access from 

neighboring residences, free-standing businesses located on corners for better pedestrian access, and 

interior walkways connected with perimeter sidewalks. 

13

[[GL8]] Attractive urban corridors of mixed uses are established near specified major streets. 

[[PL8.1]] Establish urban corridors as shown on figure 2a with sufficient area (about ½ mile wide) and 

potential employment and residential density (over 15 housing units per acre) to support frequent 

transit service, encourage pedestrian traffic between businesses, provide a large customer base and 

minimize auto use for local trips. 

[[Change: Revised policy reflects that 1993 regional transportation plan has been superseded.]] 

[[PL8.2]] Coordinate urban corridor planning and development regionally to ensure a continuous, 

consistent and balanced approach to redevelopment, and improvement of these areas and associated 

public facilities and services. 

[[PL8.3]] Transform urban corridors into areas with excellent transit service; multi-story buildings 

fronting major streets with street trees, benches and landscaping; parking lots behind buildings; and a 

compatible mix of residential uses close to commercial uses. 

[[PL8.4]] Establish minimum housing densities in urban corridors, that provide sufficient density for 

frequent transit service and to sustain area businesses. 

[[Change: Rewritten re outer edge of corridors.]] 

[[PL8.5]] Ensure appropriate transitional land uses from high intensity land uses along the arterial streets 

of the urban corridors to the less intensive land uses at the fringe of the corridors; generally the most 

intensive uses will be within 400 feet of the major streets; corridor redevelopment should enhance both 

the corridor and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. 

[[PL8.6]] Focus public intervention and incentives on encouraging housing and walking, biking and 

transit improvements in the portions of the urban corridors nearest downtown and other areas with 

substantial potential for redevelopment consistent with this Plan. 

[[PL8.7]] Designate different categories of corridors generally as follows: 

• Areas nearest downtown should blend travel modes with priority for pedestrian, bicycle and 

transit systems; these areas should provide for a mix of low-intensity professional offices, small 

commercial uses and multi-family buildings (not exceeding three stories) forming a continuous 

and pedestrian-oriented edge along the arterial streets. 

• The Harrison Avenue corridor nearer Division Street and upper portions of the State Street / 

Fourth Avenue corridor will provide for a greater range and intensity of commercial uses but 

with the same three-story height limit; in other respects it will not differ substantially from the 

corridor sections nearer downtown. 

• From the vicinity of the Division Street intersection west along Harrison and Fourth Avenues to 

Kenyon Street and western portions of Martin Way and Pacific Avenues form the third corridor 

category where the primary transportation mode is by car, but pedestrian and bicycle, as well as 

transit use, is encouraged; redevelopment of this area is expected with more density and new 

buildings gradually creating a continuous street edge and more pedestrian-friendly streetscape. 

14

• The outer portions of the urban corridors in the vicinity of Capital Mall and easterly of Phoenix 

Street will primarily be accessed by motor vehicles with provisions for pedestrian and bicycle 

travel; gradual transition from existing suburban character is to form continuous pedestrianfriendly 

streetscapes, but more regulatory flexibility will be provided to acknowledge the 

existing surburban nature of these areas. (See Capital Mall special area below.) 

Focus areas 

The pdf version I have contains a paragraph HERE. Language in that paragraph references ‘pedestrian 

amenities’ – which should be changed to language that indicates provisions for walking, not just the 

weak term ‘amenities.’ 

Several of the city's commercial and industrial areas have distinct roles, opportunities, and limitations. 

This section provides further guidance for the future of some of these areas. (See Special Areas Map 

___.) As described below, some areas, such as the vicinity of Capital Mall, are envisioned as areas that 

will gradually convert into urban neighborhoods with a mixture of land uses, while others, such as the 

Auto Mall area, are to be reserved primarily for one or two primary uses. In three of these areas within 

the urban corridors (see Special Areas Map) the City will focus more detailed planning attention, 

possibly in the form of a ‘master plan’ addressing issues such as land uses, infrastructure and design. 

The City will carry out this planning in cooperation with landowners and other interested parties. 

[[Change: To avoid confusing Port planning with City planning, extensive summary of Port’s Plan 

deleted.]] 

In addition to the focus areas described below, the City works with the State of Washington in its 

preparation of the [Capitol Campus Master Plan](http://www.ga.wa.gov/MasterPlan/index.html) and 

with the Port of Olympia in its planning of its properties including the Port peninsula. Included in these 

efforts is the continuing goal of integrating these latter areas with downtown Olympia. The Future Land 

Use Map frames all of these planning efforts. 

Capital Mall area 

The Capital Mall area is a regional shopping center, which also includes one of the area’s best balances 

of jobs within walking distance of medium-density housing. This area should continue to be 

economically viable and contribute to the community’s goals with infill, redevelopment, and 

connections to adjacent areas for all modes of travel. It is to evolve into a complete urban neighborhood 

with a mix of jobs, housing, and services. Redevelopment and incremental expansion consistent with 

community goals will allow the mall to flexibly adapt to retail trends. Design standards will encourage 

continued infill and redevelopment in the vicinity of 4th Avenue and Kenyon Street so that the potential 

of the mall and its surrounding properties can be fully realized. As illustrated below, redevelopment to 

the north, south, east and west will incorporate vehicle access and circulation with the addition of 

building focal points, significant entries and enhanced pedestrian linkages from the adjacent areas to 

these focal points. 

[[Illustration: (in progress – page 46 of current plan) align=horizontal caption=A plan for linking Capital 

Mall to its neighborhood.]] 

15

[[Photo: landuse_52.jpg align=vertical caption=One of the auto mall dealers.]] 

Auto Mall Area 

The Olympia Auto Mall is the region's major center for auto sales and specialized services. Most of 

Thurston County's new and used car dealers are located here, along with firms offering light trucks and 

motorcycles, auto rentals, body repair and detailing, and other auto-oriented businesses. Because it 

offers so many opportunities for comparison shopping in one location, it is a highly successful group of 

businesses, attracting customers from a regional trade area. It is also one of the community’s 

employment centers. It should continue to serve the community successfully with its proven formula for 

many years to come. 

Lilly and Martin area 

The Medical Services district along Lilly Road near Martin Way is home to a regional hospital and 

numerous medical and dental clinics and offices. This area has the potential for additional health-care 

related uses; complementary uses that serve the needs of area businesses, workers and residents; and 

carefully integrated multi-family, senior citizen, and assisted-living housing. However, portions of Martin 

Way remain in the form originally built as a rural highway.The community’s vision provides for this area 

to evolve into a medically-oriented neighborhood with jobs, housing, and supporting services. 

Pacific Avenue and Lilly Road area 

The vicinity of the intersection of Pacific Avenue and Lilly Road, like the nearby Stoll Road area, has the 

potential to become a unique area within an urban corridor. This focus area is positioned adjacent to a 

regional trail and between two shopping centers and includes a nearly complete street grid with many 

single-family homes. This location provides good access to retail services for daily and weekly shopping 

needs within easy walking distance, and is large enough for creative designs. There is excellent transit 

service on both Pacific Avenue and Lilly Road. But the area also includes challenges, such as substandard 

public improvements, a lack of nearby parks, and surrounding traffic. This area is envisioned as 

transitioning to higher intensity uses consistent with its location between two urban corridors. The 

Pacific and Lilly focus area should be developed with a mix of retail, service, and high density residential 

uses. 

West Bay Drive 

Conditions in the West Bay Drive area represent a challenging mix of opportunities and constraints. 

Several sites along the shore are significant in Squaxin Island Tribal cultural history. Industrial use of this 

waterfront dates to the nineteenth century. Nonetheless, the shallow waters along this shoreline 

continue to provide crucial habitat for young salmon leaving the Deschutes River basin. Birds, marine 

and upland mammals, and other wildlife species are relatively common for an urban area. A U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service conservation easement in that area known as the Port Lagoon serves as a fish and 

wildlife conservancy area. 

[[Change: More detailed history of area deleted.]] 

Most of the industries have now relocated and only fragments of the waterborne commerce remain. 

The community foresees continued transition of the West Bay Drive area toward such a mix of urban 

uses and habitat improvements, while also allowing existing industries and shipping facilities to remain 

16

economically viable. The resulting mix of uses should form the foundation for a vibrant mix of light 

industrial, office, restaurant, commercial, recreational, and residential uses, that also provides for 

improved habitat for fish and wildlife in this waterfront location. Future development of land uses and 

street improvements in this corridor will be consistent with the West Bay Corridor Study of 2005. 

[[Change: Urban (overwater) Waterfront Plan section moved to in Environment Chapter.]] 

[[GL9]] Focus areas are planned in cooperation with property owners and residents. 

[[PL9.1]] Maximize the potential of the Capital Mall area as a regional shopping center by encouraging 

development that caters to a regional market, by providing pedestrian walkways between businesses 

and areas; by increasing shopper-convenience and reducing traffic by supporting transit service linked to 

downtown; by encouraging redevelopment of parking areas with buildings and parking structures; and 

by encouraging the integration of multifamily housing. 

[[PL9.2]] Maximize the potential of the Olympia Auto Mall area as a regional auto sales and services 

center by encouraging its use for auto sales and services and limiting incompatible activities, and by 

imposing auto-oriented design guidelines along Cooper Point Road that ensure pleasing landscaping, 

minimal visual clutter, and easy pedestrian and vehicle access. 

[[PL9.3]] Enhance the Lilly Road hospital area as a medical services center by encouraging health-care 

supporting uses such as restaurants, florists, child care, and convenience shops, and upper floor and rear 

multi-family and senior housing nursing homes; and by prohibiting non-medical uses that would 

generate high traffic volumes or noise disruptive of recuperation. 

[[Change: Stoll Road area and minimum residential density added.]] 

[[PL9.4]] Plan for redevelopment of the Stoll Road area and that area bounded by Lilly Road, Pacific 

Avenue and I-5 as ‘focus areas’ adjacent to the Pacific Avenue and Martin Way urban corridors to 

include retail, office, personal and professional services and high density housing with a minimum 

residential density of about 15 units per acre; planning for these areas should encompass consideration 

of redevelopment and improvement of nearby portions of the urban corridor. 

[[PL9.5]] In the West Bay Drive area provide for a mix of recreation and urban uses that enhance wildlife 

habitat and cultural resources; limit industrial uses to existing sites; minimize blockage of upland views; 

and connect the area to the south with an urban trail. 

[[Photo: landuse_33.jpg align=vertical caption=SPSCC campus entrance.]] 


[[PL9.6]] Work cooperatively with the State of Washington regarding planning for the Capitol Campus 

and provide opportunities for long-term ‘master planning’ of other single-purpose properties of at least 

twenty(?) acres such as hospitals and the college and high-school campuses. 

[[Photo nature_1.jpg align=horizontal caption=]] 

17 

Comment [K4]: New high school campus should 

not need to be this large.

Housing 

Adequate and affordable housing is critical to a healthy community. The Growth Management Act 

directs that planning for housing: 

• Encourage affordable housing for all economic segments of the population. 

• Promote a variety of residential densities and housing types. 

• Encourage preservation of existing housing stock. 

• Identify sufficient land for housing, including government-assisted housing, housing for lowincome 

families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, and group homes and foster care 

facilities. 

The strategies of this chapter depend on well-formulated design standards to promote flexibility and 

stimulate innovation while preserving and enhancing the character of neighborhoods. We seek to 

establish and encourage diversity in housing opportunity and link diverse neighborhoods. The housing 

goals and policies below provide a framework for residential land uses in Olympia’s area. The City’s 

related programs for supporting affordable housing are found in the Service for the Public chapter. 

[[Photo: landuse_58.jpg align=vertical caption=An apartment building being added to the City’s housing 

stock.]] 

Many factors contribute to the need for more housing of various types: 

• Olympia’s growing residential population. 

• Household incomes vary. 

• The capitol’s legislative session creates a demand for short-term housing. 

• College students seek affordable housing near transportation corridors and services. 

• Household sizes are declining. 

• The proportion of senior citizens is increasing. 

To meet this need, the community will use compact growth to preserve space for future residents and 

reduce costs of providing public services. To ensure a variety of options, the community will need to 

allocate sufficient land for a variety of housing including detached homes, duplexes, group homes, small 

cottages, apartments, special needs housing, manufactured housing, and accessory dwellings. This 

approach can provide both variety and affordable options. For example, factory-built manufactured 

housing governed by federal standards and modular housing built to state standards are often less 

expensive than site-built housing. This Plan provides for these types of units and more luxurious and 

higher-priced shared-wall housing, including condominiums and townhouses. 

[[Chart: (in progress update of Table XI-4) align=horizontal caption=Trends in housing costs, income and 

housing tenure 1990 to 2010.]] 

[[Chart: (in progress update of table xi-5) align=horizontal caption=Estimated housing units needed by 

income category and forecast period.]] 

18

[[GL10]] The range of housing types and densities are consistent with the community’s 

changing population needs and preferences. 

[[PL10.1]] Support increasing housing densities through well-designed, efficient and cost-effective use of 

buildable land, consistent with environmental constraints and affordability. Use both incentives and 

regulations such as minimum and maximum density limits to achieve such efficient use. 

[[PL10.2]] Adopt zoning that allows a wide variety of compatible housing types and densities. 

[[PL10.3]] Encourage ‘clustering’ of housing to preserve and protect environmentally sensitive areas. 

[[PL10.4]] Disperse low and moderate-income and special needs housing throughout the urban area. 

[[PL10.5]] Support affordable housing throughout the community by minimizing regulatory review risks, 

time and costs and removing unnecessary barriers to housing, by permitting small dwelling units 

accessory to single-family housing, and by allowing a mix of housing types. 

[[PL10.6]] Promote home ownership, including by allowing manufactured homes on individual lots, 

promoting preservation of manufactured home parks and allowing such parks in multi-family and 

commercial areas, all subject to design standards ensuring compatibility with surrounding housing and 

land uses. 

[[PL10.7]] Allow single-family housing on small lots, but prohibit reduced setbacks abutting conventional 

lots. But provide for adequate setbacks abutting conventional lots. 

[[PL10.8]] Encourage and provide incentives for residences above businesses. 

[[Change: Provisions for small cottages and townhouses expanded from ‘higher density’ to all residential 

areas. One ADU limit is from LU 8.2]] 

[[PL10.9]] In all residential areas, allow small cottages and townhouses, and one accessory housing unit 

per home --all subject to siting, design and parking requirements that ensure neighborhood character is 

maintained. 

[[PL10.10]] Require effective, but not unduly costly, building designs and landscaping to blend multifamily 

housing into neighborhoods. 

[[PL10.11]] Require that multi-family structures be located near a collector street with transit, an 

arterial, or near neighborhood centers, and that they be designed for compatibility with adjacent lower 

density housing; and be ‘stepped’ to conform with topography. 

[[Change: Ten-acre threshold reduced to five.]] 

[[PL10.12]] Require a mix of single-family and multi-family structures in villages, mixed residential 

density districts, and apartment projects exceeding five acres; and utilize a variety of housing types and 

setbacks to transition to adjacent single-family areas. 

[[PL10.13]] Encourage adapting non-residential buildings for housing. 

19 

Comment [K5]: The ‘reduce barriers’ language 

applies to all regulation in some way – and should 

not be called out here. The phrase ‘minimizing risks’ 

implies that somehow the city would give special 

treatment in terms of compliance for this type of 

housing. 

Comment [K6]: A reduction to the existing 

regulation would require a variance

Downtown and other Neighborhoods 

We endeavor to prepare special-area plans and studies to help guide the future of targeted areas within 

our community. Leadership for plan preparation will vary by location and purpose, and priorities depend 

on funding availability and the potential for appropriate development or redevelopment. Generally, 

these plans feature the location, size and type of land uses; residential and employment density targets; 

pedestrian amenities; street system and parking location and quantity; and other public improvements. 

A few specific areas have been identified, as described below and shown on the Special Areas Map. 

More may be identified in the future. 

[[Map: (in progress – special areas map) align=horizontal caption=These Special Areas of the City will 

receive more focused planning efforts.]] 

Downtown Olympia 

[[Change: “Vision for Downtown” moved to Downtown Master Plan – a complementary document to be 

adopted by City Council concurrently with the updated Comprehensive Plan. The Downtown Master 

Plan may be adopted by reference as part of the Comprehensive Plan or may be a separate Plan.]] 

Given its history, physical location and established identity, downtown Olympia is truly the heart of 

Olympia and the region. Downtown Olympia thus deserves and receives special attention. A city with a 

thriving downtown has more potential for bolstering community spirit and providing a healthy local 

economy. A community needs a “heart.” For our community, the downtown area performs this role, not 

just for our community, but for the larger region. 

Olympia's downtown includes over 500 acres. It is bounded generally by the State Capitol Campus, 

Capitol Lake, Budd Inlet, and Eastside Street. This area includes Olympia's retail core, State and other 

office uses, and access to the waterfront, and is the center of most major transportation links. It is the 

social, cultural, and economic center of the area. Downtown will continue to be an attractive place to 

live, work and play. Future office, retail and residential development will bolster downtown's role as a 

regional center and home of state government, commerce, and industry.. 

[[GL11]] Regional urban activity is centered in downtown Olympia. 

[[PL11.1]] Adopt a Downtown Master Plan addressing – at minimum – housing, public spaces, parking 

management, rehabilitation and redevelopment, architecture and cultural resources, building skyline 

and views, and relationships to the Port peninsula and Capitol Campus. 

[[PL11.2]] Include public art and public places in the downtown landscape. . 

[[PL11.3]] Encourage intensive downtown residential and commercial development (at least 15 units 

and 25 employees per acre) through aggressive marketing and height bonuses to support frequent 

transit service. 

[[PL11.4]] Encourage development that caters to a regional market. 

[[Change: New Policy]] 

20

[[PL11.5]] Coordinate with State of Washington and Port of Olympia to ensure that both the Capitol 

Campus plan and Port peninsula development are consistent with and support the community’s vision 

for downtown Olympia. 

[[Photo: landuse_14.jpg align:horizontal caption:The Farmers’ Market, where downtown meets the 

Port.]] 

[[PL11.6]] Landscape downtown to support urban activity, including with street trees, planters and 

baskets, banners, community gardens and other decorative improvements. 

[[GL12]] Downtown designs express Olympia’s heritage and future in a compact and pedestrianoriented 

manner. 

[[PL12.1]] Regulate the design of downtown development with specific but flexible guidelines that allow 

for creativity and innovation, enhance historic architecture and recognize distinct areas of downtown, 

and do not discourage development. 

[[PL12.2]] Require that downtown development provide active spaces, adequate sunlight and air-flow 

and minimize ‘blank’ walls at street level. 

[[PL12.3]] Encourage Require development designs that favor pedestrian circulation over auto traffic by 

including awnings and rain protection consistent with historic architecture, minimizing security and 

safety risks, creating pedestrian interest,and supporting sociable uses such as cultural events, 

entertainment and tourism. . 

[[Change: Provision for private use of right-of-way expanded to other public land.]] 

[[PL12.4]] Design streets with landscaping, wide sidewalks, underground utilities and a coordinated 

pattern of unifying details; and provide for private use of public lands and rights-of-way when in the best 

interest of the community. 

[[PL12.5]] Designate ‘pedestrian streets’ where most of the frontage will have ‘people-oriented’ 

activities, and street-level buildings will have a high proportion of glass. Prohibit parking lots along 

these streets, except when preserving scenic views and instead provide for surface parking along other 

streets. 

[[Change: Buffering Port industry deleted.]] 

[[PL12.6]] Protect, plant and maintain trees downtown to enhance the pedestrian experience and 

provide natural beauty; include a coordinated pattern of street trees, and pay special attention to 

Legion Way and Sylvester Park and a buffer from the Port terminal. 

[[PL12.7]] Limit drive-through facilities to the vicinity of the Plum Street interchange, and prohibit them 

in downtown. 

[[Change: New policy supporting existing height regulation.]] 

21

[[PL12.8]] Limit building heights to accentuate, and retain views of, the Capitol dome. 

Neighborhoods, Villages and Planning Sub-Areas 

This section contains the goals and policies that will protect and improve the character and livability of 

our established neighborhoods and shape our new neighborhoods. All of the city’s neighborhoods are 

envisioned as places where many features are available within a ten-minute walk. A variety of housing 

types located along pedestrian-oriented streets will provide quality living opportunities. Most housing 

will be single-family detached homes, but higher density housing will be available near major streets and 

commercial areas to take advantage of transit, other services, and employment opportunities. Housing 

types and densities will be dispersed throughout the city to minimize social problems sometimes 

associated with isolating people of similar means and lifestyles. 

[[Photo neighbor_2.jpg align=vertical caption=One of Olympia’s many attractive neighborhoods.]] 

[[Change: Features of ‘villages’ deleted from this section.]] 

[[Change: Alternative place of assembly added.]] 

Each neighborhood should have: 

• Narrow tree-lined streets for easy and interesting walking, bicycling, and travel access to nearby 

transit. 

• A system of open space and trails with a neighborhood park. 

• A readily-accessible elementary school or other place of public assembly. 

• Diverse housing types that accommodate varying income levels, household sizes, and lifestyles. 

• Sufficient housing densities to support frequent walking-distance transit service and sustain 

neighborhood businesses. 

• A neighborhood center with businesses serving area residents. 

[[Photo landuse_9.jpg align=vertical caption=A neighborhood grocery near the Capitol.]]A large portion 

of Olympia’s residents are to live within a quarter-mile of a neighborhood center. These centers will be 

the focal point of neighborhoods. Although they will vary by location, they generally should contain 

small-scale convenience and service businesses, a transit stop and a neighborhood park and be bounded 

by moderate or high-density housing. See Figure __. These neighborhood centers will serve as activity 

hubs or small-scale town squares that foster social interaction and a sense of community and 

accommodate nearby residents' routine shopping needs. Where possible, Aa network of walking and 

biking routes that provide both recreational and commuting opportunities will connect these 

neighborhood centers to parks, schools, and downtown. To minimize traffic impacts and provide for 

transit service, these centers will be near major streets. Approximate locations for these centers are 

shown on the Future Land Use Map. 

Although neighborhoods will have some common features, we recognize that each place is unique. 

Therefore, a public process for planning for distinct areas within the community is envisioned. This 

process is described in the Public Participation Chapter and will focus on the planning areas on Map __. 

In addition, as described below, site-specific plans will be prepared for a few select other areas of the 

22 

Comment [K7]: This section needs updating to 

reflect current reality, future directions. The last 

sentence indicates ‘dispersed’ while focus of 

corridors is high density housing. 

Comment [K8]: Not sure if this is the future 

trend for types of housing. 

Comment [K9]: Frequent, convenient transit 

cannot go through and to every location – but 

neighborhoods could be near, or walking distance 

to, a transit route.

community. All of these areas are critical to the successful implementation of this Comprehensive Plan 

and thus deserving of extraordinary attention. 

[[Photo: trans nice st 2.jpg align=horizontal caption:Shady sidewalks provide neighborhood character.]] 

[[GL13]] Development maintains and improves neighborhood character and livability. 

[[Change: Details of policy deleted.]] 

[[PL13.1]] Require development in established neighborhoods to be of a type, scale, orientation, and 

design that maintains or improves the character, aesthetic quality, and livability of the neighborhood. 

[[PL13.2]] Prohibit conversion of housing in residential districts to commercial use; instead, support 

redevelopment and rehabilitation of older neighborhoods to bolster stability and allow home 

occupations (except convalescent care) that do not degrade neighborhood appearance or livability, 

create traffic, noise or pollution problems. 

[[Change:Seniors-only housing added]] 

[[PL13.3]] Allow elder care homes and seniors-only housing and encourage child care services 

everywhere except industrial areas; but limit hospice care to multi-family and commercial districts. 

[[Change:Urban ag support added.]] 

[[PL13.4]] Support local food production including urban agriculture, and provide for a food store with a 

transit stop within one-quarter mile of all residents. 


[[PL13.5]] Encourage development and public improvements consistent with healthy and active 

lifestyles. 


[[PL13.6]] Discourage ‘fortress-style’ and unnecessarily securefenced or walled designs that isolate 

developments and separate neighborhoods. Public street and walkway spacing is regulated in the EDDS. 

[[GL14]] Neighborhood centers are the focal point of neighborhoods and villages. 

[[PL14.1]] Establish a neighborhood center at each village site, encourage development of designated 

neighborhood centers as shown on Future Land Use Map and allow designation of additional centers 

where compatible with existing land uses and where they are more than one-half mile from other 

commercial areas. 

[[PL14.2]] Locate neighborhood centers along collector or arterial streets and within about 600 feet of a 

transit stop. 

[[Change: Requirement for day care in n’hood center removed; specific commercial size limits deleted.]] 

23 

Comment [K10]: Transit is shown in other goals 

and policies. It mixes up this policy to include 

transit. 

Comment [K11]: This takes care of deleting 

transit stop from the food store policy above.

[[PL14.3]] Include housing, a food store, and neighborhood park or civic green, at all neighborhood 

centers. Allow churches, schools, and convenience businesses and services that cater primarily to 

neighborhood residents. Prohibit auto-oriented uses. Vary the specific size and composition of such 

centers for balance with surrounding uses; focus commercial uses on the civic green or park, and limit 

the size of commercial uses. . (Note: A larger urban center is permitted in the Briggs Urban Village.) 

[[PL14.4]] Allow neighborhood center designs that are innovative and provide variety, but that ensure 

compatibility with adjoining uses. Consider appropriate phasing, scale, design and exterior materials, as 

well as glare, noise and traffic impacts when evaluating compatibility. Require buildings with primary 

access directly from street sidewalks, orientation to any adjacent park or green and to any adjacent 

housing, and signage consistent with neighborhood character. 

[[PL14.5]] Locate streets and trails for non-arterial access to the neighborhood center. 

[[GL15]] Trees help maintain strong and healthy neighborhoods. 

[[PL15.1]] Use Provide for trees to foster a sense of neighborhood identity. 

[[PL15.2]] Identify, protect and maintain trees with historic significance or other value to the community 

or specific neighborhoods. 

Subarea Planning 

[[Change: “Subarea planning” is a concept formerly in Olympia’s Comprehensive Plan, but delted many 

years ago. It’s being reinserted to provide a public process for focusing on smaller portions of the 

Olympia area with contiguous geographies and some common challenges and opportunities.]] 

Much of this Plan applies to the entire Olympia community. However, this is a large area of over ten 

square miles with tens of thousands of residents. Thus this Plan cannot address all of the details of our 

community. Planning areas, as depicted on the map below, are established to provide that opportunity. 

The Planning Areas Map displays the eleven planning areas of the City. In general, planning areas are 

comparable to the scale of a elementary-school service area with five to ten thousand residents. As 

described in the ___ Chapter, this scale will provide the opportunity for the community to do more 

detailed planning for these areas. Although more detailed, these subarea plans must be consistent with 

this Comprehensive Plan. 

[[Map: (in progress – new map of planning areas) align=horizontal caption=Focusing on these Planning 

Areas, plus the Downtown Master Plan, provides a more detailed planning perspective.]] 

[[Change: New goal and policies]] 

[[GL16]] Each of the community’s major neighborhoods have their own priorities. 

[[PL16.1]] In cooperation with residents, landowners, businesses, and other interested parties, prepare 

special area plans for the subareas shown on Planning Areas Map. The specific area, content, and 

process for each is to be adapted to the needs and interests of each area. (See [public involvement] 

regarding public involvement goals.) 

24

[[PL16.2]] Create subarea plans that address provisions and priorities for community health, 

neighborhood centers and places of assembly, streets and paths, cultural resources, forestry, utilities, 

and open space and parks. 

[[Change: Formerly a citywide policy.]] 

[[PL16.3]] Develop neighborhood and business community approaches to beautification that include 

activities in residential and commercial areas. 

‘Villages’ and other Planned Developments 

Sites for ‘neighborhood villages,’ one ‘urban village,’ and the older Evergreen Park planned unit 

development, each with a compatible mixture of single and multifamily housing and businesses, are 

designated within the urban area. (See Map __.) These mixed use projects are to provide for a 

coordinated, compatible mixture of single and multifamily housing arranged around a readily-accessible 

neighborhood center. See Neighborhood Center description above. The locations and mix of land uses 

and the design of the street and trail system in these areas are to create an environment that 

encourages walking, biking and use of transit, while providing direct, pleasant routes for motorists. 

These ‘villages’ will foster efficient land use through compact, higher density development with 

residential uses near bus stops and basic retail and support services. 

The smaller ‘neighborhood villages’ will typically consist of single-family detached homes, townhouses 

and multifamily units, surrounding a small neighborhood center. The ‘urban village’ will be more diverse 

and intensely developed. The businesses of the urban village will serve a larger area and may include a 

supermarket, offices, and a broad array of predominantly neighborhood-oriented businesses and 

services. (See ??) Both the neighborhood villages and urban villages are to be designed as coordinated, 

integrated projects with a compatible mix of land uses. Development phasing requirements will ensure 

that each project component and amenity is developed at the appropriate time. While these villages 

and Evergreen Park PUD will have many characteristics in common, the design and composition of each 

project will vary in response to site conditions, location, market demand, available street and utility 

capacity, and the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and will evolve over time. 

[[GL17]] Mixed use developments, also known as “villages,” are planned with a pedestrian 

orientation and a coordinated and balanced mix of land uses. 

[[PL17.1]] Require planned development sites shown on the Future Land Use Map to develop as 

coordinated, mixed-use projects. 

[[PL17.2]] Provide for any redevelopment or redesign of planned developments including the Evergreen 

Park Planned Unit Development to be consistent with the ‘village vision’ of this Plan. 

[[PL17.3]] Require ‘master plans’ for villages that encompass the entire site and specify the project 

phasing, street layout and design, lot arrangement, land uses, parks and open space, building 

orientation, environmental protection and neighborhood compatibility measures. 

25

[[PL17.4]] Provide for a compatible mix of housing in each village with pleasant living, shopping and 

working environment, pedestrian-oriented character, well-located and sized open spaces, attractive 

well-connected streets and a balance of retail stores, offices, housing, and public uses. 

NEW POLICY 

Require that neighborhood villages and planned development sites of all types connect to surrounding 

neighborhoods with streets, trails and public pathway connections at required street interval spacing. 

[[PL17.5]] Require a neighborhood center, a variety of housing, connected trails, prominent open 

spaces, wildlife habitat, and recreation areas in each village. 

[[PL17.6]] Require that villages retain the natural topography and major environmental features of the 

site and incorporate water bodies and stormwater ponds into the design to minimize environmental 

degradation. 

[[Photo: parks_yauger_5.jpg align=horizontal caption=New landscaping beautifies and stormwater 

pond.]] 

[[PL17.7]] Locate parking lots at the rear or side of buildings, to avoid pedestrian interference and to 

minimize street frontage. Landscape any parking adjacent to streets and minimize parking within 

villages by reducing requirements and providing shared parking incentives. 

[[PL17.8]] Require village integrity but provide flexibility for developers to respond to market conditions. 

[[PL17.9]] Limit each village to about 40 to 200 acres; require that at least 60% but allow no more than 

75% of housing to be single-family units; and require at least 5% of the site be open space with at least 

one large usable open space for the public at the neighborhood center. 

[[PL17.10]] Require that 90% of village housing be within ¼ mile of the neighborhood center and a 

transit stop. 

[[PL17.11]] Provide for a single “urban village” at the intersection of Henderson Boulevard and Yelm 

Highway; allowing up to 175,000 square feet of commercial floor area plus an additional 50,000 square 

feet if a larger grocery is included; and requiring that only 50% of the housing be single-family. 

For More Information 

• The [Buildable Lands 

Report](http://www.trpc.org/regionalplanning/publications/Pages/BuildableLandsReport.aspx) 

prepared for Thurston County by the staff of the Thurston Regional Planning Council helps 

Olympia to determine the quantity of land to provide for population and employment growth. 

• The [Capitol Master Plan](http://www.ga.wa.gov/MasterPlan/index.html) prepared by the 

Department of General Administration describes the State’s plans for certain lands within and 

adjacent to downtown. 

• The [Port of Olympia’s Planning 

documents](http://www.portolympia.com/index.aspx?NID=235) describe the Port’s vision for 

the future of its lands within Olympia, as well as its role within Thurston County in general. 

26

• The Downtown Master Plan focuses on the city center and was formerly a part of this 

Comprehensive Plan. It is now a separate document adopted by the City Council. 

• The Briggs Village Master Plan is an example of an owner-prepared and City-approved plan for a 

specific property within the City. 

• The [Urban Corridors Task Force 

Recommendations](http://www.trpc.org/regionalplanning/landuse/Documents/UCTF/UCTF%20 

Recommendations%20-%20Final_Dec2011.pdf), adopted by Thurston Regional Planning Council 

in 2012, describes challenges and opportunities for the urban corridors of Olympia, Lacey and 

Tumwater. 

27

APPENDIX A - FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS 

The land use designations of the Future Land Use Map and summarized in the Land Use Chart are 

described below. Note that those indicated as symbols on the Future Land Use Map generally are not to 

exceed ten acres in those locations. 

Low-Density Housing. This designation provides for low-density residential development -- primarily 

single-family detached housing -- in densities ranging from eight units per acre to one unit per five acres 

depending on environmental sensitivity of the area. Barring environmental constraints, densities of at 

least four units per acre should be achieved. Supportive land uses and other types of housing, including 

townhomes and small apartment buildings, may be permitted. Specific zoning and densities are to be 

based on the unique characteristics of each area with special attention to stormwater drainage and 

aquatic habitat. Clustered development to provide future urbanization opportunities will be required 

where urban utilities are not readily available. 

Medium-Density Housing. This designation provides for detached single family homes, townhouses and 

apartments at densities ranging from six to twenty-four units per acre. Specific zoning is to be based on 

proximity to bus routes and major streets, land use compatibility, and environmental constraints. 

Specific zoning will include minimum and maximum densities to ensure efficient use of developable land 

and to ensure provision of an adequate variety of types of housing to serve the community. Higher 

densities should be located close to major employment or commercial areas. 

Mixed Residential. This designation requires a mixture of single and multifamily housing at densities 

ranging from seven to eighteen units per acre. Specific density ranges and mandatory mixes should be 

based on land use compatibility and proximity to bus routes and major streets, while also ensuring 

availability of a variety and blending of housing types and choices. 

Neighborhood Centers. This designation provides for neighborhood-oriented convenience businesses 

and a small park or other public space. Although, the locations shown on the Future Land Use Map are 

approximate, these centers should be along major streets and generally near areas of higher residential 

densities. The exact location and mix of uses of the centers in these areas will be established at the time 

of development approval. In general they should be focused on serving nearby residents, be well 

integrated with adjacent land uses, and have excellent pedestrian and bicyclist access with minimal car 

parking. 

Residential Mixed Use. To provide opportunities for people to live close to work, shopping, and 

services, this designation provides for high-density multifamily housing in multistory structures 

combined with limited commercial uses in parts of downtown, near the State Capitol Campus, and near 

urban corridors and other activity centers. This designation helps to achieve City density goals, to create 

or maintain a desirable urban living environment for residents of these areas, and to ensure that new 

urban residential buildings incorporate features which encourage walking and add interest to the urban 

environment. The commercial uses are intended to help support the residential use of the area by 

providing retail and personal services within walking distance of the housing. Housing in these high 

amenity areas will contribute to community vitality, include well-designed buildings on continuous 

street edges, link one area with another, encourage pedestrian activity, and include visible public spaces 

that increase safety and decrease vandalism. 

28

Planned Developments. This designation includes areas of mixed uses where specific ‘master plans’ are 

required prior to development. These master plans are prepared and proposed by one or a few parties 

and subject to review and confirmation by the City. This designation is intended to achieve more 

innovative designs than in conventional developments but which are also connected to and compatible 

with existing uses in the area. Innovative designs much include offering a wider variety of compatible 

housing types and densities, neighborhood convenience businesses, recreational uses, open space, trails 

and other amenities. Generally residential densities should range from seven to thirteen units per acre, 

but the specific mix of land uses will vary with the zoning, environment, and master plan of each site. In 

addition to a variety of housing types, these areas may include neighborhood centers as described 

below. Each of the two planned developments along Yelm highway may include a larger neighborhoodoriented 

shopping center with a supermarket. The planned development designation also includes 

retaining certain existing, and potentially new, manufactured housing parks in locations suitable for such 

developments. Two unique planned developments include substantial government office buildings and 

related uses -- these are the Capitol Campus; and Evergreen Park, which includes the site of the 

Thurston County courthouse. 

Professional Offices & Multifamily Housing. This designation accommodates a wide range of offices, 

services, limited retail uses specifically authorized by the applicable zoning district, and moderate-tohigh 

density multifamily housing in structures as large as four stories. 

[[Change: Urban Corridors were formerly called ‘high density corridors’ – a term that sometimes led to 

misunderstanding and confusion with a regulatory zone of the same name but different geography.]] 

Urban Corridors. This designation applies to areas within about one-quarter mile of certain major 

streets. Generally more intense commercial uses and larger structures should be located near the street 

edge with less intensive uses and smaller structure farther from the street to transition to adjacent 

designations. Particular ‘nodes’ or intersections may be more intensely developed. Opportunities to live, 

work, shop and recreate will be located within walking distance of these areas. 

[[Change: Reference changed from Shoreline Management Program to Shoreline Management Act.]] 

Urban Waterfront. Consistent with the State’s Shoreline Management Act, this designation provides for 

a compatible mix of commercial, light industrial, limited heavy industrial, and multifamily residential 

uses along the waterfront. 

City Center. This designation provides for a wide range of activities that make downtown Olympia the 

cultural, civic, commercial and employment heart of the community. A dense mix of housing, 

pedestrian-oriented land uses and design and proximity to transit make a convenient link between 

downtown, the State Capitol, the waterfront, and other activity centers in the region. The scale, height 

and bulk of development reinforce downtown Olympia's historic character, buildings, places and street 

layout. 

General Commerce. This designation provides for commercial uses and activities which are heavily 

dependent on convenient vehicle access but which minimize adverse impact on the community, 

especially on adjacent properties having more restrictive development characteristics. The area should 

have safe and efficient access to major transportation routes. Additional "strip" development should be 

limited by filling in available space in a way that accommodates supports and provides for and 

encourages pedestrian activity. 

29

[[Change: Although Auto Services already appears on the map and the Automall is discussed elsewhere, 

this description of the designation is new.]] 

Auto Services. This designation conserves areas for concentrating land uses associated with automobile 

and other motor vehicle sales and services. Alternative uses such as professional offices may be 

permitted if compatible with the primary purpose of the designation. 

Medical Services. This designation conserves areas in the vicinity of hospitals for concentrating medical 

services and facilities, associated uses, and moderate to high-density housing. 

Industry. The designation provides for light industrial uses, such as assembly of products and 

warehousing, and compatible, complementary commercial uses; and for heavy industrial development, 

such as manufacturing, transportation terminals and bulk storage, and complementary commercial uses 

in locations with few land use conflicts, minimal environmental constraints, and adequate freight access. 

30

Karen Messmer Comments June 2012 in tracked changes 

Transportation 

Contents 

• Street Design Creates Options 

• Connected Streets Mean Shorter Trips 

• Finding Solutions to Congestion 

• Linking Land Use and Transportation 

• Fast and Frequent Bus Service 

• Inviting People to Walk 

• Bicyclists Share Our Streets 

• Fewer Car Trips, Big Benefits 

• Funding Brings Vision to Reality 

• Working with Our Neighbors 

• Appendix 

A. Review of Transportation Decisions 

B. 2030 Street Capacity and Network Improvements Project List 

C. Sidewalk Project List 

D. Bike Lane Project List 

E. Transportation Commission Proposed List of Highways of Statewide Significance 

F. Transportation Facilities and Services of Statewide Significance 

G. Facilities of Statewide Significance 

H. Transportation 2030 Maps 

I. Corridor Map 

J. Traffic Forecast Maps 

• For More Information 

Olympia’s future transportation system focuses on moving people, rather than just cars. Our ability to 

create vibrant urban areas, reduce our impact on the natural environment, and use our financial and 

energy resources wisely, is dependent on an increase in walking, biking and transit. 

Our streets will work for all modes – with sidewalks, bike lanes, street trees, and safe crossings islands. 

We will build streets that are human scale, places that work for people, as well as motor vehicles. A 

more connected grid of smaller streets will shorten trips for people walking, biking and driving, and 

allow trucks, buses and emergency vehicles to have direct and efficient routes. 

As an increasingly urban area, we are learning to look more broadly at mobility. A range of new tools will 

help us respond to growth and provide people with more choices. We know we will not eliminate 

congestion, but we are building a system that provides safe and inviting facilities for walking, biking and 

transit, and driving. 

Our impact on the natural environment will be reduced, both in how we build the system and through 

the behavior it invites. Citizens will be invited to participate in transportation decisions, and the system 

will serve people better because they helped shape it. 

[[Photo: trans intro bridges align=horizontal caption=Olympia’s Gateway Corridor.]] 

1

The Transportation Chapter takes direction from state, regional and local plans, policies, and guidelines. 

• The [Washington State Growth Management 

Act](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A) guides cities to link transportation 

and land-use planning: to develop urban areas, provide adequate public facilities as growth 

occurs, and build a multimodal transportation system, along with other planning goals. 

• The [Thurston Regional Transportation 

Plan](http://trpc.org/regionalplanning/publications/pages/rtp.aspx) describes how the region 

will work together to resolve regional problems and establish regional priorities. The plan 

emphasizes developing high-density mixed-use urban form in our cities, making new street 

connections, and reducing drive-alone commuting. 

• The [Transportation Mobility Strategy](http://olympiawa.gov/en/city-services/transportationservices/plans-studies-and-data/Plans%20and%20Studies%20-%20Mobility%20Strategy.aspx) 

provides overall guidance for achieving a multimodal transportation system. Policy areas of the 

strategy include system capacity, complete streets, bus corridors, connectivity, transportation 

demand management, and funding. 

• Studies are used to solve specific transportation problems, evaluate issues in more detail, and 

identify improvements. These studies have lead to decisions relating to capacity, street 

connectivity, and street design, which have a long-term influence on the transportation system. 

Goals and policies in this plan reflect these decisions. Appendix A, Review of Transportation 

Decisions, describes these studies. 

[[Photo: trans bikers bridges down align=horizontal caption=Olympia’s 4 th Avenue Bridge.]] 

[[Change: New goals and policies draw from the Olympia Transportation Mobility Strategy, approved by 

City Council in 2009. Goals and policies are consistent with the prior plan, but are now grouped into 

categories.]] 

Street Design Creates Options 

[[Change: The Complete Streets concept is emphasized in the Olympia Transportation Mobility Strategy. 

The prior plan policies reflect complete streets principles, without using the term “complete streets.”]] 

Streets with wide sidewalks and street trees invite us to walk to the store or a friend’s house. Bike lanes 

make it more appealing to bike to work. The design of our streets create new opportunities for how we 

travel, and how we interact with one another. 

Complete streets are those built for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders, as well as cars, trucks and 

buses. Complete streets are needed to increase the number of people walking, biking and using transit, 

while meeting the safety needs of motor vehicles. Complete street policies complement other goals 

related to economic vitality, reducing congestion, increasing land-use density, and providing people 

more opportunities to be physically active. 

Complete street principles apply to all types or classifications of streets; from the largest arterials to 

major and neighborhood collectors, to the smallest local access or neighborhood streets. 

2

[[Photo: trans comp st CH align=horizontal caption= 4 th Avenue near City Hall redesigned with bike lanes 

and wider sidewalks.]] 

Goals and Policies 

[[GT1]] All streets are safe and inviting for pedestrians and bicyclists. Streets are designed to be 

human scale, while accommodating motor vehicles. 

[[PT1.1]] Retrofit major streets to be human scale and include features to make walking, biking and 

transit use safe and inviting. 

[[PT1.2]] Build streets to be as narrow as possible in individual lane width and overall width, while 

facilitating the movement of larger vehicles to the level appropriate to the area uses., as needed. 

[[PT1.3]] Preserve a human-scale urban form by limiting streets to five lanes at mid block. If needed, 

turn lanes may be added beyond the five lanes, with careful consideration of pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety. 

[[PT1.4]] Reduce motor vehicle speeds to create a safe environment for pedestrians and bicyclists, while 

maintaining motor vehicle traffic flow. Speed limits shall not exceed 35 miles per hour on the arterial 

and major collector streets and 25 miles per hour on neighborhood collector, local access streets and 

downtown. 

[[PT1.5]] Mitigate the impacts of high traffic volumes by creating buffers between pedestrians and 

motor vehicles with parking and planter strips, building wide sidewalks, and creating interest along the 

street with amenities and building design. 

[[PT1.6]] Provide attractive streetscapes with sidewalks, street trees, planter strips, and pedestrian-scale 

streetlights. In denser areas, provide benches, building awnings, and attractive transit stops and 

shelters. 

[[PT1.7]] Build intersections that are safe for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles. Use minimum 

dimensions for a human-scale environment, while maintaining vehicle access and safety. 

[[PT1.8]] Use medians for access control and to keep the number of motor vehicle lanes to a minimum. 

Use medians for pedestrian crossing islands, and to enhance the beauty of a street. 

[[PT1.9]] Build streets in a grid pattern to disperse traffic and provide direct routes for all types of users. 

[[PT1.10]] Provide access to individual properties from the smallest type of street when a lot fronts more 

than one street. 

[[PT1.11]] Minimize driveway curb cuts along major streets to reduce conflicts between vehicles and 

bicyclists and pedestrians. Use shared driveways, or provide access off side streets and alleys. 

[[PT1.12]] Recognize the value of street trees to buffer pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic, to capture 

vehicle emission particulates, to shade the sidewalk for pedestrians, and to shade and protect asphalt. 

3

Proper selection, care and placement are critical to long-term maintenance of street trees, street 

pavement and sidewalks. 

[[Photo: trans lee 2 align=vertical caption=Bicyclist on 5 th Avenue.]] 

[[Change: These polices reflect the Evaluation Guidelines for Olympia Streets and the Typical 

Characteristics of Street Classifications (Table VI-1) of the prior plan. The table is proposed to be 

removed from the comp plan because it is also contained in the Engineering Design and Development 

Standards. New broader descriptions of street classifications replace the table; details can be found in 

the development standards.]] 

[[GT2]] As new streets are built or existing streets are reconstructed, multimodal features will be 

added. Features defined for different types of streets are specified in the [City of Olympia 

Engineering Design and Development Standards](http://olympiawa.gov/city-services/buildingpermits-and-inspections/engineering-design-and-development-standards.aspx). 

[[PT2.1]] Build arterial streets to serve as primary routes connecting urban centers and the regional 

transportation network. These streets include bike lanes, sidewalks, planter strips, pedestrian crossing 

features, and in dense areas, a high-quality streetscape. 

[[PT2.2]] Build major collector streets to connect arterials to residential and commercial areas. These 

streets include bike lanes, sidewalks, planter strips, pedestrian crossing features, and in dense areas, a 

high-quality streetscape. 

[[PT2.3]] Build neighborhood collectors to provide circulation within and between residential and 

commercial areas. These streets include sidewalks and planter strips. Selected neighborhood collectors 

include bike lanes, or signs and markings to designate a bike route. These streets may include pedestrian 

crossing features, and in dense areas, a high-quality streetscape. 

[[PT2.4]] Build small local access streets to provide direct connections to properties. All new local access 

streets include sidewalks and planter strips. Local access streets may include signs and markings to 

direct cyclists to the larger bicycle network. 

[[PT2.5]] Provide transit stops and service accommodations, based on the transit service on that street. 

[[PT2.6]] Install traffic-calming devices on local access, neighborhood collector, and some major 

collector streets, where speeds, volumes and other conditions indicate a need. 

[[PT2.7]] Add on-street parking to local access and neighborhood collector streets, to serve as a 

pedestrian buffer and provide direct access to properties. 

[[PT2.8]] Build bulb-outs at street corners for shorter pedestrian crossings and traffic calming. Build 

bulb-outs on local access and neighborhood collector streets with on-street parking. Add bulb-outs to 

existing arterials and major collectors with on-street parking for the same reasons. 

[[PT2.9]] Allow for modified street standards in environmentally sensitive areas with specific 

preplanning and variance processes within the OMC or deviation processes within the EDDS. 

4

[[PT2.10]] Use innovative features in transportation project design to reduce or eliminate stormwater 

runoff. 

[[GT3]] Streets allow the efficient delivery of goods and services. 

[[PT3.1]] Design streets to allow the efficient and safe delivery of goods and services, providing access 

for buses, commercial trucks, emergency and other public service vehicles at appropriate scale to the 

local uses. 

[[PT3.2]] Provide access on all streets for public and commercial needs, while keeping street widths as 

narrow as possible to maintain a human-scale environment. 

[[PT3.3]] Consider large truck movement in the design of major streets, particularly streets in industrial 

zoned areas. 

[[PT3.4]] Encourage alleys and retain alleys as public right-of-way. 

[[PT3.5]] Encourage alleys behind lots fronting on arterials and collectors, so that houses or businesses 

can face the street, sidewalks are continuous, and vehicles can access properties from behind. 

Connected Streets Mean Shorter Trips 

[[Change: Connectivity is a concept emphasized in the Olympia Transportation Mobility Strategy, and a 

policy topic discussed by the Planning Commission during the plan update process. Goals and polices 

related to connectivity from the prior plan are restated here, with some clarification and simplification. 

Sections of Appendix A of the prior plan, The Form and Function of Olympia Streets, are incorporated 

into this goal area.]] 

Street connectivity helps us meet many transportation objectives: safety, access, efficiency, and mode 

choice. A well-connected network of smaller streets works better for walking, biking and driving and 

creates a more a human-scale environment. People walking, biking and driving have shorter routes, and 

transit riders can access stops more easily. A connected street grid provides direct and efficient access 

for all types of service vehicles – transit buses, delivery trucks, and emergency vehicles, for example. 

[[Photo: trans grid signs 2 align=vertical caption=New street connections provide more route options for 

all users.]] 

A 1994 planning study led to the fully-connected street network we are building. The study determined 

that instead of continuing to widen our major roads , we would build a connected grid of smaller streets. 

This study became the basis for our vision of a modified street grid and planned street connections. (See 

Maps in Appendix H and the Review of Transportation Decisions in Appendix A provide additional 

information.) 

Street connectivity allows for direct routes and fewer miles to be driven, saving fuel and reducing 

pollution. During emergencies and major construction, the grid provides redundancies in the street 

network – if one route is blocked, other direct routes are available. The grid also provides several 

opportunities to turn left, reducing traffic back-ups. 

5

In addition to the street grid, pathways and trails provide connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians. 

Pathways are short cuts in neighborhoods that provide connections to parks, schools, trails and streets. 

Trails allow longer trips to be made off the street system, benefitting bicyclists and pedestrians for 

transportation and recreation. 

[[Photo: trans nice st align=horizontal caption=A neighborhood of gridded streets works better for all 

modes.]] 


[[GT4]] The street network is a well-connected system of small blocks allowing short trips that 

are as direct as possible for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, motorists, and all types of 


[[PT4.1]] Connect streets in a grid-like pattern of smaller blocks. BIdeal block sizes should range from 

250 feet to 350 feet in residential areas and up to a maximum of 5050 feet along arterials. 

[[PT4.2]] Build new street connections to reduce travel time and distances for all users of the street 

system. 

[[PT4.3]] Build street connections so that people walking, biking, or accessing bus stops have short route 

options, making these modes more inviting. 

[[PT4.4]] Build new street connections so that motor vehicle trips are shorter; saving fuel, reducing 

travel time, and reducing pollution. 

[[PT4.5]] Build new street connections so that if one route is blocked, due to an emergency or major 

construction, the grid network provides redundancy, and another direct route is available. 

[[PT4.6]] Build new street connections so that transit and all types of service vehicles have direct and 

efficient access. 

[[PT4.7]] Build a human-scale street grid of small blocks by defining required dimensions in the 

[Engineering Design and Development Standards](http://olympiawa.gov/city-services/building-permitsand-inspections/engineering-design-and-development-standards.aspx). 

Use street spacing criteria to 

define the frequency of different types of streets in the grid, and define block sizes on each type of 

street to keep blocks as small as possible. 

[[PT4.8]] Build new arterials, major collectors and neighborhood collectors based on the general location 

defined on the Transportation Maps in Appendix H and using the guidance of the [Engineering Design 

and Development Standards](http://olympiawa.gov/city-services/building-permits-andinspections/engineering-design-and-development-standards.aspx). 

[[PT4.9]] Seek public- and privately-funded opportunities to make street connections in the network. 

[[PT4.10]] Ensure new developments connect to the existing street network and provide for future 

street connections to ensure the gridded street system is built, both within and to the outside of the 

development. 

6

[[PT4.11]] Retrofit existing development into a pattern of short blocks. 

[[PT 4.12]] Build bike and pedestrian pathways for safe and direct non-motorized access, where streets 

connections are not possible at the same required intervals/spacing as streets. 

[[PT4.13]] Build an adequate network of arterials and collectors to discourage heavy traffic volumes on 

local access streets. 

[[PT4.14]] Build a dense grid of local access and collector streets so that local traffic does not have to use 

arterial streets for trips within the neighborhood. 

[[PT4.15]] Discourage cul-de-sacs and only allow their use as the result of topographic and 

environmental constraints. Cul-de-sacs that are built should have a maximum length of 300 feet and will 

be built with public signed pedestrian and bike connections to adjacent streets and uses such as schools, 

parks and trails. 

NEW POLICY 

When street connections are not completed at the time of construction of the development use the 

stub-out to develop bicycle and pedestrian connections for interim use. 

[[PT4.16]] Use signs to identify planned but un-built street connections or “stub outs” and to indicate 

the type of street that is planned. This information should also be shown on maps of newly platted 

areas. 

[[PT4.17]] Plan and identify street connections in undeveloped areas to ensure connectivity. 

[[PT4.18]] Plan for adequate right-of-ways for future streets. 

[[PT4.19]] Use traffic-calming devices to slow vehicles, where necessary, and especially when new 

streets are connected to existing neighborhoods. 

[[Change: This is a new policy. This analysis will occur at the development review level, if a connection is 

opposed. Instead of the current practice of proving the need for a proposed connection, the assumption 

is all street connections are needed. This evaluation will be used to describe why a proposed connection 

is not considered valuable to the street network, and requires the opponent to make the case against a 

connection.]] 

[[PT4.20]] Pursue all street connections. If a street connection is opposed, analyze how not making the 

street connection will impact the street network. At a minimum, this evaluation will include: 

• Impact on directness of travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists. 

• Impact on directness of travel for emergency-, public-, and commercial-service vehicles. 

• Assessment of travel patterns of the larger neighborhood area. 

• Assessment of traffic volumes at the connection and at major intersections in the larger 

neighborhood area. 

• Identification of major topographical barriers or environmental constraints that make a 

connection infeasible. 

7

• Identification of potential mitigation measures for the new connection. 

• Air quality and energy consumption 

[[Change: This is a new policy.]] 

[[PT4.21]] Develop measures to demonstrate the connectedness of an area and to help explain the value 

of new street or pathway connections. Measures may include intersection density, centerline miles per 

square mile, and a route directness index. 

[[GT5]] Pathways enhance the transportation network by providing direct and formal off-street 

routes for bicyclists and pedestrians. 

[[Change: This is a new policy.]] 

[[PT5.1]] Establish and improve pathways in existing built areas. 

[[PT5.2]] Require new development to look for opportunities to provide pathways and connect to 

adjacent developed properties in order to provide direct bicycle and pedestrian routes. These will be at 

the same interval spacing as street spacing requirements or at closer intervals. 

[[GT6]] A network of regional and local trails enhances mobility for bicycles and pedestrians. 

[[PT6.1]] Work with regional jurisdictions to develop the on- and off-street trails network, as identified in 

the [Thurston Regional Trails 

Plan](http://www.trpc.org/regionalplanning/publications/Pages/ThurstonRegionalTrailsPlan.aspx) 

[[PT6.2]] Increase access to trails by requiring or acquiring pathways, easements, or dedicated right-ofways 

from new developments adjacent to current and future trails. 

Finding Solutions to Congestion 

[[Change: These goals and policies are consistent with the prior plan, and are needed to meet 

requirements of the Growth Management Act. A new concept for addressing concurrency is proposed, 

consistent with the Olympia Transportation Mobility Strategy.]] 

Getting stuck in traffic is one of the things we like least about our day, and is one of the ways we gauge 

the quality of a community. We are looking for new ways to address congestion, ways that retain the 

human-scale character of our streets, instead of adding more lanes. 

[[Photo: trans traffic align=horizontal caption=Finding solutions for our congested streets.]] 

Level-of-service ratings describe vehicle congestion. Ratings range from A to F; A being no congestion, F 

being heavy congestion. The concept of concurrency means that as our community grows, the level of 

service that we consider acceptable for a specific street is maintained. To achieve this requires that we 

add capacity to the street. 

8

The capacity of a transportation system has traditionally been thought of as the space needed on our 

streets to move cars. A broader understanding of capacity looks beyond just moving vehicles and 

instead looks at moving people. 

The street system can move more people when trips are made by walking, biking or riding the bus. On 

streets that have unacceptable levels of service for motor vehicles, and where widening is not 

appropriate, capacity will be gained by building facilities to support all modes of transportation. 

This is especially needed in the densest parts of our City, where roads cannot be widened further. These 

streets are considered “Strategy Corridors.” On these streets, widening is not an option because the 

street is already at the maximum five-lane width, there are environmental constraints, or the adjacent 

land uses are fully built out. 

Actions to reduce auto trips, such as adding bike lanes and sidewalks, and improving transit services will 

be used to relieve traffic congestion and increase capacity on all major streets, but especially on Strategy 

Corridors. (See Appendix I, the Corridor Map, shows Strategy Corridors.) 

The project list in Appendix B includes system capacity improvements for vehicles likely to be needed 

over the next 20 years. Appendix J is Traffic Forecast Maps of current and future traffic volumes. 


[[GT7]] Impacts of new development on the transportation system are addressed by establishing 

level of service standards that indicate when improvements are needed. 

[[PT7.1]] Measure level of service using the average vehicle volumes that occur during the highest 

volume consecutive two-hour period. Use the two-hour level of service as a screening tool to determine 

capacity needs at intersections and along streets. 

[[PT7.2]] Determine the need for, and feasibility of, motor vehicle capacity improvements by considering 

street hierarchy and street spacing criteria; environmental, social, and urban form impacts; and physical 

constraints. 

[[PT7.3]] Ensure that no street will exceed the width of five general purpose auto lanes mid block, when 

adding capacity to the street system. Turn lanes and/or roundabouts may be added as appropriate, 

with careful consideration of impacts to pedestrians. 

[[PT7.4]] Establish and maintain appropriate level of service using the following guidelines (see Maps in 

Appendix H for Appendix I): 

• Level of service E will be acceptable on arterials and major collectors in the downtown and along 

Urban Corridors. Level of service D will be acceptable in the rest of the City and Urban Growth 

Area, 

• Higher levels of service may be maintained in parts of the City because of low-traffic demand. 

• For some intersections, level of service is F is acceptable. 

• On Strategy Corridors, where widening is not an option, levels of service may exceed adopted 

standards. 

9

[[PT7.5]] Do not apply concurrency requirements to transportation facilities and services of statewide 

significance, per RCW 36.70A.070(6). Proposed improvements to state-owned facilities will be consistent 

with the [Thurston Regional Transportation 

Plan](http://trpc.org/regionalplanning/publications/pages/rtp.aspx) and the State Highway System Plan 

within Washington’s Transportation Plan. 

[[GT8]] The impacts of new land-use development on the transportation system are mitigated. 

[[PT8.1]] Require mitigation for new developments so that transportation level of service does not fall 

below adopted standards. 

[[PT8.2]] Construction of improvements or contribution of funds may will be required of new 

development to help the function and safety of the street, such as signals, bike lanes, turn pockets, and 

special lanes for buses. 

[[PT8.3]] Ensure a fair distribution of costs to new developments through imposition of impact fees 

when possible. 

[[PT8.4]] Use the State Environmental Policy Act to determine mitigation requirements for the impacts 

of new development on the transportation system. 

[[PT8.5]] Consider Construct to complete streets concepts to maintain an urban form that is human 

scale, when widening is necessary. 

[[Photo: transportation_3 align=horizontal caption=More trips on transit can add capacity to our 

streets.]] 

[[GT9]] In designated Strategy Corridors, when road widening is no longer an option, system 

capacity is added through increasing walking, biking and transit trips. 

[[PT9.1]] Add bike lanes and sidewalks, improve transit services, and use demand management 

measures to ensure that transit, bicycle and pedestrian transportation are attractive and easy to use 

during peak travel periods on all streets, but especially Strategy Corridors. 

[[PT9.2]] Review and update concurrency ordinances as appropriate to implement multimodal strategies 

in Strategy Corridors. (See Concurrency Report explanation in Appendix A.) 

[[Change: New goal and policies.]] 

[[GT10]] System capacity improvements move people, and congestion is minimized by replacing 

car trips with walking, biking and transit trips. 

[[PT10.1]] Pursue a person-trip concurrency program in order to allow construction of bicycle, 

pedestrian and transit system improvements as concurrency mitigation. 

[[PT10.2]] Separate voluntary concurrency mitigation measures from other transportation mitigation 

measures required by either State Environmental Policy Act or the City’s Transportation Impact Fee 

policies and programs. 

10 

Comment [K1]: Voluntary mitigation measure s 

not defined here – policy is not clear. How can a 

concurrency measure be voluntary?

Linking Land Use and Transportation 

[[Change: Land use and transportation integration is emphasized in the Olympia Transportation Mobility 

Strategy, the Thurston Regional Transportation Plan, and was an important topic to the public for the 

plan update. This plan provides continued emphasis on policy and planning integration. This plan also 

emphasizes the regional coordination needed to achieve land use and transportation goals for the 

Urban Corridors that connect Lacey, Olympia and Tumwater.]] 

The transportation system helps to achieve the City’s land-use vision: in dense mixed-use areas, it is 

often easier for people to walk, bike and ride the bus than it is to drive. In turn, dense, mixed land-use 

patterns help to achieve our transportation vision by reducing auto dependency. 

Dense, mixed land uses are crucial to making walking, biking and transit truly viable. When attractive 

housing is close to jobs, services and stores, trips are short and easy to make without a car. Transit is 

close and convenient for longer trips outside the neighborhood. 

When streets in dense areas include wide sidewalks, safe pedestrian crossings, and bike lanes, the 

decision to walk, bike, or take the bus is easy because those modes are inviting. The densities we are 

trying to achieve will not be pleasant or even be possible if people continue to rely on the auto - 

congestion will be bad, streets will be wide and unfriendly, and lots of parking will be needed. 

[[Photo: trans land use align=vertical caption= In dense mixed-use areas, people’s mobility needs will be 

met by making walking, biking and transit more attractive.]] 


[[GT11]] A viable multimodal transportation system allows densities to increase with a minimum 

of new car trips. 

[[PT11.1]] Build a multimodal transportation system to reduce car trips and help achieve the density and 

land-use goals. 

[[GT12]] Growth will be concentrated in our urban areas making walking, biking and transit 

viable modes for more people. 

[[PT12.1]] Promote infill and densification, in order to make the best use of the multimodal 

transportation network. 

[[PT12.2]] Use zoning to create housing near places of employment, allowing people to live closer to 

where they work, reducing the length of trips and increasing access to walking, biking and transit. 


[[GT13]] Greater density along bus corridors optimizes investments in transit and makes transit 

an inviting mode of travel. See Appendix I, the Corridors map for bus corridors. 

11

[[PT13.1]] Achieve transit-supportive density and land-use patterns along bus corridors, through zoning 

and other regulatory tools. 

[[PT13.2]] Guide transit-dependent land uses to locate on bus corridors. This includesschools, public 

services, major employers, and multifamily housing. 

[[PT13.3]] Enhance the gridded street network of small blocks adjacent to bus corridors to improve 

access to transit. 


[[Change: The term Urban Corridors is now used in place of the general use of the term High Density 

Corridors. Urban Corridors define the major arterials which are the backbone to the transportation 

system and a quarter mile of surrounding land uses. Urban Corridors overlap with most Strategy 

Corridors.]] 

[[GT 14]] The Urban Corridors of Martin Way, Pacific Avenue, east 4th and State Avenues, 

Harrison Avenue (east of Cooper Point Rd), Black Lake Boulevard and Cooper Point Road, and 

portions of Capitol Way are vibrant mixed-use areas where a large portion of trips are made by 

walking, biking and transit. (See Appendix I, for Urban Corridors.) 

[[PT14.1]] Retrofit City streets in Urban Corridors to city street standards to attract new development 

and increase densities. 

[[PT14.2]] Encourage Request the State of Washington to include Urban Corridors in the State’s 

preferred leasing area, so that state buildings are easily accessible by walking, biking and frequent 

transit. 

[[PT14.3]] Encourage public agencies to build in the Urban Corridors, so that they are easily accessible by 

walking, biking and transit. 

[[PT 14.4]] Partner with the cities of Lacey and Tumwater to pursue the land-use and transportation 

measures identified for the Urban Corridors of Martin Way, east 4 th and State Avenues, Pacific Avenue 

and portions of Capitol Way. 

[[GT15]] Streets are public space, where people want to be. 

[[PT15.1]] Design streets to enhance the sense of place of a neighborhood or district. 

[[PT15.2]] Design streets as gathering spaces, as destinations, and allow streets to highlight cultural and 

natural features. 

[[PT15.3]] Look for opportunities to create multi-use public spaces along streets and encourage public 

and private efforts towards place-making. 

Fast and Frequent Bus Service 

12

[[Change: Transit-related goals and policies of the prior plan are reflected here. Sections of Appendix A 

of the prior plan, The Future of Transit Service in Olympia and the Region are incorporated into the 

introduction of this goal area.]] 

Buses can serve a wide variety of trips we make, and significantly reduce congestion. As traffic increases, 

transit provides an efficient way to move more people on the same streets. 

Intercity Transit is the primary public transit operator for Thurston County. Partnership between 

Intercity Transit and the City of Olympia is critical to meeting community transportation needs. 

[[Photo: trans bus rider align=horizontal caption=Partnerships with Intercity Transit are crucial to 

meeting our community transportation needs.]] 

In the near term, Olympia envisions a distinct system of bus corridors. Bus corridors are major streets 

with high-quality, frequent transit service. The system of bus corridors would allow people more 

spontaneous use of transit. Along these corridors, people could potentially live with fewer vehicles in 

their household. The first priority for bus corridor development will be along Strategy Corridors. See the 

Corridor Map in Appendix I for Bus corridors and Strategy Corridors. 

Building bus corridors is a major new commitment to direct more trips to transit. The City and Intercity 

Transit will jointly invest in these corridors. Intercity Transit will provide fast, frequent and reliable bus 

service along these corridors. 

The City will provide operational improvements, such as longer green time at traffic signals so that buses 

are not stuck in congestion. Attractive streetscapes, pedestrian crossings and sidewalks will enhance 

people’s access to transit. The City will also encourage a mix of land uses and increased densities along 

these corridors. 

Ideally, these bus corridors will be regional. Bus corridors will be developed in Olympia’s dense urban 

area and, over time, connect with similar enhancements in Lacey and Tumwater. 

Over the long term, Intercity Transit and the communities of this region will collaborate to implement 

Intercity Transit’s most current adopted long-range plan. See and the [Thurston Regional Transportation 

Plan](http://trpc.org/regionalplanning/publications/pages/rtp.aspx). These plans explore the potential 

for expanding traditional transit, trolley-like services, dedicated express service, bus rapid transit, and 

commuter rail to nearby cities, freight rail, and high-speed passenger rail in the broader region. 

[[Photo: trans bikers bus align=horizontal caption= Bus corridors will have fast, frequent and predictable 

transit service.]] 


[[Change: New goal and policies on bus corridors, consistent with the Olympia Transportation Mobility 

Strategy.]] 

[[GT16] Bus corridors have high-quality transit service allowing people to ride the bus 

spontaneously, and easily replace car trips with trips by bus. 

13

[[PT16.1]] Develop a system of bus corridors with fast, frequent and predictable transit service. 

[[PT16.2]] Increase the density and mix of land uses along bus corridors. 

[[PT16.3]] Formalize bus corridors through a joint agreement between Intercity Transit and the City of 

Olympia, with efforts to include Lacey and Tumwater. 

[[PT16.4]] Ensure pedestrian-oriented street, site, and building designs are incorporated into 

development along bus corridors. 

[[PT16.5]] Integrate transit and bicycle network planning and require construction of bicycle end-of-trip 

facilities, such as bike parking, along bus corridors. 

[[GT17]] Intercity Transit’s short- and long-range plans are supported. 

[[PT17.1]] Support Intercity Transit’s existing and planned services and facilities by ensuring that street 

standards, land uses, and building placement support transit along identified routes. 

[[PT17.2]] Make access to all transit stops safe and inviting for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

[[PT17.3]] Coordinate with Intercity Transit on operational improvements such as signal timing and bus 

stop placement to assure that buses can move efficiently on City streets. 

[[PT17.4]] Consult with Intercity Transit in the development review process, so that new development 

on current and future bus routes is accessible by transit vehicles. 

[[Change: New policy.]] 

[[PT17.5]] Locate transit stops at major destinations such as worksites, schools, and shopping complexes 

where they are more convenient than the parking area at these destinations, to make transit more 

inviting than driving. 

[[PT17.6]] Work with new development to provide facilities to support the transit rider, as they walk or 

bike to and from stops. These include such things as; transit shelters, awnings, bike parking, walkways, 

benches, and lighting. 

[[PT17.7]] Encourage Intercity Transit to provide service to passenger rail stations. 

[[PT17.8]] Explore the possibilities for fixed route transit systems, such as trolleys, that would serve the 

Downtown and Urban Corridors. 

[[PT17.9]] Implement traffic signal timing and transit signal priority so that buses are not delayed by 

traffic and can stay on schedule, making transit more inviting. 

[[GT18]] The region is prepared to advance high-capacity transit. 

[[PT18.1]] Work with Intercity Transit to implement their long-range, high-capacity transportation 

concepts in Thurston County, including right-of-way purchase. 

14

[[PT18.2]] Work with regional partners and the Washington State Department of Transportation to 

identify future high-capacity transportation alignment so that right-of-way is preserved. 

[[PT18.3]] Preserve significant rail corridors threatened with abandonment as identified in the Regional 

Transportation Plan. 

[[PT18.4]] Integrate land use and high-capacity transit planning so that dense urban centers are 

developed around future rail stations. 

[[PT18.5]] Locate future passenger rail corridors adjacent to planned higher-density development. 

[[PT18.6]] Work with the Washington State Department of Transportation to increase regional 

commuter rail service. 

[[GT19]] The rail system is a cost effective and efficient method of moving materials regionally. 

[[PT19.1]] Work with regional partners and the Washington State Department of Transportation to 

support and expand freight rail in the region, because it can be efficient and extend the life of the street 

system. 

Inviting People to Walk 

[[Change: These pedestrian goals and policies are consistent with the prior plan, but compiled in one 

place in this plan. There is greater emphasis on the value of pedestrian infrastructure.]] 

This plan aims to make streets safe and inviting for walking for more people and to build an ethic toward 

walking. Designing streets that are human scale, with walking in mind, also has the affect of enhancing 

the character of a community. When streets are walkable and attractive, neighbors interact, businesses 

thrive, and people feel more engaged in their community. 

[[Photo: trans sidewalk 2 align=horizontal caption=Sidewalks separate pedestrians from motor vehicle 

traffic and make walking inviting.]] 

Sidewalks are integral to a community’s transportation network because they separate pedestrians from 

motor vehicles, and provide a flat, dry, and predictable surface for walking. For those with walking aids, 

sidewalks significantly enhance access. 

Beyond just a transportation facility, sidewalks invite people to gather and interact in public space right 

outside their front door. Sidewalks provide safe places for children to walk, run, skate, and play. 

Appendix C is a list of sidewalk construction projects consistent with the [City of Olympia Sidewalk 

Program (2003).](http://olympiawa.gov/~/media/Files/PublicWorks/PDFs/City-of-Olympia-Sidewalk- 

Program-2003.ashx) 

Another important safety factor for pedestrians is to ensure that streets are easy to cross. Pedestrian 

crossing improvements that shorten the crossing distance and increase visibility of pedestrians to 

motorists and increase crosswalk law compliance, enhance the safety and comfort of pedestrians. 

15

[[Photo: trans ped beacon 2 align=horizontal caption=Improvements help remove barriers for 

pedestrians on our major streets.]] 

Last, streetscape improvements, such as street trees, planting strips and decorative lighting, draw 

people to walking, support transit use, and create active street life. Building and retrofitting streets with 

these features can stimulate activity in an area, attract development to an area, and improve the quality 

of life in the area as population densities increase. 


[[GT20]] Walking is safe and inviting, and more people walk for transportation. 

[[PT20.1]] Encourage walking and educate people about walking safety and the benefits of walking. 

[[PT20.2]] Ensure City street standards reflect the importance of walking for transportation and 

recreation. 

[[PT20.3]] Build new streets and retrofit existing streets to be more inviting for walking with sidewalks, 

crossing improvements and streetscape enhancements. 

[[PT20.4]] Consider Provide for and support pedestrians in street maintenance practices and traffic 

signal system operations. When roadway closures for construction are necessary, always provide a 

reasonably direct walking route through the construction area, because walkers cannot simply ‘drive 

around’ a long detour route. 

[[PT20.5]] Use construction and maintenance practices that provide safety and access for do not 

unneccessarily obstruct pedestrian travel. 

[[PT20.6]] Require direct and convenient pedestrian access to commercial and public buildings from 

sidewalks, parking lots, bus stops, and adjacent buildings. 

[[GT21]] Sidewalks make streets safe and inviting for walking. 

[[PT21.1]] Build all new streets with inviting sidewalks on both sides of the street. 

[[PT21.2]] Focus City sidewalk construction on major streets, where heavy traffic volumes and speeds 

make it difficult for pedestrians to share space with motor vehicles. Priorities for sidewalk construction 

are based on street conditions and proximity to destinations. 

[[PT21.3]] On smaller local access streets within neighborhoods, retrofit selected streets with sidewalks 

to address unique conditions, such as limited sight distance; provide access to transit stops, schools and 

parks; and to create a safe walking route where no other parallel street exists nearby. 

[[GT22]] Pedestrian crossing improvements remove barriers for pedestrians on major streets, 

especially wide streets with high-vehicle volumes. 

16

[[PT22.1]] Build new streets and retrofit existing streets with crossing islands and curb bulb-outs to 

reduce a pedestrian’s exposure to motor vehicles as they cross the street. 

[[PT22.2]] Use systems at crosswalks to raise driver awareness of pedestrians on wide, high-volume 

streets such as pedestrian-activated blinking lights and flags and other systems at crosswalks to raise 

driver awareness of pedestrians on wide, high-volume streets. 

[[PT22.3]] Add safe mid-block crossings for pedestrians to new or rebuilt streets. This is especially 

important on major streets that have long distances between signalized crossings. 

[[PT22.4]] Design intersections to make pedestrian crossing safety a priority: minimize width, increase 

pedestrian visibility, and reduce minimize curb radii (sharper corners instead of broad sweeping curves). 

[[PT22.5]] Consider use of pavers or colored, patterned concrete on crosswalks in commercial or mixeduse 

areas to increase the awareness and safety of pedestrians, and to improve the appearance of an 

area. 

[[Photo: transportation_12 align=horizontal caption=Streetscape enhancements include awnings, street 

trees, and wide sidewalks.]] 

[[GT23]] Streetscapes buffer pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic, enhance the experience of 

walking, and increase the attractiveness of an area. 

[[PT23.1]] Separate sidewalks from motor vehicle traffic by a buffer of street trees and landscaping. 

[[PT23.2]] Where appropriate, allow on-street parking as a buffer between pedestrians and motor 

vehicle traffic. 

[[PT23.3]] Build wide sidewalks in densely populated areas to create more public space and support 

active street life. In these areas, install benches, artwork and other features to make streets interesting 

and inviting. 

[[PT23.4]] Use Require continuous awnings that extend across the sidewalk along building frontages in 

densely developed areas to protect pedestrians from weatherprecipitation. 

[[PT23.5]] Use pedestrian-scale lighting to make sidewalks feel safe and inviting at night. 

[[PT23.6]] Use City investments to retrofit streets and add wide sidewalks and streetscapes, as a method 

of drawing development to targeted areas. 

[[PT23.7]] Develop streetscape plans for commercial and mixed-use areas. 

Bicyclists Share our Streets 

[[Change: Bicycle policies, which were not explicitly called out in the prior plan, are highlighted and 

compiled in one place in this plan. New policies have been added consistent with the Olympia Bicycle 

Master Plan, the City’s comprehensive bicycle planning document.]] 

17 

Comment [K2]: The photo included here 

actually has an awning that is too high up – does not 

provide good rain protection on the south side of 

the building. Find a photo that actually shows what 

we want people to build, which is continuous low 

enough, and deep/wide enough awnings for true 

rain protection. (City Hall is also a BAD example)

Bicycling is clean, economical, efficient, and ideal for trips within our community. As with walking, the 

vision of this plan is that biking is viewed as a valuable mode of transportation, and the safety of 

bicyclists is a high priority. Bicyclists have access to the same streets and, therefore, have the same 

rights and same responsibilities as motor vehicle drivers. 

[[Photo: trans biker woman 2 align=vertical caption=Bicycling is ideal for short trips.]] 

A strong facilities network is key to increasing bicycling for transportation. The bicycle network is 

composed of bike lanes, signage and markings, trails, pathways, and bicycle parking facilities. An 

effective network is also supported by maintenance and operations practices that remove barriers to 

bicycling. 

Bike lanes are a cost effective way to provide a separate safe space for bicycling. They are important on 

streets with high vehicle volumes because they allow motorists and bicyclists to predictably share the 

street with one another. (Appendix D is the list of bike lane projects identified in the plan.) 

Education, enforcement and encouragement activities improve the safety of and encourage bicycling. 

These programs are needed to raise awareness of the benefits of bicycling, teach adult urban cycling 

skills, teach children to be safe riders, and to communicate to all roadway users their responsibility to 

safely share the road. 

[[Photo: biking_8 align=horizontal caption=Visibility is key to bicyclist safety.]] 


[[GT24]] Bicycling is safe and inviting, and more people bike for transportation. 

[[PT24.1]] Retrofit streets to provide safe and inviting bicycle facilities. Use the [Bicycle Master Plan 

(2009)](http://olympiawa.gov/community/~/media/Files/PublicWorks/Transportation/BicycleMasterPla 

n.ashx) to guide facilities development. 

[[PT24.2]] Build bike lanes on new major streets: arterials, major collectors and selected neighborhood 

collectors. Bike facilities planned for specific streets are defined in the [Engineering Design and 

Development Standards](http://olympiawa.gov/city-services/building-permits-andinspections/engineering-design-and-development-standards.aspx). 

[[PT24.3]] Use signs and markings to enhance the bicycle network, to raise awareness of motor vehicle 

drivers of bicyclists, to guide bicyclist and motorist behavior, and to direct bicyclists to destinations. 

[[PT24.4]] Consider Support and provide for safety and convenience of bicyclists in street maintenance 

practices and signal system operations. When roadway closures for construction are necessary, always 

provide for a reasonably direct bicycle route through the construction area, because cyclists cannot 

simply ‘drive around’ a long detour route. 

[[PT24.5]] Use construction and maintenance practices that provide safe access for do not unnecessarily 

obstruct bicycle travel. 

18

[[PT24.6]] Require new commercial developments, public facilities, schools, and multifamily housing to 

provide end-of-trip facilities for bicyclists, such asincluding covered bike racks and lockers. 

[[PT24.7]] Use education, encouragement and enforcement programs to improve the safety of and 

promote bicycling. 

[[PT24.8]] Encourage businesses, schools and employers to support bicycling. 

[[Change: New policies related to safety and education.]] 

[[PT24.9]] Educate people about biking and walking in order to make the best use of the City’s 

investments in infrastructure. 

[[PT24.10]] Encourage Enforce regulations drivers to protect the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. 

[[PT24.11]] Educate bicyclists and pedestrians about their responsibilities as users of the street system. 

Fewer Car Trips, Big Benefits 

[[Change: These are very similar to the goals and policies of the prior plan, with a greater emphasis on 

schools and students. The parking polices here are those that are linked to reducing commute trips. 

Some parking policies have been moved to the Land Use Chapter.]] 

When more people ride the bus, carpool, walk, and bike for their daily commute, we reduce growth in 

traffic congestion, air and water pollution, and energy consumption. We benefit as individuals too – 

driving alone less means saving money and getting more exercise. 

Many community efforts focus on helping people find options to driving alone to work and school. 

Ridematch programs link people for carpooling, or long-distance vanpools. Frequent bus service to 

centrally-located work sites makes commuting by bus more inviting. Bike lanes and bike parking, and a 

complete pedestrian network of sidewalks and safe crossings, encourages people to walk and bike. 

Commute trip reduction efforts focus on employee and student commute trips because these trips are 

made at the same time by large numbers of people, and a successful change in these travel habits can 

have a positive impact on our streets. 

Students and parents driving to and from school can create congestion and cause safety issues for 

students. School-based programs, as well as bicycle and pedestrian-friendly streets, are needed to 

encourage students to walk, bike, carpool and take the bus to school. 

[[Photo: Capitol_10 align=horizontal caption= State law calls on employees to reduce drive-alone 

commuting.]] 

The [Commute Trip Reduction Law](http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/01C32E8B-4273-482A- 

9F09-86083556AFFF/0/6566SPL.pdf) calls on workers to reduce drive-alone commuting. Commute Trip 

Reduction programs focus on large worksites in the most congested areas of the state. 

19

When we reduce drive-alone commuting, we make the best use of the street system, and offset the 

need to add costly new lanes. In addition, if more people walk, bike, carpool and ride the bus, more land 

use density can occur in targeted areas without an increase in traffic. 


[[GT25]] Walking, biking, riding the bus and carpooling are inviting for trips to work or school. 

Fewer drive-alone trips will reduce pollution, energy consumption, and the growth in traffic 

congestion. 

[[PT25.1]] Support affected employers in the region in meeting the goals of the State’s [Commute Trip 

Reduction Law](http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/01C32E8B-4273-482A-9F09- 

86083556AFFF/0/6566SPL.pdf). 

[[PT25.2]] Complement the State’s [Commute Trip Reduction 

Law](http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/01C32E8B-4273-482A-9F09- 

86083556AFFF/0/6566SPL.pdf) with local policies and programs that support ridesharing, transit, 

walking and biking. 

[[PT25.3]] Work with the State to locate new worksites in the dense urban area, in locations that are 

transit accessible to frequent transit service and that allow employees to more easily walk and bike. 

[[PT25.4]] Encourage all employers in the City to reduce employee drive-alone commute trips. 

[[PT25.5]] Provide infrastructure to support walking, biking, transit, and ridesharing for commuting. 

[[PT25.6]] Work with employers and employees of the Downtown to create programs that reduce drivealone 

commuting. 

[[PT25.7]] Encourage areas with large employee concentrations, such as malls, to develop coordinated 

commuter programs to reduce drive-alone commuting. 

[[PT25.8]] Work with community partners to provide programs, services and incentives to promote 

transit, ridesharing, walking, and biking. 

[[PT25.9]] Encourage worksites and schools to stagger start times to reduce peak-hour traffic volumes. 

Encourage employers to allow flexible work schedules, so that employees can more easily use transit 

services and ridesharing opportunities. 

[[PT25.10]] Encourage employers to allow telecommuting to eliminate commute trips. 

[[PT25.11]] Provide City employees high-quality commuter services and incentives, while managing 

employee parking supply as a disincentive to drive-alone commuting. 

[[PT25.12]] Encourage and require end-of-trip facilities, such as clothes lockers, showers and bike 

parking for walking, biking and transit users at schools and worksites. 

20

[[Photo: trans TDM kids align=vertical caption=Kids walk and bike to school, reducing pollution and 

congestion.]] 

[[PT25.13]] Encourage walking, biking and ridesharing programs at schools to reduce congestion near 

schools, introduce children to transportation options, and reduce the need for parking at high schools. 

Encourage walking and biking so students get more exercise. 

[[PT25.14]] Develop mutual policiesWork with school districts to site new schools in locations where 

students can walk or bike to school, and where school employees and students can use transit to 

commute to and from the site. 

[[PT25.15]] Provide sidewalks, bike lanes, trails, pathways, and crossing facilities near schools to 

encourage walking and biking by students. 

[[PT25.16]] Educate the public about travel options and how these choices benefit them, the 

community, and the environment. 

[[GT26]] Parking is provided in a way that reduces drive-alone commute trips by employees. 

[[PT26.1]] Manage public parking through cost and supply to discourage drive-alone commuting by 

employees, while placing priority on patron parking needs. 

[[PT26.2]] Establish parking standards to meet actual demand for the needs of patrons, while not 

providing cheap and readily available parking for employees. 

[[PT26.3]] Work with adjacent cities and the State of Washington on consistent parking strategies to 

help meet the commute trip reduction goals of the region. This will also ensure that parking standards 

do not act as a deterrent to the location of development. 

[[PT26.4]] Collaborate to establish more park-and-ride lots in the region. 

NEW POLICY 

PT26.5 Provide adequate weather-sheltered bicycle parking for visitor us and long term bicycle storage 

for bicycle commuters in commercial and multi-family projects. 

Funding Brings Vision to Reality 

[[Change: Some of the goals and policies came from the prior plan, others from the Olympia 

Transportation Mobility Strategy. These goals and policies are consistent with the Thurston Regional 

Transportation Plan.]] 

The funding to bring our transportation vision to reality will be developed over time, with different 

sources and strategies. As the economy changes, population fluctuates, and funding circumstances 

change, we will need to be flexible and resourceful about funding opportunities, while keeping the 

vision of this plan in mind. 

Funding for transportation comes from federal, state and local sources. (Information on how the City 

spends transportation dollars is defined in the annual operating budget and the [Capital Facilities 

21

Plan](http://olympiawa.gov/city-government/budget/budget-financialreports/Capital%20Facilities%20Plan%20-%202012-2017.aspx). 

The City’s operating budget allocates funds for maintenance of streets, signals and other aspects of the 

transportation system. The City’s General Fund pays for operations; this fund is made up of taxes and 

fees. Onlya fraction of the cost of roadway construction and maintenance comes from the gasoline tax 

or other motor vehicle funded sources; the majority comes from general fund sources, development 

impact fees, grants, and a variety of other sources. 

The Capital Facilities Plan defines City construction projects for a 6-year period and identifies funding 

sources. Capital projects are paid for with a combination of grants, fees such as impact fees, General 

Fund dollars, gas tax revenues, stormwater utility rates, and private utility taxes. See [Capital Facilities 

Plan](http://olympiawa.gov/city-government/budget/budget-financialreports/Capital%20Facilities%20Plan%20-%202012-2017.aspx). 

[[Photo: trans funding align=horizontal caption=Transportation projects are funded through a variety of 

sources.]] 

It is important that we evaluate potential new funding sources such as a commercial parking tax, local 

improvement districts, right of way rental to utilities, parking improvement districts, motor fuel taxes 

(levied countywide) and transportation benefit districts. However, each potential source must be 

carefully weighed with respect to its legality, stability, and fairness and how complex it is to administer. 

The project lists shown in Appendix B, C and D reflect the vision of this plan, but may not be achievable 

within the 20-year horizon of this plan. The full network needs are described to provide a 

comprehensive view of the system we envision, and to be prepared for funding or other opportunities 

that would allow us to complete this work and advance our vision. 


[[GT27]] Transportation facilities and services are funded to advance the goals of the City and 

the region. Future transportation needs are identified to provide a comprehensive view of the 

system we envision, and to be prepared for funding and other opportunities. 

[[PT27.1]] Plan and prioritize projects consistent with available funding and to advance the community’s 

transportation vision. 

[[PT27.2]] Utilize master plans, sub-area plans and facilities programs to identify system needs and 

funding strategies, and define short-term actions. 

[[PT27.3]] Continue to be innovative with the use of existing funds and explore new funding sources for 

transportation. 

[[PT27.4]] Use public and private funds to advance transportation priorities and meet the needs of new 

trips on the system. 

[[Change: New policy related to funding bus corridors.]] 

22

[[PT27.5]] Explore adding capital improvements needed for bus corridors to the impact fee-eligibility list, 

such as transit priority at signals, transit queue jump lanes, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements. 

[[PT27.6]] Leverage community organizations to help complete priority projects. 

[[PT27.7]] Encourage action at the federal and state level to address transportation funding needs for 

cities. 

[[PT 27.8]] Focus transportation investments along Urban Corridors and in the downtown to help 

stimulate development and achieve land-use densification goals. 

NEW POLICY 

Ensure that on street parking fees support roadway right of way acquisition and maintenance costs to 

provide the parking facilities. 

[[Photo: trans workers innov align=horizontal caption=We seek creative new ways to reduce costs and 

impacts on the environment.]] 

[[GT28]] The transportation system is maintained at the lowest life-cycle cost to maximize the 

City’s investment in its infrastructure. 

[[Change: These are new policies.]] 

[[PT28.1]] Use proactive asset management systems to schedule infrastructure maintenance, resulting 

in efficiencies, greater predictability, and reduced costs. 

[[PT28.2]] Protect the street pavement by resurfacing many streets with low-cost treatments before 

they deteriorate to a point that requires major reconstruction. 

[[PT 28.3]] Engage adjacent property owners to maintain their sidewalks and planter strips either 

through voluntary efforts or code enforcement. 

Working with Our Neighbors 

Many long-term transportation issues require regional coordination to be resolved. Regional issues that 

will require Olympia’s attention include trails, transit, capacity and safety of regional corridors, highway 

access, passenger and freight rail, commuter services and park-and-ride lots, and the use of the marine 

port. Funding strategies will also require regional coordination. 

The [Thurston Regional Transportation 

Plan](http://trpc.org/regionalplanning/publications/pages/rtp.aspx) is the blueprint for the region’s 

transportation system, and identifies projects and issues for regional attention. The plan is based on 

land-use forecasts, and places heavy emphasis on the connections between land-use and transportation 

planning. Individual projects that emerge from the Regional Transportation Plan become the City’s 

responsibility to address. 

[[Photo: trans bus align=horizontal caption=Transit is one of the areas where regional coordination is 

needed.]] 

23


[[GT29]] Olympia engages with neighboring jurisdictions to advance common goals and solve 

regional problems. 

[[PT29.1]] Use this plan and the [Thurston Regional Transportation 

Plan](http://trpc.org/regionalplanning/publications/pages/rtp.aspx) to guide regional transportation 

decisions. 

[[PT29.2]] Establish and maintain compatible street standards with the cities of Lacey and Tumwater. 

[[PT29.3]] Work with the cities of Lacey and Tumwater on bus corridor development. 

[[PT29.4]] Work with neighboring jurisdictions on trail development. 

[[PT29.5]] Work with neighboring jurisdictions to address freight, rail, and truck mobility. 

[[PT29.6]] Coordinate with the Port of Olympia on truck access routes. Work with the Port of Olympia, as 

needed, to address air and water transportation needs. 

[[PT29.7]] Cooperate with regional jurisdictions on a funding strategy for the regional transportation 

network. 

[[PT29.8]] Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions and the Thurston Regional Planning Council on regional 

transportation and land-use goals. 

[[PT 29.9]] Work with Lacey and Tumwater to promote dense commercial and residential development 

in urban centers and along Urban Corridors. 

Appendix A: Transportation Sub Area Planning 

[[Change: This section of the prior plan has been updated and moved to the appendix. Updates include 

corridor studies and plans that have influenced the goals and policies of this plan. Appendix A of the 

prior plan, Transportation Policy Background has been integrated into the introductions of relevant goal 

areas, primarily Connectivity and Complete Streets.]] 

Plans and studies are used to solve specific transportation problems, evaluate issues in more detail, and 

identify actions or system improvements. Decisions have been made relating to capacity, street 

connectivity, and street design and demand management. Policies and goals in this plan reflect these 

plans and studies. 

[[Photo: trans public mtng align=horizontal caption=Public dialogue draws on a range of perspectives to 

solve problems.]] 

Southeast Olympia Transportation Issues 

24

The street network in the southeast provides north/south routes, but there are few east/west routes. 

Mobility is poor for autos, buses, bicycling and walking. This creates overloading on the Yelm Highway 

and the 18 th Avenue corridors. 

In 2012, a project to widen Yelm Highway and add roundabouts, bike lanes, sidewalk and crossing 

islands was completed. Beginning in 2010, 18 th Avenue from Fones Road to Boulevard Road was 

improved with bike lanes, sidewalks, streetlights, and two roundabouts. 

These major reconstruction projects will increase capacity, reduce delay and accidents, and provide 

more safe and inviting streets for walking and biking. In order to relieve the further pressure on these 

existing streets, additional connectivity is planned through the extension of Log Cabin Road. 

Log Cabin Road Extension: Boulevard Road to Wiggins Road 

An extension of Log Cabin Road between Boulevard Road to Wiggins Road is planned for east/west 

movements in the southeast. This two to threelane street will be partially built by the City, and partly by 

private development that occurs along the corridor. 

This connection will create a new east/west corridor parallel to Yelm Highway. Consistent with 

standards, this new major collector will include bike lanes, sidewalks, planter strips, street trees, and 

lighting and will be designed with curves to slow vehicle speeds. 

A 2011 projection of future peak-hour trips indicates that the addition of this new street will increase 

peak-hour traffic by approximately 60 percent on the existing section of Log Cabin Road (west of 

Boulevard Road) over what would be expected without the new street connection. However, this will 

still be within the capacity of the existing lanes on Log Cabin Road. (Ordinance #5861, 12/15/98 and 

Ordinance #5661, 12/26/96) 

Fones Road/18th Avenue Area Connectivity Evaluation 

Eighteenth Avenue from Boulevard Road to the City of Lacey will continue to be the most northerly 

east/west major collector within this sub area. Other routes, north and south of 18 th Avenue, have been 

proposed to help distribute the traffic. In 1996, the City analyzed the proposed extension of 22nd 

Avenue to Wiggins Road and a neighborhood collector connection from Dayton to Fones Road near 

Pacific Avenue. Both alternatives are limited by the presence of wetlands, whereas 18th Avenue was 

not. 

The 22nd Avenue extension was removed as a proposed major collector west of Allen Road. A Class II 

wetland within a kettle (enclosed basin) lies between Boulevard and Allen Roads. A wetland report and 

an evaluation of several different alignments indicated that there were no feasible or cost effective 

routes west of Allen Road that did not adversely affect the wetlands and greatly increase the possibility 

of flooding adjacent properties. The extension of 27th Avenue will terminate at Allen Street with a “T” 

type intersection. 

North of 18th Avenue, much of Dayton Street lies in an unincorporated County island. There was a 

proposal to connect this residential area to the commercial and industrial land that lies along Fones 

Road. A Class II wetland (which is the headwaters of Woodard Creek) lies between the residential and 

industrial areas. Several different alignments were evaluated, of which the least costly would be to 

25

utilize the railroad corridor, the location of the Woodland Trail. This alignment would have widened the 

existing railroad fill over the wetland, adjacent to the trail. The railroad alignment could also have been 

used east of Fones Road to eventually connect with Sleater-Kinney Road in Lacey. 

However, any east/west connection along the Dayton Street alignment would have adversely affected 

the character of this isolated neighborhood and would have increased peak-hour traffic volumes. Even 

though designated as a neighborhood collector, this connection would have many characteristics of a 

major collector, particularly if extended east of Fones Road. Under either classification, such a 

connection could have potentially become a bypass for 18th Avenue traffic. 

Access to this neighborhood can be provided in a manner which avoids impacting any wetlands with a 

neighborhood collector connecting Dayton Street to Fones Road, using the approximate alignment of 

Van Epps Street. 

The elimination of these two transportation links will place more demand upon the existing network of 

collectors within this sub area. Improvements made to 18 th Avenue, Fones Road, Yelm Highway, and Log 

Cabin Road should accommodate this demand. 

Fones Road Improvements 

Fones Road from 18 th Avenue north to Pacific Avenue needs to be widened to three to five lanes with 

turn pockets at major intersections. A roundabout was installed in 2010 at the intersection of Fones 

Road and 18 th Avenue. A second roundabout is planned at the south driveway of Home Depot. 

The use of roundabouts at these two intersections allows Fones Road between 18 th Avenue and the 

south Home Depot driveway to only be widened to three lanes, two lanes southbound and one lane 

northbound. Turn lanes are planned at selected driveways. North of the south Home Depot driveway, 

four to five lanes are needed. Widening of Fones Road between 18 th Avenue and Pacific will include bike 

lanes, sidewalks, planter strip, and streetlights. (Ordinance #5661, 12/26/96) 

Chambers Basin Analysis 

In 2006, in the area south and southwest of Chambers Lake, groundwater and stormwater problems 

were evaluated, relative to the future land use planned for this area. There were concerns about 

providing adequate drainage systems in this valley, due to shallow groundwater and flat grades. At the 

proposed land-use densities, there was a strong likelihood of persistent flooding, property damage, and 

other environmental impacts. 

It was determined that the valley area is not developable to the planned urban densities of 5 to 13 units 

per acre because of the high groundwater and flat topography. As a result of the analysis, the City 

reduced allowed development density and applied new low-density street standards in the valley. The 

unique design standard for local access streets in this area are narrower than the conventional local 

access standard, with sidewalks on one side, rather than both sides. 

Boulevard Road Corridor 

26

The 2006 Boulevard Road Corridor Study defined multimodal and capacity improvements for this 

corridor. Boulevard Road is a major north/south route that is considered a residential street by the 

many people who live there, and a major regional corridor for access to downtown. 

Full street standards are planned for the entire corridor, with some changes to planter strips to lessen 

property impacts. There will be a center-turn lane for the entire corridor, interspersed with landscaped 

pedestrian islands, landscaped medians, and left-turn pockets. 

Roundabouts are planned at the three other major intersections along the corridor. A double-lane 

roundabout was built at Log Cabin Road in 2009, which will eventually connect to the planned Log Cabin 

extension to the east. A single lane roundabout at 22 nd Avenue is planned for 2013, and a roundabout at 

Morse- Merryman Road is planned for construction between 2012 and 2017. 

In the long term, a roundabout at 18 th Avenue, and intersection treatments at 28 th Avenue, 30 th Avenue, 

41 st Way, and Wilderness Drive will be evaluated. As safety and mobility concerns warrant, parking 

north of I-5 may be removed to allow for a center-turn lane and other intersection improvements at 

Pacific Avenue and Boulevard Road. 

Pacific and Lilly Focus Area 

In the area bounded by Pacific Avenue and Interstate 5, Lilly Road and the City Limits, a network of local 

access streets in a traditional block pattern provides good access for vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. 

South of Pacific Avenue and north of the Woodland Trail, most properties are oriented toward Pacific 

Avenue. The lack of side streets makes it hard for vehicles to enter or leave the busy arterial. This area is 

not inviting for pedestrians and bicyclists, due to a lack of bike lanes and crossing islands. 

Nearby, Lilly Road dead-ends at Pacific Avenue from the north, while one block to the west, Fones Road 

dead-ends at Pacific Avenue from the south. Long term, the alignment of Fones Road to Lilly Road would 

be ideal, but this requires major reconstruction of public right-of-way and private properties. 

Improvements to the street network could significantly improve the overall pattern of circulation in this 

focus area. Lilly Road should be extended southward to connect with Sixth Street, providing a new route 

for movement between Fones Road and Lilly Road. Fifth Street should be extended to connect with the 

new Lilly Road Extension. 

While Royal, Plummer, Ferry, Wier, and Birch streets now provide good access to properties in the 

proposed Pacific and Lilly Urban Center, they could be realigned, if needed, to allow better development 

potential. Any realignment would need to meet the City’s intersection spacing standards, in order to 

maintain pedestrian-sized blocks. Plummer, or its successor street, should be connected through to 

South Sound Center to create an additional connection between Lilly Road and South Sound Center. 

Access to Royal Street from Lilly Road has poor sight distance, and could be a candidate for closure; even 

now it is strictly one-way in-bound, because of this limitation.(Ordinance #5661, 12/26/96) 

Lakewood Drive 

In 1997, the City Council decided not to make a street connection on Lakewood Drive between the Cove 

and Holiday Hills subdivisions. However, the Council preserved the option to open the connection in the 

27

future. Signing was installed at the point of connection of Lakewood Drive between the Cove and 

Holiday Hills subdivisions, and at the east end of Lakewood Drive to indicate that this street may be 

connected sometime in the future. 

If the street connection is made in the future, specific traffic-calming devices, signing, crosswalks, and a 

sidewalk will be installed. The existing bicycle/pedestrian connection will be maintained between these 

two subdivisions until a full street connection is made. (Ordinance #5757, 12/16/97) 

Northeast Transportation Issues 

The northeast has seen a great deal of residential development, due to its close proximity to major retail 

and medical services and access to I-5. Like the southeast area, the northeast area has good north/south 

corridors but few, if any, east/west corridors. 

Primarily, there is a need to develop east/west corridors at the major collector and neighborhood 

collector level. This will help disperse local traffic away from the Martin Way corridor onto the local 

street network. 

By providing a good major collector and neighborhood collector network throughout the northeast area, 

no major road widening is necessary through 2030. 

Lilly Road Corridor 

The congestion and access problems on the Lilly Road Corridor north of Martin Way to 26 th Avenue will 

continue to increase without additional street connections to the east and west of Lilly Road. Continued 

emphasis will be placed on street connectivity in this area. 

Without street connections in the northeast, growth will place additional transportation demands on 

the intersections of Martin/Lilly Road, Martin/Sleater-Kinney Road and Pacific/Fones Road intersections. 

This area has been identified as a "strategy area," which means that new street connections should be 

considered, rather than widening the existing streets. 

Increases in peak-hour traffic volumes will lead to longer delays at traffic signals. This increase will 

worsen the level of service at the signalized intersections, which is projected to be at level of service F 

prior to 2020. Given the current conditions at these intersections, it would be difficult and not the vision 

of this plan to build additional lanes to help accommodate this decrease in level of service. 

With the loss of opportunities to connect Lilly Road to South Bay Road in two locations, at 12 th Avenue 

and Lister Road described below, greater emphasis will be placed on the remaining proposed 

connections. (Ordinance #5661, 12/26/96) 

12th Avenue to 15th Avenue, NE, Corridor 

A new street connecting South Bay Road to Lilly Road, on the 12 th /15 th Avenue alignment, included a 

wetland crossing; therefore, removed from City plans in 2002. At that time, it was recommended that 

options for the transportation network in the northeast area should be considered as part of the 

regional transportation plan update. Further consideration of other alternatives should occur, in order 

to determine how to deal with the Martin Way, Sleater-Kinney, Lilly Road "strategy area." 

28

It will be important for this eastern section of the 12 th /15 th Avenue corridor to continue to be pursued 

from Lilly Road to Sleater-Kinney. An extension of 15th Avenue south of the Group Health facility should 

connect with an extension of Ensign Road in the north/south direction, west of and parallel to the 

Chehalis Western Trail. A crossing of the trail will be necessary and an easterly connection should be 

made at approximately 12th Avenue or 15 th Avenue. Although, this would result in a “T” type 

intersection between the existing 15th and 6th Avenue intersections on Sleater-Kinney, the pattern of 

previous subdivisions has precluded any better intersection alignments. 

West of Lilly Road, there is an opportunity to connect Ensign Road to a new north/south street which 

would connect back into Lilly Road using 12 th Avenue. This new connection would use Providence Lane, 

currently a private street. (Ordinance #5661 12/26/96 and Ordinance #6195, 7/3/02) 

Circulation North of 15th Avenue, NE 

Another proposed street connection west of Lilly Road from Lindell Road north and east to Lister Road 

was eliminated, due to concerns about a wetland crossing. 

Access to the residential area west of Lilly Road and south of 26th Avenue is needed and should be 

integrated into the surrounding neighborhoods. The 24 th Avenue alignment is the remaining opportunity 

north of 15 th for a new collector street. . (Ordinance #5661 12/26/96) 

24th Avenue, NE, Alignment 

With the loss of the Lister/Lindell Street connection, the proposed connection on the alignment of 24 th 

Avenue is increasingly important. Emergency service response time could be improved to this 

neighborhood by a connection proposed at 24th Avenue, NE. This would cross the same Class II wetland 

system as described in the 12th to 15th crossing. 

At the proposed 24th Avenue crossing, Woodard Creek and the wetland lie in a depression, which is 

favorable for a bridge crossing. Approach fills would be allowed to keep the bridge a single span of 130 

feet. This neighborhood collector will be funded by development. 

Stoll Road Area 

Stoll Road is a dead-end street west of Lilly Road, between Martin Way on the north and I-5 on the 

south. The site is within an Urban Corridor, areas within a quarter mile of the major transportation 

arterials, where this plan calls for a mix of retail, office, and high-density housing. 

Unless new street connections are made, all traffic in and out of this neighborhood must pass through 

the intersection of Stoll Road and Lilly Road. Consequently, any major new development in this area will 

be dependent on providing improved access. The most effective alignment for a new street would be a 

westerly extension of the east-west segment of Stoll Road, to be located south and west of Bailey Motor 

Inn. The north-south segments of Stoll Road would be turned into cul-de-sacs. Additional local access 

streets will also be needed. 

Participation in the cost of these improvements should be a condition of significant development 

approvals in the Stoll Road Area. This participation could be through a local improvement district, a 

29

transportation benefit district, or some other measure, which equitably distributes the costs to 

benefiting properties. (Ordinance #5661 12/26/96) 

Westside Transportation Issues 

Olympia’s Westside experienced a great deal of growth in commercial and residential development in 

the 1980s and early 1990s. Many of the commercial developments in West Olympia are regional in 

nature (Capital Mall, Target, Top Foods, Capital Auto Mall, etc.). Due to their regional nature, these 

types of retail land uses will generate traffic from as far away as Pierce, Lewis, Mason, or Grays Harbor 

counties. Since these types of land uses are retail, which typically produce a large number of non-work- 

related trips, a large percentage of traffic into and out of this area may not be affected by commute trip 

reduction strategies. 

This fact, and the relatively limited access to this area, have prompted several studies. Each has 

produced similar results and recommendations. The West Olympia Access Study (2008 to 2010) drew 

further conclusions about traffic capacity and needed improvements. 

US Highway 101 Access 

Access to and from West Olympia is primarily gained through the Black Lake/Cooper Point interchange 

and the Crosby/Mottman interchange. Two interchanges feed traffic to Black Lake Boulevard and 

Cooper Point Road, currently the largest intersection in the City. 

When the Crosby Boulevard/Mottman Road interchange was improved in 1996, there was agreement 

with the City of Tumwater and Washington State Department of Transportation, not to build this 

interchange beyond five lanes at mid-block due to capacity limitations and to keep the area as human 

scale as possible. Part of this agreement was to study additional future access to US 101. New access 

between US 101 and West Olympia would distribute traffic more evenly throughout the street network 

and take pressure off streets that otherwise would be over burdened. 

West Olympia Access Study, Phase I 

Beginning in 2008, the City and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) partnered 

on a joint study of the City street and state highway systems on the Westside, and arrived at an 

approach to new access to US 101. 

The chosen alternative includes an eastbound on-ramp and a westbound off-ramp at Kaiser Road as 

Phase 1 (within 15 to 20 years) and an off-ramp extension in the westbound direction from Black Lake 

Boulevard to Yauger Way as Phase 2 (beyond 20 years). 

This alternative will distribute traffic on the Westside street system, with three exit options in the 

westbound direction. This redundancy in the local street system is especially valuable to the hospital 

and medical facilities in the area, and provides for better transit operations. 

This approach will allow the existing commercial area near Black Lake Boulevard, Cooper Point Road and 

Harrison Avenue to grow and intensify. Compared to other options, growth in this existing commercial 

area is advantageous because the infrastructure is in place. A new access to US 101 may create pressure 

to up-zone underdeveloped areas with high densities and a different mix of uses. 

30

West Olympia Access Study, Phase II: Multimodal Street Plan 

A future phase of this study will examine the proposed capacity improvements associated with planned 

access ramps on US 101 (identified in Phase I above) and integrate these improvements into the local 

street system. 

During the public outreach process for Phase I of this study, the public shared many comments about 

the function of the local street system and the ability to walk, bike, and use transit in this area. Phase II 

will consider and address multimodal and local street improvements that arose in Phase I. The project 

will identify improvements needed to increase trips by walking, biking and transit, and identify 

opportunities to increase street and pathway connectivity. 


Decatur Street is a proposed major collector connecting 9 th Avenue to Caton Way. Today, a bike and 

pedestrian pathway exists but the street is not open to motor vehicles. Sixteenth Avenue connects Fern 

Street to Carriage Loop. This street was closed after the earthquake in 2001. The earthquake damaged 

the 4 th Avenue bridge which changed traffic patterns in the southwest area, and increased use of this 

connection. City Council closed this street to motor vehicles after concerns were raised by residents 

near the connection. 

Any decision on whether to connect Decatur Street to Caton Way and open 16 th Avenue as a vehicular 

connection will not be made until the West Olympia Access Study Phase II is complete. 

The majority of users of the Decatur Street connection would be residents of the southwest 

neighborhood, the residential area south of Harrison Avenue and east of Black Lake Boulevard. For these 

users, the facility represents an improved access route to Tumwater, the Courthouse area, and US 101, 

bypassing the congested Black Lake Boulevard corridor. 

Some residents have raised concerns about the connection, and the impacts of increased traffic and 

changed traffic patterns in the residential area. A system of traffic-calming devices have been installed in 

the southwest neighborhood and on Decatur Street, and more are planned, in anticipation of the 

connection. These devices should be effective in reducing the volume of through traffic from outside the 

immediate neighborhood, if this connection was made. Traffic around this connection should be 

monitored to assure that the new connection is serving mostly local circulation needs. (Ordinance 

#6389, 1/24/06) 

Harrison Avenue from West Bay Drive to Division Street 

This corridor was studied as part of the 4 th /5 th Avenue Bridge Corridor Study in 1992. This street is a 

strategy corridor, where widening is not a preferred approach to resolving congestion. Future capacity 

will be gained by enhancing bus service and use of transportation demand management measure. 

In the area of Division Street to Perry Street, increased traffic flow and safety might be achieved with 

either left-turn pockets at selected intersections, or a continuous left-turn lane. From Perry Street to 

West Bay Drive, limited right-of-way and topographic constraints will only allow access and flow 

31

improvements by restricting left turns with periodic opportunities to make left and u-turns. Any 

modifications to Harrison should consider pedestrian access along and across the corridor. 

Harrison Avenue from Cooper Point Road to Overhulse Road Evaluation 

In the mid-1990s, Harrison Avenue from Cooper Point Road to Yauger Way was improved to meet street 

standards: two vehicle lanes in each direction, a center-turn lane, sidewalks, bike lanes, pedestrian 

crossing islands, and streetlights. Improvements from Yauger Way to Kaiser Road were anticipated to 

maintain adopted vehicle level of service standards. Level of service standards were expected to fail by 

2008 or 2009. 

A study examined the need for and timing of the widening to four to five vehicle lanes. The community 

shared issues and possible solutions to increase transportation safety and mobility in this corridor. A 

consultant validated the technical analysis about the need to widen the road. 

In 2011, the street was widened to a four to five vehicle lanes, and bike lanes, planter strips, street 

trees, lighting, and sidewalks were added. Pedestrian crossing islands were added to mitigate the 

widening, while preserving access to businesses. 

The remaining section of Harrison from Kaiser Road to Overhulse Road, is likely to be completed as 

developer-funded frontage improvements. 

West Bay Drive Corridor Study 

West Bay Drive is a primary link to northwest Olympia neighborhoods, and fronts an area that is 

undergoing redevelopment. This corridor was studied in the 2004 West Bay Drive Corridor Study. 

West Bay Drive is a major collector street in a narrow and steep topographic area. The study identified 

modifications to the major collector street standard that provide the function of the conventional major 

collector street standard, with less cut and fill of the steep slopes along the street. However, as 

development occurs, left turn pockets may be needed. Bike lanes and pedestrian facilities are also 

needed. 

The unique street frontage improvements identified for West Bay Drive are defined in the City’s 

Engineering Design and Development Standards. The modified major collector standard for the street 

includes sidewalks and bike lanes. In some areas, the planned multi-use trail and sidewalk will be 

combined. Planter strips will vary –planter strips will be built only where topography is not a constraint. 

On the east side, landscaping in the planter strips will not obstruct views. Pedestrian crossing 

improvements are identified at Brawne Avenue, the Garfield Trail, and the proposed Woodard Avenue 

pathway. A two to threelane street section will be adequate West Bay Drive based on traffic projections 

for the next 20 years. (Ordinance #6389, 1/24/06) 

Urban Corridors, Strategy Corridors and Bus Corridors 

Urban Corridors 

Urban Corridors are the major arterials in our street system that correspond with the highest density 

land uses. More than just the street system, an Urban Corridor includes the area a quarter mile on 

either side of these arterials. These corridors are east 4 th and State Avenues, Martin Way, Harrison 

32

Avenue, the triangle on the Westside shaped by Harrison Avenue, Cooper Point Road and Black Lake 

Boulevard, and portions of Capitol Way. These corridors can be found on the Corridors Map found in 

Appendix I. Only parts of Capitol Way are included in the Urban Corridor designation because the south 

Capitol Neighborhood area will not likely see the increased densities planned for Urban Corridors. This 

National Historic District neighborhood is built out and will retain a residential neighborhood function 

and character. 

Along these corridors, land use will be supported by a multimodal transportation system. Transportation 

improvements in these corridors will allow the densities to increase with a minimal of new car trips. It is 

acceptable for arterial and major collector streets within Urban Corridors to have a transportation level 

of service E. Bus Corridors will be developed along the Strategy Corridors within Urban Corridors. These 

corridors can be found on the Corridors Map found in Appendix I. 

Strategy Corridors 

Strategy Corridors are the major streets within Urban Corridors, but some Strategy Corridors fall outside 

of the Urban Corridors. The Strategy Corridor concept is identified in the [Thurston Regional 

Transportation Plan](http://trpc.org/regionalplanning/publications/pages/rtp.aspx). Strategy Corridors 

are places where road widening is not a preferred option to address congestion problems. This may be 

because the street or road is already at the maximum five-lane width, or that adjacent land uses are 

either fully built out or are environmentally sensitive. In strategy corridors, levels of service may exceed 

adopted standards. In strategy corridors, congestion may be at unacceptable levels, yet these are the 

areas where we want to encourage more jobs and housing. 

In strategy corridors, a different approach is needed for maintaining safety and access. Ensuring that 

transit, bicycle and pedestrian transportation remain attractive and viable alternatives on strategy 

corridors can help relieve congestion. Bus corridors will be developed along most of these corridors. 

Improvements for transit efficiency can help make transit more attractive on these corridors. Traffic 

signal improvements, such as extended green time and queue jump lanes, will be an increasingly 

important focus for the City in these corridors. These corridors can be found on the Corridors Map found 

in Appendix I. 

Bus Corridors 

Bus corridors represent the main bus routes in Olympia. Bus corridors are major streets with highquality, 

frequent transit service. Bus corridors correspond with strategy corridors. Transit is expected to 

help resolve traffic and capacity issues in strategy corridors. Along with street improvements to support 

transit, a mix of dense land uses are important to the success of bus corridors. The bus corridor concept 

was introduced in the [Olympia Transportation Mobility Strategy](http://olympiawa.gov/en/cityservices/transportation-services/plans-studies-and-data/Plans%20and%20Studies%20- 

%20Mobility%20Strategy.aspx), and is a major focus of this plan update. These corridors can be found 

on the Corridors Map found in Appendix I. 

Downtown and City Center Transportation Issues 

Downtown is defined as the bridges to the west, Marine Drive to the north, Eastside Street to the east, 

and Union Avenue to the south. City Center is defined as the downtown along with the Capitol Campus 

and the Port. 

33

The Downtown experiences varied levels of traffic congestion, depending on time of day. For the most 

part, no new roadways are proposed in the Downtown area, based on the existing land-use plan and 

expected development. This area is an example of a well-connected grid street network that can handle 

large volumes of traffic and where excellent support services for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders 

are planned. Traffic congestion will continue in Downtown, but City efforts will focus on moving people 

and goods, instead of accommodating only vehicles. 

Some intersections in Downtown will continue to experience below level of service congestion during 

the morning and evening rush hours. Downtown is a strategy corridor, meaning widening is not an 

option to address congestion. In the Downtown, future capacity will be achieved through transit service 

enhancements and the development of bus corridors, promoting walking and biking, and the use of 

transportation demand management measures. 

The Port of Olympia’s investment in redeveloping the East Bay area resulted in new street connections 

that enhance access and mobility in northeast Downtown. The Thurston Avenue/Olympia Avenue 

connection from East Bay Drive to Jefferson Street has greatly improved access into north Downtown, 

and provides a new east/west route option. 

4th and 5th Avenue Corridor Study 

In 1991, the City embarked on a multi-stage study of the 4 th and 5 th Avenue corridors. The intent was to 

improve transportation between Downtown and the Westside. The study sought to reduce congestion 

and improve access and safety for walking and biking. The other objectives of the study included 

maintaining the livability of nearby neighborhoods, enhancing Downtown vitality, protecting the 

environment, improving aesthetics of the corridor, and enhancing access for buses and carpools. 

Several major changes resulted from this study: a new three-lane bridge, the use of roundabouts, and a 

significantly enhanced street system for walking and biking. The corridor work became critical to 

complete with damage to the 4 th Avenue bridge during the 2001 earthquake. Corridor improvements 

were fast-tracked and completed in 2004. 

A new four-lane bridge to replace the then current two-lane bridge would have been a simple solution 

to congestion. The decision to build a three-lane bridge showed a commitment to maintain a humanscale 

street system, while accommodating growth in trips. A three-lane bridge still allowed two lanes to 

exit the Downtown, which provided the greatest potential to alleviate congestion that could bring 

Downtown to a standstill. 

The roundabouts increased traffic flow in the corridor, reducing delays and reducing collisions at 

intersections, and the severity of collisions that may occur. 

Wide sidewalks, flashing light systems for crosswalks, roundabouts, and bike lanes in the corridor 

enhanced access for bicyclists and pedestrians. Viewing areas on the bridge, art and a new park in the 

corridor transformed a transportation facility into a destination itself. This project, as one of the City’s 

largest, also demonstrated for the first time a major commitment to other modes, and recognized how a 

transportation facility can do more than just move cars, but enhance the character of a City. 

34

Olympia's Downtown Streetscape Strategy 

The Downtown Streetscape Strategy Report provides a design template for streetscape improvements 

for the Downtown. Streetscape improvements will focus on improvements in the public right-of-way 

and not on zoning or development standards. 

Implementation is expected to occur over the long term, through the combined efforts of annual phased 

capital improvements, streetscape improvements as part of street or development projects, and 

partnerships with other public and private agencies. 

East Downtown Streetscape 

The east Downtown area is from Plum Street to the east, Adams Street to the west, State Avenue to the 

north, and 7th Avenue to the south. A market analysis indicated that new types of commercial and 

residential development are becoming feasible within the east Downtown district. 

The 2004 Olympia East Downtown Development Plan calls for east Downtown to feature a mix of 

commercial activities and housing types within a walkable neighborhood setting. Specific streetscape 

improvements have been defined to help achieve the vision for this district. 

Improvements for 4th, State, Cherry, Chestnut, and Legion in the east Downtown are defined and 

incorporated in the development standards to guide public- and privately-funded improvements to 

these streets. 

Downtown Growth and Transportation Efficiency Center (GTEC) 

In 2007, the City Council established a GTEC in Downtown Olympia. This GTEC helps achieve the land- 

use and transportation vision for Downtown; a dense vibrant place to live, work, shop, and play that is 

not auto oriented or dominated by congestion. 

The goal of the GTEC is to expand commute trip reduction efforts to all approximately 20,000 

Downtown employees. Downtown densification will help meet City land-use, transportation, 

environmental, and economic goals. As the densities increase, successful trip reduction programs will 

help maintain an effective transportation network. 

Capitol Way 

In 2005, the City studied the safety and transportation issues along the Capitol Way Corridor from 14th 

Avenue to Carlyon Avenue. The study involved the community in looking at multimodal improvements 

while considering the unique historic, environmental, and community values in the corridor. 

Residents in the adjacent neighborhood expressed concerns about the accident history at the curve 

south of 25th Avenue, pedestrian crossing safety, vehicles speeds, the lack of a bicycle route, and the 

impacts of increased traffic volumes on the corridor. They also identified historic and neighborhood 

character elements they wanted preserved in the corridor. 

35

This study explored roadway design options to address resident concerns, including evaluating a three- 

and four-lane roadway configuration. It was determined that a reduction in the number of vehicle travel 

lanes (from four to three) would result in a rise in congestion to an unacceptable level. 

In trying to balance the needs in the corridor, a recommended option, based on the existing four-lane 

configuration, was developed that addressed somemany of the stated safety and mobility concerns 

expressed by the public. 

City Wide Planning Efforts 

Street Standards Update 

The [City of Olympia Engineering Design and Development Standards](http://olympiawa.gov/cityservices/building-permits-and-inspections/engineering-design-and-development-standards.aspx) 

include standards for constructing all classifications of streets. The street standards were updated in 

2006 to be more aligned with complete street principles. Updates were made relating to reduced street 

widths, reduced speed limits, and smaller curb radius dimensions to narrow pedestrian crossings at 

intersections. 

Transportation Mobility Strategy 

In August 2009, the City Council accepted the [Olympia Transportation Mobility 

Strategy](http://olympiawa.gov/en/city-services/transportation-services/plans-studies-anddata/Plans%20and%20Studies%20-%20Mobility%20Strategy.aspx) 

report. This was the first 

comprehensive mater planning effort in transportation. Policy recommendations guide Olympia to 

becoming a more multimodal city. The report was developed by a consultant, working with a citizen 

advisory group and staff. 

Sidewalk Program 

The [City of Olympia Sidewalk Program 

(2003)](http://olympiawa.gov/~/media/Files/PublicWorks/PDFs/City-of-Olympia-Sidewalk-Program- 

2003.ashx) was the first comprehensive sidewalk planning effort. Led by the Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Advisory Committee, the program was developed by inventorying missing sidewalks and ranking 

sidewalk projects for construction. The program focuses on building sidewalks on at least one side of our 

major streets. Criteria for prioritizing construction relate to street conditions and proximity to 

pedestrian destinations. Appendix C lists the Sidewalk Program Projects in priority order. 

Bicycle Master Plan 

The [Bicycle Master Plan 


n.ashx) guides the City in increasing the number of people biking for transportation, and the safety of 

bicyclists. The plan includes recommendations for facilities development and education and 

encouragement activities. The plan was developed in collaboration with the Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Advisory Committee and was accepted by Council in 2009. Appendix D list the bike lane projects 

planned. 

36

Concurrency Report 

The [Washington State Growth Management 

Act](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A) requires that the City prohibit 

development, if the development causes the level of service on a street to decline below adopted 

standards, unless improvements or strategies are concurrent with the development to mitigate the 

impacts. "Concurrent with the development" means that there is a plan in place to complete the 

improvements or strategies within six years. This report confirms impacts of development and the need 

for transportation capacity improvements to occur with development over a six years period. Some of 

these projects are listed in Appendix B. 

Appendix B: 2030 Street Capacity and Network Improvements Project 

List 

[[Change: The 2030 Street Capacity and Network Improvements Project List has been updated.]] 

The following project list is based on achieving the Regional Transportation Plan and Olympia 

Comprehensive Plan level of service standards or street capacity, and needed street connections to 

achieve the planned street network. 

Street Widening Projects 

1. Fones Road: widening to three to five lanes and roundabout (at Home Depot south access) 

2. Black Lake Boulevard: widening to two to three lanes (City Limits to 25th Avenue) 

3. Boulevard Road: widening 3 Lanes (roundabouts are listed with Intersection Projects) 

4. Harrison Avenue/Mud Bay Road, Phase 4: widening 

5. Plum Street: widen Plum between 5 th , 4th and State Avenue, add left turn lanes 

Street Connections 

1. Hoffman Road connection to Log Cabin Road extension 

2. Decatur Street connection to Caton Way 

3. Yauger Way Extension to Top Foods 

4. Kaiser Road connection to Black Lake Boulevard 

5. 12th/15th Avenue connection from Lilly Road to Sleater-Kinney Road 

6. 12th Avenue connection to Ensign Road 

7. Ensign Road connection to Pacific Avenue 

8. Log Cabin Road extension, Boulevard Road to Hoffman Road Phase 1: median 

9. Log Cabin Road extension, Hoffman Road to East City Limits Phase 2: widening/median 

10. Hoffman Road connection to Log Cabin Road extension 

Intersection Projects 

1. Cooper Point Road and Caton Way: signal or roundabout 

2. Yauger Way (US 101 Off Ramp) and Capital Mall Drive: signal or roundabout 

3. Henderson Boulevard and Carlyon Avenue: signal or roundabout 

4. Legion and Adams: signal or roundabout 

5. 8th and Jefferson: signal or roundabout 

6. Boulevard Road/Pacific Avenue/Martin Way “Y” roundabout 

7. Lilly Road and Ensign Road: left-turn lanes 

8. Lilly Road and 15th Avenue connector: signal or roundabout 

37

9. Sleater-Kinney Road and 15th Avenue connector: signal or roundabout 

10. Boulevard Road and Log Cabin Road: complete roundabout (east leg only) 

11. Boulevard Road and 22nd Avenue: roundabout 

12. Boulevard Road and Morse-Merryman Road: roundabout 

13. North Street - Cain Road to Henderson Boulevard: signal or roundabout 

14. Henderson Boulevard and Eskridge Boulevard: roundabout 

15. Wiggins Road and 37th Avenue: roundabout 

16. Black Lake Boulevard and Cooper Point Road at Top Foods: turn lane 

17. Sleater-Kinney Road and Martin Way: turn lane 

18. East Bay Drive and Olympia Avenue: traffic signal 

19. Division Street and Harrison Avenue: turn lane 

20. Lilly Road and Martin Way: turn lane 

21. 22nd Avenue and Cain Road/Wilson Street: turn lanes or signal 

22. Cooper Point Road and Harrison Avenue: turn lane 

23. Deschutes Parkway and Lakeridge Drive: traffic signal 

24. Cooper Point/Auto Mall Drive and Evergreen Park Drive: turn lane 

25. Cooper Point Road and Capital Mall Drive: turn lane 

26. Black Lake Boulevard and Capital Mall Drive: turn lane 

27. Pacific Avenue and Ensign Road: traffic signal 

Other Projects 

1. All Arterials: transit signal priority and high-occupancy vehicle improvements 

2. West Olympia Access to US 101: Interchange Justification Report 

3. West Olympia Access to US 101: Phase I Kaiser Road on and off ramps 

4. West Olympia Access to US 101: Phase 2 Yauger Way off ramp (beyond 2030 planning horizon) 

[[Change: The Downtown and Arterial Street Planting Priority list in the appendix of the prior plan has 

primarily been completed, and been removed from the comp plan. Any equivalent list for street tree 

planting priorities will be included in an updated urban forestry master plan and projects identified in 

the Capital Facilities Plan. City street standards require street trees on new streets.]] 

[[Change: The sidewalk projects listed in Appendix C update the non-motorized project lists in the prior 

plan.]] 

[[Data: Sidewalk Program.xls type=table=Sidewalk Program Project List]] 

[[Change: Map 6-1, Intercity Transit Route Network will be removed. The Corridor Map reflects bus 

corridors. Readers will have a link to Intercity Transit long-range plan and maps.]] 

[[Change: Map 6-2, Bicycle Transportation is proposed to be moved to the Engineering Design and 

Development Standards.]] 

[[Change: Map 6-4 Rail, Light Rail and Trolley Routes is proposed to be removed.]] 

[[Change: The bike lane projects listed in Appendix D update the non-motorized project lists in the prior 

plan.]] 

38

Appendix D: Bike Lane Project List 

These bike lane projects are priorities for construction. The projects in the [Bicycle Master Plan 


n.ashx) represent the vision for the network, and are likely to go beyond the 20-year planning 

timeframe. These projects will be coordinated with the City’s roadway resurfacing or reconstruction 

projects. Priorities may be adjusted for construction efficiencies. Some projects may be completed as 

frontage improvements built by private development in accordance with City street standards. In 

understanding the level of need this list represents, a rough planning level estimate for all these 

projects, in 2011 dollars, is $99,390,700. 

Near Term 

1. San Francisco Avenue, NE, from East Bay Drive to Bethel Street 

2. Mottman Road, SW, from Mottman Court to South Puget Sound Community College 

3. 14th/Walnut Road, NW, from Kaiser Road to Division Street 

4. Herman Road, SE, from Wiggins Road to the Chehalis Western Trail 

5. Cooper Point Road, NW, from 14th Avenue to 20th Avenue 

6. Fones Road, SE, from Pacific Avenue to 18th Avenue 

7. Pine Avenue, NE, from Puget Street to east City limits 

8. Elliott /20 th Avenue, NW, from Crestline Boulevard to Road 65 

9. Legion Way, SW, from Water St. to Capitol Blvd. (eastbound only to avoid parking removal) 

10. Bethel Street, NE, from San Francisco Avenue to 26 th Avenue 

11. Martin Way and Pacific Avenue “Y” 

12. Crestline Boulevard/Raft Avenue/Schneider Hill, NW, from West Bay Drive to Elliott Avenue 

13. West Bay Drive, NW, from Olympic Way to Schneider Hill Road 

14. Henderson Boulevard, SE, from Union Street to I-5 

15. Morse-Merryman Road, SE, from Sugarloaf Street to Wiggins Road 

16. 4 th Avenue, W, from Black Lake Boulevard to Perry Street 

17. 4 th Avenue, W, from Black Lake Boulevard to Kenyon Street 

18. 5 th Avenue, SE, across the Capitol Lake dam (both directions) 

19. Cooper Point road from 20 th Avenue to 28 th Avenue 

Long Term 

1. Kenyon Street, NW, from Capital Mall access road to Harrison Avenue 

2. Hoffman Road, SE, from 26 th Avenue to Morse-Merryman Road 

3. Kaiser Road, NW, from Harrison Avenue to Walnut Road 

4. 26 th Avenue, NE, from Gull Harbor Road to Chehalis Western Trail 

5. McPhee Road, NW, from Capital Mall Drive to Harrison Avenue 

6. Wiggins Road, SE, 27 th Avenue from Hoffman Road to Wiggins Road to Yelm Highway 

7. Decatur Street, SW, from 9 th Avenue to Caton Way 

8. Lakeridge Drive, SW, from Deschutes Parkway to Evergreen Park Drive 

9. Fern Street, SW, from 9 th Avenue to end 

10. Road 65, NW, from 20 th Avenue to 14 th Avenue 

11. Ames Road, NE, from Gull Harbor Road to East Bay Drive 

12. Ensign Road, NE, from Lilly Road to Chehalis Western Trail 

13. Pine Avenue/12 th Avenue, NE, from Puget Street to South Bay Road 

14. Sleater-Kinney Road/15 th Avenue to 18 th Avenue, SE 

15. Miller Avenue, NE, from Bethel Street to Friendly Grove Road 

39

16. Union Avenue, SE, from Capitol Way to Eastside Street 

17. Lilly Road, NE, from Winwood Place to Urban Growth Boundary 

18. 7 th Avenue, NW, from Kaiser Road to McPhee Road 

19. Friendly Grove Road, NE, from Miller Avenue to Urban Growth Boundary 

20. Gull Harbor Road, NE, from Urban Growth Boundary to City limits 

21. Wheeler Avenue, SE, from Eastside Street to Boulevard (convert one-sided path) 

[[Change: Appendix H, the Transportation 2030 maps replace Map 6-3 and this map has been divided 

into separate maps so detail can be more easily seen.]] 

[[Change: The data on the traffic forecast maps have been updated based on new projections.]] 

Appendix E: Highways of Statewide Significance (Thurston County) 

• State Route 5, 276.62 miles, Oregon to Canada 

• State Route 8, 20.67 miles, US 12/Elma to SR 10/Olympia (entire route) 

• State Route 12, 324.51 miles, US 101/Aberdeen to Idaho (entire route) 

• State Route 101, 336.66 miles, SR 4 to I-5/Olympia (0.01 mi of physical gap not included) 

Appendix F: Transportation Facilities and Services of Statewide 

Significance 

• The Interstate Highway System: See attachment for Highways of Statewide Significance 

• Interregional State Principal Arterials: See attachment for Highways of Statewide Significance 

• Intercity Passenger Rail Services: 

o Olympia to Seattle, with stops in Tacoma and Tukwila (5 trips per day) 

o Olympia to Portland, with stops in Centralia, Kelso and Vancouver (5 trips per day) 

• Intercity High-speed Ground Transportation: none 

• Major Passenger Intermodal Facilities: none 

• Ferry Terminals: none 

• Intercity Bus Depot: Olympia Greyhound Station 

• Park and Ride Facilities: Martin Way 

• Rail Facilities: Centennial Station (Olympia) 

• Transit Centers: Intercity Transit (Olympia) 

• The Freight Railroad System: none 

• Switching and Terminal Companies: none 

• The Columbia/Snake Navigable River System: none 

• Marine Port Facilities and Services: Port of Olympia 

• High Capacity Transportation System serving regions as defined in RCW 81.140.015: none 

Appendix G: Facilities of Statewide Significance 

The following Facilities of Statewide Significance are located in the Washington State Department of 

Transportation’s Olympic Region, in Olympia: 

• State Route 5, from Mile Post 104.56 to 108.13, Limited Access Fully Controlled, Urban 

Interstate 

• State Route 101, from Mile Post 364.91 5 to 366.91, Limited Access Fully Controlled, Urban 

Principal Arterial 

40

For More Information 

• The [City of Olympia Transportation Mobility Strategy](http://olympiawa.gov/en/cityservices/transportation-services/plans-studies-and-data/Plans%20and%20Studies%20- 

%20Mobility%20Strategy.aspx) provides policy guidance for achieving a multimodal 

transportation system. 

• The [City of Olympia Engineering Design and Development 

Standards](http://olympiawa.gov/city-services/building-permits-and-inspections/engineeringdesign-and-development-standards.aspx) 

implements comprehensive plan goals and policies. 

These technical standards govern all new construction and modification of transportation and 

utilities infrastructure. 

• The [Thurston Regional Transportation 

Plan](http://trpc.org/regionalplanning/publications/pages/rtp.aspx) describes how the region 

will work together to resolve regional problems and establish regional priorities. 

• The [Washington State Growth Management 

Act](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A) guides communities to develop 

comprehensive plans and development regulations that guide growth for the 20-year horizon. 

• The [City of Olympia Sidewalk Program 

(2003)](http://olympiawa.gov/~/media/Files/PublicWorks/PDFs/City-of-Olympia-Sidewalk- 

Program-2003.ashx) is a list of prioritized sidewalk projects on Olympia’s major streets. 

• The [City of Olympia Bicycle Master Plan 

(2009)](http://olympiawa.gov/community/~/media/Files/PublicWorks/Transportation/BicycleM 

asterPlan.ashx) strives to increase the number of people bicycling and the safety of bicyclists. 

The plan includes recommendations for bicycle facilities development and education and 

encouragement activities. 

• The [Commute Trip Reduction Law](http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/01C32E8B-4273- 

482A-9F09-86083556AFFF/0/6566SPL.pdf) calls on large employers in urban areas of the state 

to reduce drive-alone commute trips made by employees. 

• The [Thurston Regional Trails 

Plan](http://trpc.org/regionalplanning/publications/pages/thurstonregionaltrailsplan.aspx) 

defines off-street trail network priorities and issues throughout Thurston County. 

41

From: Manek Mistry 


Subject: Urban Corridor designation for Carlyon Neighborhood 


I'm writing because I'm opposed to the urban corridor designation for my 

neighborhood. 

I live in a 1923 craftsman home on Lorne Street SE. There are other houses of this 

vintage on the street. 

It makes no sense to extend an urban corridor outward from Capital-- to do so 

would wreck the historic and residential qualities of our area. 

It would make much more sense to create a high-density residential and commercial 

zone centered around the Tumwater Plaza area. This is an area that is already 

developed with businesses (including Safeway). It is on three bus lines, and has few 

(if any) older houses, and very little residential properties. 

By contrast, Carlyon and its side streets are all residential, with many older and 

historic homes. 

Thanks for the opportunity to comment. 

-- 

Manek R. Mistry 

Backlund & Mistry 

Attorneys at Law 

P.O. Box 6490 


(360) 339-4870

From: lee montecucco 


Subject: process 

Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:02:50 PM 

Olympia Planning Commission: 

Thank-you for your efforts to make the Comprehensive 

Plan revision process as open, transparent and inclusive 

as possible going forward. This is not easy, particularly 

with the various barriers regarding public communication. 

Lee Montecucco

From: Geoffrey Mueller 


Subject: Comprehensive Plan -- Decatur Street 


Sir or Lady -- 

We understand that there is still consideration being given to opening 

Decatur Street to traffic from Cooper Point Road in the proposed 

Comprehensive Plan. We note that in one section dealing with this 

proposal, it states that the majority of the use of such a through street 

would be by residents of the area south of Harrison on the West Side. We 

admit that we do not share this opinion, as we believe many cars would 

look on this as a shorter route to downtown from Tumwater Hill, thus 

putting many more cars through our residential neighborhood. 

If the intent is primarily to benefit these residents, We believe it would be 

appropriate to consult such residents, and take their views into 

consideration. 

Based on our limited discussions of this issue with persons residing on the 

West Side, We believe that most of these residents are, and have always 

been, adamantly opposed to opening Decatur Street to through traffic 

from Cooper Point Road. That has certainly been our consistent position 

on the issue. It is our understanding that when the Auto Mall was put in, 

the residents of the West Side were assured by our elected 

representatives that there was no intent to change Decatur into a through 

street, and it would never be done. It would be nice if our elected 

representatives statements were honored. 

If, on the other hand, it is really not the intent to benefit the residents, 

but to open the street to additional traffic to benefit others, we believe 

this would be the same type of disregard for the citizens that was shown 

by the past City Council regarding the isthmus, and the response should 

be similar. 

Thank you for your consideration of this matter, 

Geoffrey A and Lorna D Mueller 

805 5th Ave. SW

From: Kim Murillo 


Subject: Decatur St. resident against Decatur connection to freeway 


Dear City of Olympia planners, 

I am writing to let you know that I am not in favor of connecting Decatur to allow freeway traffic 

access. Please modify the Comprehensive Plan so that there is no language to the effect of changing the 

current pedestrian/bicycle opening up to allow vehicles into the neighborhood. I live at 807 Decatur SW 

and feel there are already enough people speeding and cutting through our residential neighborhood 

(and frequently running the stop sign at 8th). We have a one year old and it is scary enough with the 

automobile traffic we have, and we don't want more vehicles cutting through. 

Thank you! 

Kim Murilllo 

Sent from my iPhone

Land Use and Urban Design - the City of Olympia

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?