The Hidden Costs of Development and the Future of Olympia

I live in North East Olympia, where we were recently informed of a development project called Springwood Gardens that would destroy a beloved parcel of forest and farmland and replace it with 39 McMansions and three new roads. The project is called Springwood Gardens. Neighbors received a vague letter detailing the plan on a Thursday, with the opportunity to attend a Project Information Meeting on Zoom the very next Wednesday. The letter included a link we’d have to type into our URLs to register. Unfortunately, for many, the link did not work.

Nevertheless, Wednesday rolled around, and approximately 50 neighbors tuned in to listen to city officials and developers use a bunch of vague words (like development) that did little to disguise the absolute atrocity this project would be to the community and to the land.

After the presentation, which lasted about 20 minutes, neighbor after neighbor expressed dissent in the Q&A. The entire meeting lasted nearly three hours, with city officials and developers dodging questions with promises of Action Teams, Housing Teams, Climate Teams, and their allegiance to codes. A slew of jargonized words that mean absolutely nothing when you look around and see what sort of corrupt development that members of these teams and city code enforcers allow to happen.

This proposed plan is bad enough, but the parcel up for development is right next to a wetland that feeds into Mission Creek. South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group (SPSSEG) has just poured $200k into restoring Mission Creek habitat downstream to allow salmon to thrive there. Only two culverts prevent salmon from being able to swim up to Setchfield Lake, which lies no more than three acres to the east of the parcel. This project, with 39 new homes, three new roads, and an estimated 339 more road trips per day, promises an exponential increase in toxic runoff into our groundwater and waterways. Our salmon won’t have a chance in this stream if this project commences.

The parcel is 7.6 acres. Subtracting the significant amount of space that will be consumed by new roads would leave incredibly tiny lots with no tree cover and predominantly impermeable surfaces. As climate crisis worsens, we know we need more, not less green space in our world. 

Additionally, this development will be pouring fuel onto the fire of the affordable housing crisis. With estimated housing prices around $800k, we can expect an influx of wealthy out-of-towners into our community, pushing working-class families out as property taxes increase. This is gentrification, plain and simple. This housing development will increase, not decrease, our housing crisis.

I have said that traffic will increase by 339 more car trips per day. Before our project information meeting, a neighbor shared with me that she’d already seen a little girl hit by a car in the last few years on her street. We need less, not more, traffic in our low-density neighborhood. 

This could have been avoided. The parcel’s owner did not want to sell to developers. He tried to bring it to the City to have them turn it into a park, but they low-balled him, and then the developers cornered him by offering $3 million. If the City had prioritized the acquisition of parks and green space, they could have offered a fair price. In fact, park “development” is covered under Chapter 7 of the City of Olympia Parks, Arts and Recreation plan!

Neighbors are currently attempting to mitigate the development, though we are hopeful the development project will fall through, so we are also looking for organizations that might be interested in purchasing the space together to create a park while preserving the farm or linking up with an eco-friendly developer for a smaller-scale housing project. If you’re interested, please reach out!

Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Favors Development

After the project information meeting, we decided to investigate the codes that the city officials kept promising to follow. We have read the codes and plans for Olympia and found this project to be in violation of many of them. City planners paint a cut-and-dry picture of the approval process, but when you examine the code they cite, you can see the process is highly subjective. They pick and choose which parts of the code they want to pay attention to while ignoring the rest.

Ordinance 7301 adopted the current Comprehensive Master Plan in November 2021. Two provisions jump out when considering the Springwood Gardens project.

PL14.3 (Preserve and enhance the character of existing Low-density Neighborhoods. Disallow medium or high-density development in existing Low-density Neighborhood areas except for Neighborhood Centers), and

PL20.1(Require development in neighborhoods to be of a type, scale, orientation, and design that maintains or improves the character, aesthetic quality, and livability of the neighborhood)

There are many others that the City appears to choose to ignore or minimize.

PL5.5 Provide incentives and assistance for preserving, restoring, redeveloping and using historic buildings, districts, neighborhoods, streets, structures, objects and sites.

PL5.6 Support public or non-profit acquisition of the most important historic resources to ensure their preservation. PL6.2 The design review process should recognize differences in the city with the objective of maintaining or improving the character and livability of each area or neighborhood PL7.1 Provide urban green spaces in which to spend time. Include such elements as trees, garden spaces, variety of vegetation, water features, “green” walls and roofs, and seating. PL7.2 Provide urban green spaces that are in people’s immediate vicinity and can be enjoyed or viewed from a variety of perspectives. PL7.3 Establish a maximum distance to urban green space for everyone in the community. PL7.4 Increase the area of urban green space and tree canopy within each neighborhood proportionate to increased population in that neighborhood. PL7.5 Establish urban green space between transportation corridors and adjacent areas.
PL14.2 Concentrate housing into three high-density Neighborhoods: Downtown Olympia, Pacific/Martin/Lilly Triangle; and the area surrounding Capital Mall. PL16.13 Encourage adapting non-residential buildings for housing. PL22.1 Use trees to foster a sense of neighborhood identity. PL22.2 Identify, protect and maintain trees with historic significance or other value to the community or specific neighborhoods. PN2.1 Acquire and preserve land by a set of priorities that considers environmental benefits, such as stormwater management, wildlife habitat, or access to recreation opportunities. PN6.4 Use regulations and other means to prevent a net loss in the function and value of existing wetlands, while striving to increase and restore wetlands over the long-term.

This is certainly not extensive, and we are still digging through the codes to add to this list. We hope that when confronted by its own hypocrisy, the city will be more likely to choose more reasonable development projects in the future.

The City’s Actions Do Not Align with the Thurston Climate Mitigation Plan

In 2021, Olympia adopted the Thurston Climate Action Plan, making a 12-point commitment to mitigating climate crisis and related issues in Olympia. The sorts of development projects we have been seeing are in direct conflict with ten of those twelve points:

1. Create vibrant centers, corridors, and neighborhoods while accommodating growth.

Development projects generally consist of poorly built homes packed in like sardines—not a vibrant center or corridor. This “growth” is not green by any means.

2. Preserve environmentally sensitive lands, farmlands, forest lands, prairies, and rural lands, and develop compact urban areas.

Development projects often sit on historic farmland, prairie, and forestland, which are destroyed, not preserved.

3. Protect and improve water quality, including groundwater, rivers, streams, lakes and Puget Sound.

Toxic runoff and groundwater from both the toxic materials being used to create these development projects and the hundreds more cars and thousands more road trips per day will drastically harm, rather than improve, water quality.

4. Plan and act toward zero waste in the region.

Development projects will result in plenty of waste, both during construction and after the developments are being utilized.

5. Ensure that residents have the resources to meet their daily needs.

Olympia residents need clean air, clean water, green spaces, and climate mitigation plans. We do not need more poorly made, unaffordable homes that are not green.

6. Support a local food system to increase community resilience, health and economic prosperity.

Development projects remove much-needed green space that can be converted into farms, gardens, community centers, etc., which would increase local food systems and resilience.

7. Ensure that the region’s water supply sustains people in perpetuity while protecting the environment.
These development projects are not green, and will negatively impact the environment and water supply.

8. Provide opportunities for everyone in the Thurston Region to learn about and practice sustainability.

If the City of Olympia invested in green development projects instead, we could work together to find opportunities for our neighbors both near and far to practice sustainable work in the form of farming, gardening, habitat restoration, etc.

9. Make strategic investments to advance sustainability regionally. Green development projects could pose inspiration for regional residents near and far.

Olympia’s Implementation of Missing Middle Housing Favors Development

The passage in 2023 and 2024 of Housing Bill E2SHB 1110 updated the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) to require that certain cities include “middle” housing types at minimum densities and that specific provisions allow more dwelling units per lot than previously in its development regulations. Olympia is in the process of updating these requirements in its Municipal Code. However, the city does have options where there is room for more than one policy direction. Presently, based on input from staff and from the City Council’s Land Use and Environment Committee (LUEC), it is adopting a broad interpretation that enables density significantly beyond the new state requirements.

Olympia, with a population of about 55,400, is a Tier 2 City, meaning it has a population of 25,000-75,000. However, current policy decisions classify it as a Tier 1 city, meaning a city with a population of 75,000 or more.

Tier 1 cities are required to provide density of 4 units per lot instead of 2 units for a Tier 2 city. That density can increase to 6 units (instead of 4) when near a “major transit stop” or when at least 2 (instead of 1) affordable housing units are provided for at least 50 years.

Also, according to the state’s definition, Olympia does not have a “major transit stop.”

The City has proposed to substitute the state language with “frequent transit routes,” transit stops that have 4 or more stops per hour for 12 or more hours per day, as is used in its parking code. In addition, Olympia has drafted its code amendment to apply the unit lot density to lots within 1/2 mile (instead of 1/4 mile) of a frequent transit route.

This would allow 6 units per lot along Capitol Blvd. and most of Martin Way for half a mile on either side. 

The LUEC justifies this classification of Olympia as a Tier 1 City with a population of 75,000 by including the population of its urban growth area (UGA), currently at 13,410. The City’s population itself has only increased by about 2,000 since 2020. By choosing to include the UGA, Olympia expects to reach 75,000 by 2030. As the City explains on one of its webpages, “Nothing in the amended laws prevents the City from taking additional actions. For example, the City may propose to allow more units per lot than is required for a city of our population, to allow a wider variety of middle housing unit types, or to adopt standards to incentivize more housing units in certain areas.”

Who Will Determine the Olympia of the Future?

It seems clear from recent developments in Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater, such as Springwood Gardens and West Bay Yards in Olympia, Vista Views and Trosper Woods in Tumwater and the many new housing developments around Hawks Prairie in Lacey,

that building more single family houses that are neither affordable or environmentally friendly is the prevailing trend. Under the current system of laws, there is little chance that anything will change. However, all the jurisdictions are now in the midst of updating their Comprehensive Plans, which will guide development for the next 20 years. You can learn about their plans and make comments about future development on their websites.

– Olympia Comprehensive Plan Update

– Tumwater Comprehensive Plan Update

– Lacey Comprehensive Plan Update

– Thurston County Comprehensive Plan Update

As for Springwood Gardens, the public can provide input, ask questions, or become a party of record by contacting Jackson Ewing, Lead Planner at jewing@ci.olympia.wa.us. A public hearing will most likely occur in June.

Clare, M.E.S, is an author, environmentalist, anarchist, bibliophile, tea-leaf reader, rock climber, and then some. She loves poking holes in dominant or obsolete narratives and strives to both listen to and help uplift the voices and stories that have been too often cast aside.