Friday, October 2, 2026
Olympia Ecosystems, a local environmental group, has requested that the City of Olympia reconsider a decision to allow the West Bay Yards waterfront development to move forward without requiring a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
In January, the city issued a State Environmental Policy Act Determination of Non-Significance (SEPA DNS) for the mixed-use development at 1210 West Bay Drive.
Proposed by West Bay Development LLC, the project calls for a total of 478 residential units, about 22,000 square feet of commercial space, an expanded waterfront trail, and shoreline restoration that includes filling about one-half acre of an aquatic area to create a new upland and functioning beach.
“The lead agency for this proposal has determined that this action is not likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the environment,” said Community Planning and Economic Development Director Tim Smith in the SEPA determination.
In a letter sent to Principal Planner Nicole Floyd on Feb. 10, Daniel R. Enstein, Land Conservation Director at Olympia Ecosystems, stated that converting aquatic habitat to upland is a major, irreversible impact.
“Foraging habitat, even degraded, is in short supply in Budd Inlet due to the inlet’s historical use for logging and other industrial processes; every forage counts,” Enstein said.
“In terms of intensity, this aquatic habitat is not coming back once converted. It is gone. The organisms that depend on this aquatic habitat are displaced forever. This is a significant impact, regardless of the ecological benefits of the project once complete.”
In particular, the group raised the issue with what they see as a lack of mitigation planning for the destruction of aquatic habitat. They point to local opportunities, such as repairing a salmon-blocking culvert at Schneider Creek or remediating the Reliable Steel site, as logical offsets for the project’s unavoidable harms.
Olympia Ecosystems also argues the city’s DNS did not include the required statements of regulatory compliance and did not conduct an alternative analysis, a step often required when major projects are proposed that have significant or irrevocable impacts on local ecosystems.
The letter states that the omissions leave the public and decision makers without a clear understanding of which impacts are covered and which are not.
The letter added the city cannot rely on existing regulations to meet SEPA requirements. Under state law, Washington Administrative Code 197-11-158 and Revised Code of Washington 43.21C.240, the city must identify each impact, explain how regulations address them, and issue a statement if no extra mitigation is needed.
Olympia Ecosystems also pointed out that the DNS lacks the required declaration and does not consider impacts that existing rules fail to cover, which is SEPA’s "gap-filler" function.
Citing the removal of Olympia’s 5th Avenue Dam, the group said the city supported an EIS, resulting in broad public participation and improved outcomes for both the environment and the community.
The group added that the West Bay Yards project presents a mixed outcome. In some respects, the environment will improve, while other areas will be further degraded.
“The sheer scale of the project demands the real participation of the public, which is only achieved by a real alternatives analysis, with full public participation," said the group in the letter.
Olympia Ecosystems maintained that filling tidelands to create uplands violates the city’s Shoreline Master Program, and the projects's unmitigated impacts require preparation of a full EIS.
“The impact from converting aquatic habitat to upland, positive, negative, or unknown will be significant," the group said.
Olympia Ecosystems has requested that the SEPA DNS of the project be reversed with an order to prepare an EIS.
22 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
BillSpencer
Real story: Nimbys don't want to live near apartment buildings, so the weaponize environmental laws to block housing that we desperately need to build.
Monday, February 23 Report this
debpattin
My main concern with this project is the traffic in the two lane WestBay Dr. I drove that road every day to and from work before I retired. There is no way that road can accommodate traffic from 475 apartments. My granddaughter’s school bus travels that road every day. How many existing residents will be affected by traffic and congestion? I testified a few years ago that this site would be better suited for a smaller condo development, or a few single family homes. It is not suited for a big apartment complex and commercial development.
Monday, February 23 Report this
wellnow77
478 housing units on West Bay Drive??? Come on, that road is not up for that! Not a Nimby, but do drive that road. And filling in to make a functioning beach?? Make no sense! Thurston County has a plethora of functioning beaches.
Monday, February 23 Report this
Boatyarddog
@BillSpencer, this project is supposed to also address affordable Housing, which of course it will never be, another blatant lie. It's Waterfront housing.
City council is in deep on the lie campaign, someone is getting perks for pushing this though without proper studies.
Monday, February 23 Report this
Boatyarddog
@debpattin One of the only sensible statements I've heard from you ever Deb, and I've heard alot from you in those
Port meetings, and work sessions. Good Job.
@wellnow77. GREAT Point! Also the water is so polluted in this area you'd be Well Advised to not even touch it. I'm sure that won't be advertised in the move in brochure.
Monday, February 23 Report this
Boatyarddog
I hope the city gets their asses sued.
Monday, February 23 Report this
AliceV
“The lead agency for this proposal has determined that this action is not likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the environment,” said Community Planning and Economic Development Director Tim Smith in the SEPA determination”
OMG. You’ve got to be kidding.
Monday, February 23 Report this
JW
Weaponizing environmental laws so the same old crowd can try to shove another park down our throats.
Monday, February 23 Report this
Chris_R
I wonder if Olympia Ecosystems has similar aquatic habitat concerns when it comes to the "development" along Percival Creek or The Jungle? That section along West Bay Drive will be silted up when they breach the dam for Capital Lake anyway. Also, building new places like this frees up cheaper "affordable" housing as those who can afford something nicer move out of their older places. The key is an increase in total supply. BillSpencer nailed it 100%.
Monday, February 23 Report this
JohnGear
This gift link should work for anyone, Atlantic subscriber or not.
Henry Graber (author of “Paved Paradise: How parking explains the world”) is pretty insightful. His article begins thus:
One well-worn refrain of progressive urban politics is that new, “luxury” housing will not help solve the housing shortage. A 2024 study of U.S. voters found that 30 to 40 percent believed more housing would, instead, increase prices, and another 30 percent believed it would have no effect.
But research generally points in the other direction: More housing supply of all kinds leads to lower prices in general terms. A new study lays out exactly how a brand-new building can open up more housing in other, lower-income areas, creating the conditions that enable prices to fall.
In the paper, three researchers looked in extraordinary detail at the effects of a new 43-story condo project in Honolulu. The building, called the Central, sits right behind the giant Ala Moana shopping center, halfway between downtown and the beachfront hotels of Waikiki. It comprises both subsidized and market-rate units, priced at around $780,000 for the former, and $1.25 million for the latter. What the researchers found was that the new housing freed up older, cheaper apartments, which, in turn, became occupied by people leaving behind still-cheaper homes elsewhere in the city, and so on. A new rung higher up the housing ladder permitted people lower down to climb. The paper estimates the tower’s 512 units created at least 557 vacancies across the city—with some units opening up no empty apartments (if, say, an adult child moved to the Central from their parents’ home) and others creating as many as four vacancies around town.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/02/housing-crisis-rich-poor-building/686086/
Monday, February 23 Report this
OldGuyPhil
What part of a 'public process' would be included in an alternatives analysis?
Monday, February 23 Report this
MikePelly
What size impact fee is this developer paying to the city to increase road capacity on West Bay Drive and Harrison Hill to accommodate the deluge of additional traffic in that area? What about the influx of students in Olympia's school system? I'm not familiar with current impact fees on new single family housing. Last I heard over a decade ago it started around $30-$35,000. Being these apartments will have 478 units maybe an impact fee of say $15-$20 million might be reasonable for the burden these landlords will be putting on our fair city.
Monday, February 23 Report this
mhjwilson
How much is being spent on both sides to conduct the hearings?
Tuesday, February 24 Report this
Olyrkrgrrl
The size of this project, the location, and the fact that the Olympia City Council, most of whom I voted for, are not even wanting an environmental impact study, just stinks, really reeks. It's bad enough that they want it at all. I wasted so much of my time, trying to elect the most responsible, caring, and intelligent human beings to carefully and conscientiously manage the City's business... and now it appears that I was totally duped. One need not wonder why people choose not to vote, it doesn't appear to make any difference.
This looks to be giant monstrosity, way out of proportion and out of place. The traffic impact will be enormous, and where will the kids go to school or play, out in the street? Who will they be advised to direct the lawsuits to when they all get cancer or god knows what from that poisoned water? When they get ran over from playing out in front of their 'homes'. Will they dump sewage into the water or treat it first? What about all the spills into the water from their cars? The pesticides washed into the water from lawn chemicals and rat poison?
Do they just admit that the water is so polluted already they think it won't matter? How can something this huge NOT have an impact on all the life around it? It is an abomination on the waterfront, and in my opinion should not be allowed. Smaller, tasteful units, maybe. But on an industrial wasteland??? ack.
I am glad to see that somebody is taking some real action. Thank you!
Tuesday, February 24 Report this
BevBassett
Considering how much sea levels will rise now that all climate mitigation rules and regs are history, and climate chaos is getting increasingly above and beyond previous worse case scenarios, it's stupid to build anything at sea level. Has been stupid, but now pure insanity.
I guess the developers are going to pay for the sea wall? Or will the sea wall be paid for by ordinary property owners just trying to keep a roof over our heads?
Development this large belongs on higher ground.
Tuesday, February 24 Report this
KEW100
Many valid points regarding the residential units, although I believe creating new housing generally in Olympia is a good idea. Traffic concerns, although something that also makes my life difficult now, should be projected into the future. Are we expecting the next generation and the one after that to use cars as we do currently? I hope not.
I wonder about the additional 22,000 square feet of commercial space. What kind of commercial? More coffee shops, bakeries, restaurants, art galleries? The downtown is well suited for that kind of commercial space, and this development may support a few local shops but surely not 22K square feet! Focus on ensuring that the downtown continues to support these kinds of commercial spaces and improves is a priority.
If that commercial space becomes offices, Smyth Landing might be a comparison. I walk from my home to the Bay and along West Bay frequently. I often see For Rent at Smyth Landing. Also, I live on the West Side, and oh boy, plenty of commercial space available for rent over here.
I haven't reviewed the proposal in depth, but how much does its economic viability depend upon the expectation of higher rents, as well as business taxes.
Tuesday, February 24 Report this
Porter
If we build it, they will come.
Tuesday, February 24 Report this
davidlee
Imagine the environmental, traffic impact of 478 housing units built instead on the fringes of our urban area. Imagine the cost impact of the additional roads, power lines, and pipes that would have to serve those far-flung units.
David Bellefeuille-RIce
Tuesday, February 24 Report this
FayForward
Someone compared this West Bay Yards project to one in Waikiki-- Ha ha! Has anyone noticed how cold and grey it is here much of the year? Has anyone checked on current occupancy rates of existing apartments surrounding Budd Inlet? There have been a number of new apartment projects in downtown Olympia already. Is there really a need for more high end apartments ? The number of proposed apartment units (478) is outrageous-- a number 1/4 of that size might be possible with environmental contingencies. Our West side Olympia infrastructure can certainly not support this-- traffic on West Bay Drive is already difficult and often dangerous. We invite all city staff who support this project to drive out to West Bay Drive at rush hour, take a walk through West Bay Yards -- say "hi" to the folks camping there right now ;-) Then cross the street and admire the peaceful trails, woodlands, and stream with retaining pond developed by OlyEcosystems-- a grassroots organization that has actually preserved some natural resources adjacent to our Budd Bay. The folks at OlyEcosystems are local heroes, you should listen to them !
Tuesday, February 24 Report this
BillSpencer
Building market-rate housing, makes existing housing stock more affordable. Supply and demand, Econ 101. The people opposing this project are Nimbys who want to exclude new neighbors from their community. They are backwards, conservative, and greedy. Fake liberals. Plain and simple.
Tuesday, February 24 Report this
jimlazar
@MikePelly: Olympia's transportation impact fees on multifamily development are $2,711 per units. So, something over $1 million for this development. Not nearly enough to upgrade West Bay Drive or offset the increased congestion at the base of the 4th Avenue Bridge that will result.
Good for Olympia Ecosystems in holding the City to account. The City staff will bend over backwards to help a developer, and has not required an EIS on any development since the Briggs Village in the 1990's.
And, while they are at it, the City staff is now proposing to allow the new owner of the Briggs Village property to abrogate the promises made to the hundreds of people who bought homes there, to have an "Urban Village" including a grocery store.
Wednesday, February 25 Report this
Mugwump
Just in case you were wondering if local government was in the pocket of developers ... TADA! This monstrosity! It's almost like they paid consultants for yet another study into how to anger the environmentally concerned, local property tax payers AND anyone who has the temerity to drive to the Westside.
Wednesday, February 25 Report this