Thursday, October 1, 2026
Residents in Olympia urged reconsideration of late-stage revisions to the Land Use and Urban Design chapter of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan, warning proposed density increases and commercial allowances could dramatically reshape neighborhoods without proper oversight.
The Olympia Planning Commission held a public hearing on the land use chapter on Monday, July 21, at which residents weighed in on the late-stage revisions.
Olympia Senior Planner David Ginther presented an update on the chapter, which included the consolidation of three low-density neighborhood designations into a single "urban residential" designation that would allow up to 24 units per acre.
Former Olympia Mayor Bob Jacobs argued that 24 units per acre could only be achieved by tearing down existing houses and replacing them with multi-unit structures.
"The accepted standard of 15 housing units per acre being required to support transit can be achieved under the existing four to eight zoning with the new laws regarding ADUs (accessory dwelling units) and duplex conversions," Jacobs said.
He said his neighborhood already has diverse housing, with 102 houses that are all unique, featuring different vintages, styles and sizes from one-bedroom to four-bedroom homes, including ADUs.
Jacobs said tripling the allowed density would alter established neighborhoods like his, where existing housing stock and character should be preserved.
Colleen Graney, of the Burbank Neighborhood Association, voiced concern about the proposed zoning change. She informed the commission that multiple companies have already approached her and her neighbors about buying their properties to build apartment complexes.
She said increasing density to 24 units per acre would displace homeownership opportunities and instead create "a lot of apartments ... people will only be able to rent them. They will never be able to own their own home."
Graney added more rentals could lead to decreased neighborhood safety, higher traffic volumes and a loss of community cohesion.
Graney also pointed toward the effect of several developments in her area, citing the 400-unit West Bay Drive project, a 35-unit development on Milroy, and a proposed 144-unit subdivision near Cooper Point. She urged the city to consider the overall impact of the projects before allowing further upzoning.
The proposal also introduces a provision to permit small-scale commercial uses throughout residential neighborhoods, such as local bakeries and coffee shops, which would require a conditional user permit.
Ginther said the changes aim to create more flexible, socially connected neighborhoods by simplifying zoning categories and enabling neighborhood-serving businesses.
The updates would modify existing policy language, shifting from strict preservation of neighborhood character to a more adaptable approach that "strives to retain" existing community attributes.
Judy Bardin, of southeast Olympia, raised concerns about the lack of clear guidelines and impact assessment for this policy.
"We don't know what type of business, their hours of operation or parking requirements," Bardin said.
She noted that no study was done to see what neighborhoods need in terms of access to small-scale commercial, and urged the city to "evaluate the change separately with a more robust public process."
Karen Messmer, a former planning commissioner, argued against dispersing commercial uses, saying, "Commercial activities should be built downtown and along existing higher frequency transit routes near other commercial activity. Having commercial spread throughout the city will mean more trips to dispersed locations. People will drive to these businesses."
Messmer proposed a data-driven strategy for future commercial development.
"We need to study where commercial businesses should be allowed. This can be done by mapping our current residential areas and their existing access to commercial and transit," Messmer said.
John Saunders, president of the South Capitol Neighborhood Association, discussed the ongoing loss of residential housing to commercial conversions.
He emphasized the ongoing loss of residential housing to commercial conversions, particularly in his neighborhood, where 18 homes within a two-block area have been turned into offices. He said this problem is "widespread" beyond just one neighborhood.
Saunders criticized the planning process, stating despite providing comments since January, "our comments have never been included in the draft." He urged the commission to withhold endorsement of the land use chapter until their specific policy recommendations were considered.
He proposed modifying policy PL 19.2 to maintain its original language, prohibiting housing conversion to commercial use with an added provision.
"Unless limited, small-scale commercial use is approved through a conditional use permit," Saunders said.
However, the proposed revision for PL 19.2 states the following: “Allow home occupations that do not degrade neighborhood appearance or livability, nor create significant environmental impacts.
Saunders' goal was to provide clear guidelines while prioritizing housing preservation.
"Yes, there may be cases where small-scale commercial use makes sense. But we need to give some sense of what those might be, and prioritize housing in the housing chapter," he said.
Larry Dzieza also criticized the rushed process and lack of clear policy in the draft, saying adequate public discussion and dialogue did not happen.
"Late-breaking modifications were made to reflect statements by council members on the Land Use Committee," said Dzieza, adding “documents and notices were not available in a timely manner.”
He was also concerned about the new urban residential designation and the allowance for small-scale commercial uses was poorly defined, with criteria to be determined later.
He cautioned that the approach risks weakening protections for historic neighborhoods, tree preservation and the character of existing residential areas.
Dzieza urged the commission to remove the provisions from the current plan and revisit them later through careful study and community input.
Ginther also discussed the revised chapter that incorporates language on social connections and shared spaces. It encourages urban design that fosters social interaction.
He said it was a response to community feedback that the city should strengthen "social infrastructure."
There are also expanded policies supporting inclusion, accessibility and equity, particularly regarding access to green spaces.
"We heard concerns that some neighborhoods, especially those historically marginalized, don't have adequate access to parks or green space. So the updated policies emphasize equitable access to these spaces across the city," Ginther said.
The chapter also introduces comprehensive guidance on urban agriculture. The policies encourage food production both downtown and in other neighborhoods.
Ginther noted public concerns that Olympia's zoning code is overly complicated. In response, the chapter includes a policy directive to simplify zoning code, and reduce the number of land use designations and zoning districts, particularly along corridors like Plum Street, a key city gateway.
The plan also updates references to ongoing city efforts, such as the Martin Way Corridor Study, Capitol Mall Triangle Plan and the Sea Level Rise Response Plan.
The Planning Commission tabled a final decision, scheduling further discussion for their Aug. 4 meeting.
10 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
longtimeresident
They are talking about small scale commercial businesses being allowed or not being allowed? Have they ever driven along the streets of Olympia? The 2 Food Co-ops, plus the State and Central "restaurant", the San Francisco Bakery, and a half dozen other places are situated in neighborhoods including barbershops. So help me out here. When were these businesses not allowed. There are gas stations with "little stores" attached to them which are also in neighborhoods in lots of places, on North St. for example. There are commercial businesses plus houses all along 4th Ave. and also down State Ave. and down Legion Way. I think Karen Messmer is overly concerned about this specific issue. She must not have grown up in Olympia or doesn't know its history.
Friday, July 25, 2025 Report this
Deanima
Messmer has it backward. Limited neighborhood commercial encourages walkable access. The neighborhood store, bakery, etc. It also contributes to placemaking for the neighborhood. Centralizing all commercial necessitates driving, creating greater expanses for parking, etc.
Friday, July 25, 2025 Report this
HappyOlympian
Olympia doomed. Never thought I would want to go, but thinking more often about getting out of here.
Friday, July 25, 2025 Report this
KarenM
To respond to the comments here:
I do understand the convenience of the San Francisco Bakery, Coop and restaurant on State and Central.
The bakery and restaurant are on major streets. The west side coop has been there for years and is fine. We can use some neighborhood center businesses.
What some Council members are suggesting is commercial businesses anywhere. This approach is too broad and needs further definition. A few things:
Some areas of town already have access to commercial businesses because they can walk downtown or to the major corridor businesses. South Capitol is an example of this. Why displace housing in an area that already has access to services.
Locating a business in some areas would create major traffic and parking problems where there is not enough parking and there are no sidewalks. Imagine if a very popular bakery and coffee shop opened up inside an area where there are no sidewalks and parking is tight. People would end up walking in the street with traffic coming by looking for the business and parking.
Also, some businesses can create noise issues. Do you want a late night coffee shop with concerts going on next door to you? We could use some more neighborhood center development but spreading commercial out anywhere is asking for problems. Add on the current situation where the city is unwilling or unable to enforce anything related to code violations or noise concerns.
Friday, July 25, 2025 Report this
Southsoundguy
Central planning doesn’t work.
Friday, July 25, 2025 Report this
Larry Dzieza
While the new plan has much to recommend it, the late breaking changes disrespected the process and the voice of residents and what was produced suffered as a result. One item not called out in the otherwise excellent article is the issue of lobbyists converting housing into offices and occupied only during the legislative session.
It was clear from watching the meetings that city staff were being asked to redesign the plane mid-flight.
The conversion of housing for people into offices for well-heeled lobbyists in the Capitol neighborhood is so bad that the journalist Austin Jenkins called it out and renamed the area “LOBBYWOOD”.
Yet the city, for reasons yet to be determined, has failed to enforce EXISTING LAWS on businesses in neighborhoods. This calls into question the city’s capability and willingness to effectively manage the proposed expansion to allow commercial activities in ALL neighborhoods (golly, I wish the JOLT commenting software allowed bolding or italics, so I don’t have to typographically yell for emphasis).
The context for the negative community reaction reflects the loss of TRUST that comes from late breaking changes and that the city seems to selectively enforce laws differently for those with immense power and money. (By the way, I haven’t met any neighbors who have a need to have Boeing or Weyerhaeuser lobbyists within walking distance to their house 3 months out of the year).
To further reduce the role of neighborhoods, the changes also weaken the plan’s goals of protecting historic neighborhoods and trees.
A solution is to remove the newly introduced commercial-businesses-everywhere provision and the new Urban Residential designation. It is also wrong to portray this as a simplification -- it will have real impacts, and we need time for the community to understand it and the Environmental Impact analysis to catch-up. And when we get it right, we can move forward.
We deserve a process that is as deliberate, inclusive, and responsive as the good ideas it seeks to achieve.
Friday, July 25, 2025 Report this
Yeti1981
Ah yes, there it is again, the not so subtle reference from NIMBY folks about "neighborhood character." I have heard that phrase in this "progressive" city far more than I ever heard it down South. Density is the name of the game. And the GMA (and recent legislation) supports it. if you don't want neighbors, move to the country.
Friday, July 25, 2025 Report this
Southsoundguy
Yeti, better yet, everyone can drop the charade and admit that everything in the city limits is the city’s property, regardless of what deed anyone has. People can pay ground rents for their house or give the property back and the city can start redeveloping denser communities. I suggest looking to the work of Christopher Alexander (A Pattern Language, The Timeless Way of Building, The Oregon Experiment) for guidance. I sympathize with people who have connections to the neighborhoods. But a bunch of boomers are sitting on old buildings on tiny lots with tiny yards and refuse to let go of them for less than $700k, so whatever, just take it.
Friday, July 25, 2025 Report this
LindaD
Every apartment building is taking land that could be duplexes or single family, both ownership opportunities. Promote ownership development or future generations have no hope of building community and wealth. ADUs, two story row houses that take much less space, are less expensive and more affordable ownership possibilities. Living above, possible small business below or duplex housing. Corporate built apartments are popping up everywhere, taking wealth out of the community and offering nothing more than worker storage.
Monday, July 28, 2025 Report this
Southsoundguy
Homeowners don’t own anything, they have a set of contingent liabilities. It’s not wealth building, it’s a decades old government ponzi.
Tuesday, July 29, 2025 Report this