ublic comments received between July 27 - the City of Olympia

From: Stacey Ray 

To: ImagineOlympia 

Subject: FW: Sophie Stimson & OPC: Decatur/16th 

Date: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:36:42 AM 

Attachments: dialogues.2012.doc 

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: Tousley, Amy [mailto:Amy.Tousley@pse.com] 

Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 3:21 PM 

To: Stacey Ray; Amy Buckler 

Subject: Fw: Sophie Stimson & OPC: Decatur/16th 

-------------------------- 

Sent using BlackBerry 

From: Dan Leahy [mailto:danleahy43@yahoo.com] 


To: Sophie Stimson 

Cc: Tousley, Amy; Jerry Parker ; Rob Richards ; 

Larry Leveen ; Paul Ingman ; Judy Bardin 

; James Reddick ; Agnies Kakisza 

; Roger Horn 

Subject: Sophie Stimson & OPC: Decatur/16th 

Ms. Stimson: 

Thank you for your response to my questions and the 33 pages of material you sent to me. I have 

read every page. I hope you have. I was actually at both the 2001 and the 2004 meetings you cite in 

your response. 

Before I respond to your answers, I hope you realize that many of the Riker/Wesselman statements in 

these 33 pages are promotional statements as opposed to factual ones made by these two long time 

advocates of opening of Decatur and 16th to automobile traffic. 

Their statements, contained in the materials you sent to me, are in quotation marks. 

1. "The designation for the Decatur street would be as a neighborhood collector." 

(2001 study session) Of course, we both know that the City classified Decatur as a "major collector" 

with a capacity of 14,000 vehicles per day. 

2. "However, staff has completed a license plate survey for Fern/16th street 

connection indicated most of the traffic was from within the broader southwest 

neighborhood..." (2001 study session). In 2004, Roseanne Penny pointed out that the study

actually showed that 66% of the license plates were from out of the neighborhood. Then in 2004 Riker 

himself pointed out that his "link" analysis shows "through traffic would occur from north of Harrison 

Avenue." Harrison Avenue is not in the southwest neighborhood. 

3. "Currently, emergency response vehicles would have to go through the Black 

Lake interchange to access the neighborhood." (Council Minutes 3/16/04). Response 

vehicles from Capital Medical Center on 9th Avenue, the Fire Station on Kenyon and the Police station 

on Perry do not need to go through the Black Lake interchange to access the neighborhood. 

4. "He (Riker) also noted that most of the homes on Decatur Street do not face the 

street." (2001 Study Session). This is statement is so factually incorrect I just can't imagine why Mr. 

Riker is still on staff. 

5. "The neighborhood stated they would need another way out of the neighborhood 

and access to the freeway system." (Council Minutes 3/16/04). By this date, the Council had 

received petitions signed by the majority of single family households in the southwest neighborhood 

asking that both Decatur and 16th be closed to automobile traffic. "The neighborhood stated" is a 

fiction. 

6. "Staff is proposing to go through a mitigation planning effort." (Council Minutes 

3/16/12). As the minutes indicate, this request was denied. You should also know that the "staff" has 

never proposed a planning process that asks the question of whether these connections should 

be opened, let alone ever studied the potential effects of these openings on the southwest 

neighborhood north of 9th avenue. 

7. Randy Wesselman's promotion of Council action on November 9, 2004 to include 

Decatur & 16th connections in the Comprehensive Plan. I can only say that despite the 

previous four years of opposition to these connections, there was no representation of the SW 

Neighborhood Association at this Council meeting. SWONA is on record as opposed to the opening of 

these connections to automobiles. 

The continued involvement of these two staff members (Riker and Wesselman) in decisions about 

Decatur and 16th is indicative of the City Manager's policy of promoting the opening of these two 

connections to motor vehicles. 

I can only assume these two individuals were involved in writing the numerous incorrect statements in 

the Appendix A section, the incorrect statements in your "staff response" and in the creation of new 

policy language that mandates the opening of Decatur & 16th in contradiction of Council action. 

With regard to several of your current "staff" statements, I want to point out the 

following. 

1. No where in the 33 pages you sent me is there any study or even statement justifying your 

language that says, "the majority users of the Decatur Street connection would be 

residents of the Southwest Olympia Neighborhood..." (Transportation section of current draft 

Comprehensive Plan, Appendix A). In fact, the statements made by your staff contradict this 

statement. Would you please delete this statement? 

2. At the bottom of the same statement there is this reference: "Ordinance #6389, 1/24/06." 

There was no such ordinance passed by the Council on January 24, 2006, at least according to 

Council minutes of that date. We now understand from the City Clerk that this very important 

ordinance was passed on 12/13/05. Please correct this. 

3. As you have pointed out to me, the 2008 date of Council action in your "staff response" to our 

current comments was an incorrect date. Please correct this statement to 11/09/04. (Note: We spent a 

good deal of time searching the 2008 Council minutes trying to find this decision which was not there.)

4. Your staff response statement also states, "The decision about whether or not to open Decatur and 

16th to motor vehicles must be an informed one." This is not what Ordinance # 6389 states. Please 

replace your statement with the actual ordinance passed by the Council which states: 

"Any decision and on whether to connect Decatur Street to Caton Way, and open 

16th Avenue as through vehicular connections will not be made until the Westside 

Access and Traffic Circulation Study is complete." 

With regard to how the draft Comprehensive Plan language mandates the opening of Decatur to 

automobiles. 

1. The listing of Decatur connection in Appendix B must be deleted from the draft 

Comprehensive Plan because the new policy language (cited below) contradicts the 

Council's mandate. 

The below language from the draft comprehensive plan's "connectivity" section means that all 

connections listed (such a Decatur) are "needed" and will be opened to vehicular traffic. This language 

does not say to me, as you suggest, that all connections "have value"; it says explicitly they are all 

"needed." 

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. 

With respect to Decatur and 16th, this change contradicts Council policy contained in Ordinance 6389. 

Council policy does not assume Decatur connection is needed. It says only after the completion of the 

Westside Traffic Study will be question of whether to connect Decatur and open 16th be determined. 

2. As I pointed out staff had deleted the criteria language listed below. You 

suggest it should be reintroduced. Since, at least in terms of Decatur and 16th, the 

question of need is open, these criteria will be important for any honest study of 

these potential connections: 

"In determining where it is practical to connect new streets with existing ones, the City or 

County, as appropriate, will determine whether the merits outweigh the demerits of the 

whole package, and whether the connection would be in the best interests of both the 

community at large and the neighborhood. In discussions with the existing neighborhood, 

the following will be considered: (1) Neighborhood development plans, (2) Pedestrian 

safety, (3) Availability or feasibility of sidewalks, (4) Width of roadway, (5) Topography 

and environmental constraints,(6) Sight distance, (7) Likelihood of diverting significant 

cross-town arterial traffic onto local neighborhood streets, (8) Whether pedestrian/ bicycle 

connections, rather than streets, would accomplish the desired goals, and (9) 

Effectiveness of proposed traffic-calming measures." 

Thanks again for your very timely response to my questions.

Best of luck with incorporating the Commission's suggestions into the final draft of the Comprehensive 

Plan that will be submitted to the City Council. 

Sincerely, 

Dan Leahy 

1415 6th Avenue SW 

Olympia, WA. 98502 

cc: OIympia Planning Commission: Public Comment on draft Comprehensive Plan 

Decatur Raiders 

Uptown Business Alliance 

SWONA Officers

--- On Tue, 7/24/12, Sophie Stimson wrote: 

From: Sophie Stimson 

Subject: RE: Staff response to Decatur/16th comments 

To: "Dan Leahy" 

Cc: "'Geoffrey Mueller'" 

Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 5:24 PM 

Hello Mr. Leahy, 

Thank you for your comments. I have repeated your questions below, and provided a 

response for each in italics. 

1. Can you tell me how this significant expression of community desire informs staff decision making? 

The staff made no reference to the explicit request to keep these connections closed to automobiles in 

the "staff response." 

Staff did not change the July draft of the comp plan because our direction from the City Council has 

been to address these street connections once the West Olympia Access Study was complete. It would 

have been inappropriate for staff to make any changes to the draft comp plan related to Decatur and 

16th street connections. 

2. Can you send me a copy of the 2008 City Council decision the staff referenced in the staff response

to these comments? I am not aware of a 2008 Council decision with regard to these connections or the 

Westside Traffic Study. 

I was incorrect about the year of the decision, and I apologize. 

At the November 9, 2004 City Council Meeting, the City Council decided to retain the Decatur Street 

and 16th Avenue connections as vehicle connections in the comp plan and Regional Transportation 

Plan, pending completion of the Westside Access and Traffic Circulation Study (later renamed the West 

Olympia Access Study). Also, text was to be added to the comp plan to reflect that any decision on 

whether to open Decatur Street and 16th Avenue as vehicular connections will not be made until the 

Westside Access and Circulation Study is complete. 

In this Council action, it was also decided to construct a bike and pedestrian access at Decatur, and 

allow emergency vehicle access at 16th Avenue. 

As a follow up to the November 2004 Council Meeting, text was added to the comp plan, which can be 

seen today in the current plan. The ordinance amending the comp plan was #6389. That text reads: 

“Any decision on whether to connect Decatur Street to Caton Way (south of the existing end of Decatur 

Street) and open 16th Avenue (west of Fern Street) as through vehicular connections will not be made 

until the Westside Access and Traffic Circulation Study is complete.” 

3. The connection statement in the draft Comprehensive Plan says that "The majority of users of the 

Decatur Street connection would be residents of the Southwest Olympia Neighborhood..." Can you 

send me the study the staff used to inform their statement? 

At the March 16, 2004 City Council meeting, a discussion of the connections occurred. The minutes 

describe how the connection will serve the neighborhood in accessing the freeway, and that the traffic 

model indicated the connections would not be used for through traffic; the connections would distribute 

traffic throughout the neighborhood better. The staff report and minutes of the meeting are attached. 

4. The staff response says "The decision about whether or not to open Decatur Street and 16th 

Avenue to motor vehicles must be an informed one." Since the staff says the Phase II Traffic study 

anticipated to begin in 2013 is the basis upon which an informed decision can be made, why have the 

staff listed these connections at all in the current draft Comprehensive Plan? It would only be logical 

for the staff to include such proposed automobile connections only after completion of their study which 

might suggest such a need for "motor vehicles." 

That was the direction of the City Council in November 2004 to retain these in the comp plan. 

5. The staff response says that "As part of this study, transportation issues and needs will be 

evaluated alongside public ideas and concerns", yet the staff has eliminated all the bases upon 

which citizens could voice their concerns from the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Here is the

language from the previous Comprehensive Plan. Why did the staff eliminate this language from this 

new draft Comprehensive Plan? 

You make a good point that discussions with neighborhoods about a street connection would be 

removed with the removal of the policy T3.20f. That was not the intent of removing the policy in the 

draft plan. 

It would make sense to add text to the updated comp plan that a process to discuss a street connection 

with adjacent neighborhoods is needed when a street connection is pursued. Staff expects that there 

would always be a public process when a street connection is pursued, whether the connection is 

pursued by the City or as part of a private development. It is also expected that there would be 

mitigation measures for any connection that is made. 

The intent of the proposed new policy PT4.21 is to shift from having to justify every connection, to a 

general premise that all street connections have value. If a connection is opposed, PT 4.21 provides 

an objective tool to describe the relative value of the connection. If the connection does not prove to 

reduce travel times, for example, it may be decided the connection’s value is not significant. If the 

criteria lead to the conclusion that the connection would improve mobility for all users in the area, 

decision makers would have better information on which to base actions, and affected interests would 

have a better understanding of the reasons for actions. 

Lastly, some items in 1 to 9 in the current policy T3.20 f will be addressed through the design of a new 

street, or as mitigation measures to a street connection (pedestrian safety, presence of sidewalks, road 

width, sight distance, for example). The other items listed in the policy - neighborhood development 

plans, environmental constraints, bike and ped access, and traffic patterns - would be addressed 

through the initial planning for a street connection and discussions with the neighborhood. For these 

reasons, it seemed appropriate to remove 3.20f. 

I hope this information is useful. Please let me know if you have any further questions. 

Sophie 

Sophie Stimson 

Senior Planner 

Public Works, Transportation 

City of Olympia 

360-753-8497


Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:55 PM 

To: Sophie Stimson 

Subject: Staff response to Decatur/16th comments 

Hi Ms. Stimson, 

Thanks for sending out a copies of emailed comments with regard to keeping Decatur and 16th closed and deleting 

these connections from the draft Comprehensive Plan. 

On this issue, there were 25 separate emailed comments from Westside neighbors, perhaps the greatest number of 

comments on any single issue. Also, these 25 comments represent a majority of the 47 comments received on the 

transportation section of the April Comprehensive Plan draft. 

Twenty-three of these comments asked that these connections be deleted from the Comprehensive Plan. Only 1 

anonymous person wanted Decatur opened to automobiles. 

I have some questions I hope you can help me with. I've pasted the July 18th staff response below. 

1. Can you tell me how this significant expression of community desire informs staff decision making? The staff 

made no reference to the explicit request to keep these connections closed to automobiles in the "staff response." 

2. Can you send me a copy of the 2008 City Council decision the staff referenced in the staff response to these 

comments? I am not aware of a 2008 Council decision with regard to these connections or the Westside Traffic 

Study. 

3. The connection statement in the draft Comprehensive Plan says that "The majority of users of the Decatur Street 

connection would be residents of the Southwest Olympia Neighborhood..." Can you send me the study the staff 

used to inform their statement? 

4. The staff response says "The decision about whether or not to open Decatur Street and 16th Avenue to motor 

vehicles must be an informed one." Since the staff says the Phase II Traffic study anticipated to begin in 2013 is the 

basis upon which an informed decision can be made, why have the staff listed these connections at all in the current 

draft Comprehensive Plan? It would only be logical for the staff to include such proposed automobile connections 

only after completion of their study which might suggest such a need for "motor vehicles." 

5. The staff response says that "As part of this study, transportation issues and needs will be evaluated alongside 

public ideas and concerns", yet the staff has eliminated all the bases upon which citizens could voice their 

concerns from the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Here is the language from the previous Comprehensive Plan. 

Why did the staff eliminate this language from this new draft Comprehensive Plan? Below is the language the staff 

eliminated. 







and environmental constraints,(6) Sight distance, (7) Likelihood of diverting significant




The Olympia Planning Commission is holding hearings Monday and Wednesday and is accepting written comment 

until Friday of this coming week. I'd greatly appreciate it if I could have your answers by Friday morning at the 

latest. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Dan Leahy 



cc: Olympia Planning Commission 

SW Neighborhood Association 



Transportation Chapter of the Draft Updated Olympia Comprehensive Plan 

Response to comments related to Decatur Street and 16th Avenue, SW 

July 18, 2012 

Comments on the first draft of the update of the Olympia Comprehensive Plan included concerns about the opening 

of Decatur Street and 16th Avenue to motor vehicles. The potential street connections at Decatur Street and 16th 

Avenue are mentioned in the text of Appendix A and shown on the Transportation 2030 Street Capacity and 

Connectivity Map for the Westside in Appendix B. 

Staff response: 

In 2008, the City Council indicated that the decision as to whether or not to open Decatur Street and 16th Avenue 

to motor vehicles would be made once the West Olympia Access Study is complete. For this reason, any reference 

to these potential street connections has not been removed from the draft Comprehensive Plan. 

Phase I of the West Olympia Access Study occurred from 2008 to 2010 and explored highway access needs. Phase 

II of the study is anticipated to begin in 2013, and will explore the local street issues on Olympia’s Westside. The 

scope of phase II will examine: 

• the capacity improvements needed as an outcome of the first phase of the study, (such as new turn lanes) 

• the bike, pedestrian and transit needs on Westside streets, including those identified by the public in the first phase 

of the study, and 

• street and pathway connectivity throughout the Westside through the use of a connectivity measure. 

The decision about whether or not to open Decatur Street and 16th Avenue to motor vehicles must be an informed 

one. Phase II of this study will allow for an adequate process to examine connectivity needs on the Westside, 

including these potential street connections. As part of this study, transportation issues and needs will be evaluated 

alongside public ideas and concerns.

--- On Thu, 7/19/12, Sophie Stimson wrote: 


Subject: Thanks for your comments on the Comp Plan 

To: 

Date: Thursday, July 19, 2012, 1:30 PM 

Hello, 

Thank you for providing comments on the Transportation Chapter of the draft update of the Olympia 

Comprehensive Plan. 

Forty seven individuals or agencies provided transportation-related comments on this first draft of the 

Comprehensive Plan, the April draft. 

You can see all the comments received on the April draft on the Imagine Olympia website. 

All comments submitted relating to transportation were considered as we updated this next draft of the 

Comprehensive Plan. In many cases, we were able to make changes to the policies or clarify language. We were 

not able to incorporate all comments. Please visit the City’s Transportation website for more information on how 

the comments were incorporated. 

We received several comments about the potential street connections at Decatur Street and 16 th Avenue, SW. A 

response to those comments is also on this website. 

You will also see that the next draft of the comp plan, the Olympia Planning Commission draft, was released July 6 

(the July draft). The Olympia Planning Commission plans to hold public hearings on this draft July 23 and 25. The 

July draft and details of the hearings can be found on the Imagine Olympia website. 

Thanks again for your comments. If you would like to discuss your comments more specifically, please feel free to 

contact me. 

Sophie 





360-753-8497

Decatur Dialogues 

The need to delete proposed automobile connections at the 

southern end of Decatur and 16 th street from the draft plan 

and to permanently close these connections to automobiles. 

A compilation of Letters and Emails from thirty-four 

Westside residents presented to the Olympia Planning 

Commission. 


Olympia Planning Commission 

Public Hearing on Draft Comprehensive Plan 

City Hall 

Olympia, Washington

Recent Letters: July 12-24, 2012 Emails to Imagine Olympia 

Liz Dalton and Steve Brink Terrilyn Burke 

125 Olympic Way NW 1412 12 th Avenue SW 

July 24, 2012 June 11, 2012 

(To: Mayor, Council, OPC) 

Christine Ciancetta 

Will & Mert Chaney 1418 11 th Avenue SW 

1511 6 th Avenue SW June 13, 2012 


(To: Mayor & City Council) Phil Cornell 

1502 15 th Avenue SW 

Steven Kant June 11, 2012 

103 Thomas Street 

July 24, 2012 Barb Day 

(To Ms. Tousley/Mr. Parker) June 12, 2012 

Henry and Rebecca Govert Johan Genberg 

1717 5 th Avenue SW June 11, 2012 


(To: Ms. Tousley) Chris Hempleman 


Dan Leahy June 13, 2012 


July 23, 2012 Gen Keesecker 

(To: Nathaniel Jones) June 11. 2012 

Geoffrey A. Mueller Caroline Lacey 

805 5 th Avenue SW 1303 6 th Avenue SW 

(To: Ms.Stimson) June 11, 2012 

Dan Leahy Dan Leahy 

1415 6 th Avenue SW 1415 6 th Avenue SW 

(To: Ms. Stimson) June 11, 2012 


Geoffrey & Lorna Mueller 

Ryan J. Hollander 805 5 th Avenue SW 

4 th Avenue West June 11, 2012 

(To: Mayor/Council) 

July 20, 2012 Randy Parr & Janis Rich 

1227 Decatur SW 

Geoff Hartford June 11, 2012 

(To: Mayor/Council) 

July 13, 2012 K. Prater 

6 th Avenue SW 

Jim & Erika Brownell June 11, 2012 

July 12, 2012

Emails to Imagine Olympia (cont.) 

Diana Renison Kate Rosenfeld Stephen Rosenfeld, MD 

1009 6 th Avenue SW 834 Percival 834 Percival 

June 12, 2012 June 12, 2012 June 11, 2012 

Jeanne Rynne Peter J. Sanderson Nancy Sullivan 

1513 7 th Avenue SW 1805 6 th Avenue SW 1718 8 th Avenue SW 

June 11, 2012 June 11, 2012 June 11. 2012 

Cathy Wasserman Bethany Weidner 

June 11, 2012 1415 6 th Avenue SW 

May 24, 2012 

Recent Letters: July 12-24, 2012 


125 Olympic Way NW 

Olympia WA. 98502 

Mayor Stephen Buxbaum, Olympia City Council Members, Member Olympia Planning Commission 

Re: Draft Comprehensive Plan: Decatur and 16 St. Traffic Connections – Ordinance #6389 

Please re-review the above draft comprehensive plan and eliminate any potential for connections 

leading to traffic flow through the Decatur and 16 th St. neighborhood 

To bring additional traffic to an established neighborhood is a delicate and far-reaching 

decision. The current comprehensive plan contains a short-sighted and dangerous decision. 

This neighborhood is not a “throw-away” neighborhood. Decatur St., in and of itself is beautiful and 

historic: Third generation families live in homes built by their grandparents through the GI bill; they 

pay taxes, are obviously proud of their homes, their gardens, their way of life and assumed they would 

raise their children here. 

There are other ways to move traffic to and from short-sighted development projects besides slicing 

through a neighborhood that is the second oldest in Olympia. Surely you do not intend to destroy the 

life of the neighborhood for the sake of funding a short-cut to Highway 101? 

Please eliminate the Decatur and 16 St. Connection. Our neighborhood is composed of bright and 

energetic citizens who pride themselves in working with the City of Olympia to envision the very best 

of plans. We will be happy to do so on this issue. 

Thank you. 

Liz Dalton/Steve Brink

CC: Jerry Parker 

Bethany Weidner 

Dan Leahy 

7/24/2012 

Dear Mayor Buxbaum and Council Members: 

My wife and I own a single family dwelling residence on 6th Ave. SW between Decatur and Thomas. 

We strongly urge you to delete the portion of the Comprhensive Plan that calls for the opening of 

Decatur street. 

The only access to our garage is off Decatur street into the alley between 6th & 7th Avenues. If 

Decatur is opened there will be frequent times when I cannot turn into the alley because the northbound 

traffic will be either too heavy to permit a left turn off Decatur, or it will be stopped (blocking access to 

the alley) because of the backup that will be caused by vehicles waiting to cross or enter 4th or waiting 

cross or enter Harrison where there is no traffic light. 

I don't think the city will want to put a traffic light at Harrison and Decatur because there are lights at 

Harrison and Division and Harrison and Thomas. I imagine gridlock on Decatur and Harrison if 

Decatur is opened. 

I can visualize frustrated drivers, stopped on Decatur, turning onto the numbered avenues or into the 

alleys to escape the gridlocks. 

We don't want our neighborhood inundated wtih cross town traffic. 

Please delete two proposed connections (Decatur and 16th Street) from the Comprehensive Plan and 

permanently close them to automobile traffic. 

Thank you! 

Will & Mert Chaney 

1511 6th Ave. SW 

Olympia, WA 98502 

Tuesday, July 24, 2012 2:14 PM 

From: "Steven Kant" 

To: amy.tousley@pse.com 

Cc: jerome.parker@comcast.net 

I am writing about the closure of the Decatur and 16th Street connections and the guidelines for 

decision-making in the Comprehensive plan. 

I urge you to make the closures permanent and to keep the process for consulting residents about these 

types of changes. 

Routing more traffic through our neighborhood will benefit no one and will seriously impact residents. 

Why are these connections in the plan at all? Why would you want to route cross-town and freeway

traffic through small roads with traffic-calming devices? 

I do not know anyone in this neighborhood or outside of it who sees any need for increased routes. Are 

there people who desperately need to save a few blocks of driving and are clamoring to navigate the 

slalom courses on Decatur Street and 4th Avenues? Does someone who is almost out of gas urgently 

need to buy a car at the auto mall? 

The existing connections are certainly convenient for bicycling and walking; opening them to 

vehicular traffic would destroy the only way we now have to get to SPSCC and Black Lake without 

fighting cars. 

I urge you to take steps to reduce auto traffic instead of expanding it. More roads encourages more 

driving, more pollution, and more climate change. 

Sincerely, 

Steven Kant 


Olympia 

Monday, July 23, 2012 10:59 AM 

From: Henry Govert" 

To: amy.tousley@pse.com 

Ms. Tousley, 

I write concerning the proposed change in the comprehensive plan which would allow an additional 

junction with US Route 101 at Decatur Street, which my wife and I oppose. 

We have lived on the corner of 5th Ave. and Milroy St. SW for almost 26 years, and have seen the 

results of increased traffic over the past several years, altering the quiet neighborhood this was when 

we first moved here. The biggest difference, an increase in both speeding and noise, has been due to the 

realignment of traffic on the west side. When traffic calming devices were installed on 4th Ave., along 

with a barrier to a south turn onto Division St., the result was that Decatur, Milroy and Cushing streets 

became defacto arterial streets, the quickest cut-through routes from 4th Ave. to 9th Ave. SW. and then 

to the junction of Cooper Point Rd. and Black Lake Blvd. 

Already we have some neighbors who have refused to let their kids play in their front yard for fear that 

speeding traffic would threaten their safety. We fear that opening Decatur St. as an arterial to a junction 

with Rt. 101 would make that situation even less tolerable for those residents, and would produce an 

effective division of the southwest Olympia area. Through our neighborhood association, we have tried 

to develop the area into a more cohesive community, with some notable successes, especially the 

development of Decatur Woods city park on Decatur at 10th Ave. SW, and winning the reversal of a 

city-permitted Seven-11 store on the corner of Harrison and Division streets. After the city’s hearing 

examiner twice found in favor of the city granting the permit, the residents of this community raised 

almost $10,000 to appeal the decision to Superior Court, where the decision was overturned when the 

city was found not to be following its own comprehensive plan and policies. 

However, my own most cogent reason for opposing the project is that IT JUST ISN’T NEEDED! 

The corner of Cooper Point and Black Lake Blvd is considered the most heavily-travelled in Olympia,

and the reason for considering a juncture with Decatur St. Yet I traverse that intersection at least once a 

day, and outside of unusual circumstances (e.g., road repairs), I never have to wait through more than 

one series of traffic lights (with the exception of Christmas shopping season), which is not an unusual 

or extreme hardship. Compared with the cost of destroying an increasingly cohesive community, and 

the cost of constructing a new freeway interchange when the city is already facing severe budgetary 

problems, it just doesn’t make sense from any perspective; it is an expensive answer to a minor 

problem. I have lived in major American cities (Seattle, Chicago), and foreign countries (Italy, 

Germany), and Olympia has NO traffic situations comparable to those locations. 

And since at least half of the traffic on Black Lake Blvd. from the west is heading north on Cooper 

Point, it would make much more sense to proceed with a new 101 juncture with Yauger Way than with 

Decatur St., as was proposed just a few years back. Given the lack of genuine need for a new exit at 

Decatur St., coupled with the city’s current budget problems and the lack of new developments in this 

area, there is no need for a new exit at Decatur St. 

Thank you for considering my position. 

Henry (and Rebecca) Govert 

1717 5th Ave, SW Olympia 

Nathaniel, 

Thanks for your carefully written note and, of course, I am happy to work with you on traffic problems. 

There's lots to say about Decatur and 16th, but I know you are dealing with lots of issues so I will keep 

it brief. 

1. If you vote for the current draft Comprehensive Plan, you will be voting to open these connections 

to automobiles. Your staff, by deleting criteria language from the old plan and by including new 

change language in the draft plan, has made this a certainty. Below is one example of how the staff 

is trying to make this a certainty by incorporating new language into the draft Comp. Plan. It is from 

the "connectivity" section. 

Change: 



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. 

2. If you vote to delete these two connections from the draft Plan and await the results of Phase II 

Traffic study, you would then be able to have a honest discussion with the neighborhood about how 

best to use Decatur and 16th connections. 

Over the past 15 years, I have twice demonstrated to the Council, after months of door to door work, 

that the majority of single family households in the area bounded by 4th to 15th avenues and from 

Cushing to Sherman do not want these connections opened to automobiles. 

These community expressions, much like the majority of citizens who commented on the April 2012 

draft's Transportation section, make no difference because the City Management's dominant

development logic is automobiles to retail outlets. Their policy is not about traffic abatement or 

calming, but about automobile promotion. You and the Council will need to override this logic if, as 

you write, you "need to look at every option and then find a few more." 

3. The SW neighborhood has never been just about keeping these connections closed to automobiles. 

This is why Decatur has a bike and walking path; this is why Decatur is a stop on one of our four 

walking park sties; this is why we promote biking to this pathway; this is why we have continually 

asked the City to help us develop the path from 15th street down across the RR tracks to Marathon 

Park. 

I and others in the SW will continue to ask that the City Council delete these connections from the 

proposed Comprehensive Plan and to permanently close them to automobiles. 

Sincerely, 

Dan Leahy 

From: "Geoffrey Mueller" 

To: sstimson@ci.olympia.wa.us 

Cc: "Dan Leahy" 

Ms. Stimson -- 

Mr Leahy has provided us with your responses to comments regarding the Draft Comprehensive Plan. 

Thank you for keeping us informed. 

Mr. Leahy has requested that you provide him with responses to his questions in time to provide 

comments on the plan by next Friday. I am hereby requesting that you furnish me with a copy of those 

responses as well. 

I am particularly interested in the statement that the majority of the users of the Decatur Street 

connection would be residents of the Southwest Olympia Neighborhood, and the basis for this 

conclusion. As a resident familiar with the traffic in the southwest Olympia neighborhood, I would 

tend to believe that a large portion of the traffic that would pour through the connection would be 

residents of Tumwater Hill using the connection to get to downtown Olympia and other westside 

destinations, not to mention cars using the connection to get from downtown to the Olympia Auto 

Mall. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Geoffrey A. Mueller 

805 5th Ave SW 


360-561-2286 

Hi Ms. Stimson,

Thanks for sending out a copies of emailed comments with regard to keeping Decatur and 16th closed 

and deleting these connections from the draft Comprehensive Plan. 

On this issue, there were 25 separate emailed comments from Westside neighbors, perhaps the greatest 

number of comments on any single issue. Also, these 25 comments represent a majority of the 47 

comments received on the transportation section of the April Comprehensive Plan draft. 

Twent y-three of these comments asked that these connections be deleted from the Comprehensive 

Plan. Only 1 anonymous person wanted Decatur opened to automobiles. 





2. Can you send me a copy of the 2008 City Council decision the staff referenced in the staff response 






4. The staff response says "The decision about whether or not to open Decatur Street and 16th Avenue 

to motor vehicles must be an informed one." Since the staff says the Phase II Traffic study anticipated 

to begin in 2013 is the basis upon which an informed decision can be made, why have the staff listed 

these connections at all in the current draft Comprehensive Plan? It would only be logical for the staff 

to include such proposed automobile connections only after completion of their study which might 

suggest such a need for "motor vehicles." 

5. The staff response says that "As part of this study, transportation issues and needs will be evaluated 

alongside public ideas and concerns", yet the staff has eliminated all the bases upon which citizens 

could voice their concerns from the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Here is the language from the 

previous Comprehensive Plan. Why did the staff eliminate this language from this new draft 

Comprehensive Plan? Below is the language the staff eliminated. 










Effectiveness of proposed traffic-calming measures."

The Olympia Planning Commission is holding hearings Monday and Wednesday and is accepting 

written comment until Friday of this coming week. I'd greatly appreciate it if I could have your 

answers by Friday morning at the latest. 


Sincerely, 

Dan Leahy 










Comments on the first draft of the update of the Olympia Comprehensive Plan included concerns about 

the opening of Decatur Street and 16th Avenue to motor vehicles. The potential street connections at 

Decatur Street and 16th Avenue are mentioned in the text of Appendix A and shown on the 

Transportation 2030 Street Capacity and Connectivity Map for the Westside in Appendix B. 


In 2008, the City Council indicated that the decision as to whether or not to open Decatur Street and 

16th Avenue to motor vehicles would be made once the West Olympia Access Study is complete. For 

this reason, any reference to these potential street connections has not been removed from the draft 


Phase I of the West Olympia Access Study occurred from 2008 to 2010 and explored highway access 

needs. Phase II of the study is anticipated to begin in 2013, and will explore the local street issues on 

Olympia’s Westside. The scope of phase II will examine: 

• the capacity improvements needed as an outcome of the first phase of the study, (such as new turn 

lanes) 

• the bike, pedestrian and transit needs on Westside streets, including those identified by the public in 

the first phase of the study, and 


The decision about whether or not to open Decatur Street and 16th Avenue to motor vehicles must be 

an informed one. Phase II of this study will allow for an adequate process to examine connectivity

needs on the Westside, including these potential street connections. As part of this study, transportation 

issues and needs will be evaluated alongside public ideas and concerns. 

Friday, July 20, 2012 5:16 PM 

From: "Ryan Hollander" 

To: sbuxbaum@ci.olympia.wa.us 

Cc: jcooper@ci.olympia.wa.us, jhankins@ci.olympia.wa.us, njones@ci.olympia.wa.us, 

slanger@ci.olympia.wa.us, jroe@ci.olympia.wa.us, krogers@ci.olympia.wa.us 

To my honorable mayor and city council members, 

I have been a resident of Westside Olympia since 1991 and a business owner here in town since 1996. 

I currently own a home at the top of 4th avenue West in a safe, relaxed historic neighborhood. 

While it is not the wealthiest neighborhood, I do think it has an incredible amount of character and 

community connection, and is representative of the charm and personality that Olympia has to offer. 

I fear for the future of my neighborhood. 

I am very concerned that the city's new Comprehensive Plan includes opening up both Decatur Street 

and 16th Avenue SW, thereby connecting our neighborhood to the Auto Mall. 

It will be a shortcut too hard to pass up for motorists and I predict an incredible increase in traffic near 

my home. 

This increase in traffic will bring more air pollution, more noise pollution and I fear more accidents 

with this otherwise pedestrian friendly neighborhood. 

I ask you, as my city representatives, as my voice in local politics, to please delete these two proposed 

connections from the Comprehensive Plan. 

I would very much like to hear your response to my request. 

Thank you, 

Ryan J. Hollander 

Thursday, July 12, 2012 6:12 PM 

To: Stephen Buxbaum; Jim Cooper; Julie Hankins; Nathaniel Jones; Stephen Langer; Jeannine Roe; Karen 

Rogers 

Cc: danleahy43@yahoo.com; Erika Schwankl 

Subject: Comprehensive Road Plan - Decatur 

Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council members,

It has been brought to my family's attention that the City's comprehensive plan, includes a 

proposal that would open the southern end of Decatur St. to traffic coming off Highway 101. 

As residents of the neighborhood, we respectfully request this proposal not be adopted. 

On a daily basis Decatur has a consistent volume of foot traffic. Families with strollers 

heading to the park, joggers, people walking dogs, bicyclists, etc. Increasing traffic in this 

residential area would not only take away from our relatively quiet neighborhood, but 

potentially put the safety of many families at risk. 

As parents and pet owners, my wife and I would no longer feel comfortable pushing our 

daughter's stroller or walking our dogs along Decatur increased traffic. 

Thank you for considering our request. We would appreciate your thoughts about this 

proposal. 

Jim and Erika Brownell 

brownelj@comcast.net 

Friday, July 13, 2012 10:20 PM 

From:"geoff hartford" 

To: sbuxbaum@ci.olympia.wa.us, jcooper@ci.olympia.wa.us, krogers@ci.olympia.wa.us, 

njones@ci.olympia.wa.us, jhankins@ci.olympia.wa.us, slanger@ci.olympia.wa.us, 

jroe@ci.olympia.wa.us 

Cc: danleahy43@yahoo.com 

Once again, I find elected people not listening (with the exception of Karen Rogers) to the tax payers 

and voters who put them into office. DO NOT OPEN Decatur to the Auto Mall. I know of NO 

ONE who supports that concept and I have taken the time to talk with people. Have you?. Remove 

that unwanted piece from the comprehensive plan immediately. Get out and talk to people instead of 

hiding and pretending you know what tax payers want. 

There is going to be a voters revolt coming with the Smith Building give away in a deficit situation and 

then asking taxpayers to approve and absorb another tax increase. Hopefully, you will be replaced 

by fiscally sound officials who listen to tax payers. What is wrong with you and your your 

thinking? Listen to the people who put you in office and learn. 

Please respond to this email. 

Emails to Imagine Olympia 

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 



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 



From: Phil Cornell 


Subject: Comprehensive Plan 

Date: Monday, June 11, 2012 3:39:35 PM 

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 


Olympia 98502 

360-236-8184 

From: Barb Day 


Cc: Dan Leahy 

Subject: Street Extention Issue 

Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:27:38 AM 

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

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 

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 

8th. Even now people avoid the calming devices on 9th by speeding up 

8th instead. Please reconsider this proposal. You will be creating one big 

problem by trying to solve another. 

Chris Hempleman 

1303 8 th 

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: 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 



-- 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: 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 


From: Janis or Randy 


Cc: Dan Leahy 

Subject: Draft Comprehensive Plan - Keep Decatur and 16th SW Closed to Traffic 


Please eliminate this (below italicized) section from the Comprehensive Plan, and 

instead insert a provision for both the Decatur and 16th Street connections to our 

residential neighborhood be permanently closed to automobile traffic. 

(This statement is in the Transportation section, Appendix A, section of the 

Draft Comprehensive Plan: http://olympiawa.gov/plans/compplan/ 

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.###DWT175### 

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) 

The statement is patently wrong when it suggests the majority of users of the Decatur 

St. connection would be residents of our neighborhood. Anyone who looks at a map 

would readily acknowledge that opening this connection would create the shortest 

route from the highway (US 101) to the Capital Mall, with the addition of skipping a 

significant number of traffic lights in the process. Decatur St. is heavily used by 

bikers and walkers, including many children, and opening it to heavy commuter traffic 

would be dangerous to neighborhood residents. Moreover, our neighborhood has 

vast experience with the city's installation of "traffic calming" devices, and already 

know that they do nothing to reduce "the volumen of through-traffic from outside the 

immediate neighborhood," nor do they actually calm traffic. It is also a significant 

overstatement (and re-write of actual history) to suggest the earthquake damaged 

4th Avenue bridge was the cause of the change in traffic patterns during the period 

the 16th Avenue connection was opened. Your own studies and records indicate that 

the traffic patterns demonstrated that opening that connection merely created a 

shorter path for non-community commuters to cut through our neighborhood to make 

their way downtown. This path took them towards the damaged bridge, but they 

used the replacement bridge regardless, as it still represented the shortest path to 

their downtown destination. 

This provision in the comprehensive plan is short-sighted and ill-considered, and will 

destroy the nature of our neighborhood. Please eliminate this provision from the 


Randy Parr and Janis Rich 

1227 Decatur St. S.W. 

Olympia, WA 

360-786-9573 

From: K. Prater 


Subject: Comment--Decatur Street to Caton Way and 16th Avenue 

Date: Monday, June 11, 2012 5:58:17 PM

I live in the Southwest neighborhood and strongly oppose opening Decatur Street to interstate and auto 

mall traffic. This is an active neighborhood full of pedestrians, pets, and playing children. Not only are 

our own residents vigorous walkers, but we attract quite a bit of foot traffic from people walking from 

the West Side to downtown as this route is less congested than Harrison. I strongly urge that 

this section of the Comprehensive Plan be deleted and both the Decatur and 16th Street connections to our 

residential neighborhood be permanently closed to automobile traffic. The potential negative impact to such a 

large pedestrian-dominated neighborhood far exceeds any traffic benefits. 

Kezia Prater 

6th Ave. SW resident 

From: Diana Renison 


Subject: DECATUR PERMANENTLY CLOSED TO THE AUTO MALL 

Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 7:09:05 AM 

To whom it may concern: When do we care about neighborhoods more than the 

convenience of traffic? Always and that is why Decatur St. can't be open to the 

freeway. This isn't LA or San Diego or Phoenix. These neighborhoods are single 

family dwelling for the most part with barely room to park cars. With people talking 

and texting on cell phones and waiting for their coffee to kick in, there is little time 

to see the child on a bicycle. Yes, traffic is a problem but maybe it is that cars are 

the problem. It is too late to tear out houses and widen the streets so that, 

according to the traffic study, 14,000 cars a day can barrel through quiet 

neighborhoods. This issue, of openning Decatur, has been looked at many times. 

When city people sit around a desk moving ideas around, they are not living and 

breathing the same reality that a neighborhood has. If a UPS or FedEx truck parks, 

a car barrelling from busy streets into a neighborhood would have to pass these 

trucks by going into the other lane with little visiblity of what or who is on the other 

side. It is too bad we have traffic conjestion but that doesn't mean creating a 

hazardous neighborhood so that cars get home 10 minutes earlier. 

Diana Renison 

1009 w 6th Ave 

Olympia 

943-0385 

From: Kate Rosenfeld 


Subject: opposed to opening Decatur 


Hi, 

I am opposed to opening Decatur and 16th St to automobile traffic. We live in Southwest Olympia, at 

the corner of 9th and Percival St SW. Ours is a residential neighborhood, with many people-- young and 

old-- using the sidewalks at all times of the day and evening. Opening up Decatur to automobile traffic 

would increase traffic flow on our streets and pose a real threat to the many residents who use our 

sidewalks and streets (for bicycling). 

Our neighborhood has more foot traffic than many other neighborhoods in Olympia and opening 

Decatur and 16th would make our neighborhood far less safe for our pedestrians, which include 

elementary age children. Garfield Elementary School is the school for much of our neighborhood. Our 

daughter attended Garfield. The bus does not serve our neighborhood because all children who attend 

Garfield who live in our neighborhood are required to walk to school. If Decatur were opened to cars,

the heaviest traffic would occur during the exact time that children are walking to and from school in 

our neighborhood. Even when school is not in session, children and others frequently walk to Garfield to 

use its basketball court, baseball diamonds and field, as well as the tennis courts in the area. The Boys 

and Girls Club located next to Garfield, will also attract young people on foot and on bicycles. 

Our neighborhood is also within walking distance of downtown Olympia and so many of us walk and 

bike into downtown on a regular basis. Many of us also routinely walk and bike to Capital Lake-- rain or 

shine, day or night, all year round. 

As it is, there are many cars that pose a threat to pedestrians and bikers in our neighborhood, despite 

current traffic-calming devices. The stop sign at the corner of 9th and Percival is run routinely. We have 

a fence in front of our property, near the sidewalk, and each and every year it is significantly hit by cars 

and damaged. (Please stop by and view the damage done in just the past fews months!) 

Since we live on Percival, I know that it is not a wide street. Parking is only allowed on one side of the 

street, but two cars can't pass by each other when cars are parked on the other side. Percival is one of 

the main routes that non-residential traffic currently uses, coming from Black Lake to downtown or vice 

versa-- and there would be many, many more non-residential cars (and trucks) using Percival St SW if 

Decatur and 16th were opened to autos. 

I am adamantly opposed to opening Decatur and 16th to auto traffic. I am writing to request that both 

the Decatur and 16th Street connections to our residential neighborhood be permanently closed to 

automobile traffic and that any reference to such be permanently deleted from the city's Comprehensive 

Plan. 

Thank you, 

Kate Rosenfeld 

834 Percival St SW 


From: Stephen Rosenfeld 


Cc: Kate Rosenfeld 

Subject: Comprehensive Plan for SW Olympia 


To whom it may concern: 

I am writing to comment on the section of the Comprehensive Plan that calls for the opening of Decatur 

Street to through traffic. The Transportation Section of the Draft Comprehensive Plan states: 

"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." 

I am one of these intended users. I take I-5 daily. It is FAR MORE VALUABLE TO ME to retain the 

residential and local character of my neighborhood and street than it is to reduce my commute by a few 

minutes. One of the best features of our neighborhood is its friendliness to foot traffic. People walk their 

dogs in the street. Children play basketball or learn how to ride a bike. Very few people who live here 

would be likely to trade that environment for the convenience of a faster route to Black Lake Boulevard. 

I encourage you to remove this section from the plan, OR, at a minimum, to poll the neighborhood that 

this change is supposed to serve to actually demonstrate with data that the change is wanted by the 

people it is supposed to "benefit." 

Sincerely, 

Stephen Rosenfeld, MD 

834 Percival St. SW

From: Jeanne Rynne 


Subject: comment on Draft Comprehensive 


Dear City of Olympia, 

I see that the Draft Comprehensive Plan includes plans to open Decatur Street to 16th to automobile 

traffic. I would request that this section of the Comprehensive Plan be deleted. Currently this access is 

one of the few pedestrian friendly and bike friendly accesses to Cooper Point Road and the Black Lake 

Corridor. Very few pedestrian and bike friendly accesses exist in this area. Increased volume is also a 

safety concern. I do not believe additional traffic calming devices are effective, as I have observed 

many vehicles proceeding along the streets in our neighborhood that already have these devices while 

maintaining a constant speed, i.e. not slowing down. 

Thank you for taking public comment. 

Respectfully, 

Jeanne Rynne, 

resident at 1513 7th Ave SW, Olympia, 98502 

mother of 2 children 

From: Peter J. Sanderson 


Subject: Decatur Street connection 


As a resident of Southwest Olympia, I would like to object to language in the draft comp plan that 

seems to make opening Decatur Street the default position. Borrowing a phrase from a different 

section of the plan, “topographic constraints” make an attempt to apply the “connected streets” 

concept from this direction a red herring. The inductively-derived statement that “The majority of 

users of the Decatur Street connection would be residents of the Southwest Olympia 

Neighborhood” is unfounded and inaccurate, and fails to take into account probable peak period 

commuter congestion avoidance behavior between 101 and the Northern parts of Cooper Point. 

Peter J. Sanderson 


From: Nancy Sullivan 


Subject: comment on comprehensive plan 


Dear People, 

As a person who lives at 8th and Milroy SW, I've seen the traffic when the 16th 

Street connection to our residential neighborhood was opened to traffic from the 

freeway, and I have seen what the traffic increase on Decatur meant for the 

neighborhood when the freeway connected to the neighborhood via the auto mall. It 

was destructive to the quality of life of many, many Olympia residents.

In the comprehensive plan, both the Decatur and 16th Street connections to our 

residential neighborhood be permanently closed to automobile traffic. Otherwise, 

the neighborhoods are a cause for irritation to drivers intent on getting other places 

as fast as they can. I've been 'flipped off' for being a little old lady riding my bicycle 

on Decatur, and the fact that there is a bicycle lane (one way only) and a few traffic 

calming devices is not a solution to the needs of people who are in a hurry to be 

somewhere other than my neighborhood. It isn't safe for children to have their 

neighborhood turned into an interactive maze for drivers looking for shortcuts 

because their arterial has abruptly disappeared. Having a feeder from a freeway that 

dead ends in a residential neighborhood is NOT comprehensive planning, and it is 

not practical if the goal of Olympia is to serve it's residents. Let's not make it 

punishing for people to live walking and bicycle riding distance to things, to pacify 

people who are in a hurry to get in and out of town in their cars. Let's preserve our 

urban neighborhoods. They are the backbone of Olympia. 

Yours sincerely, 

Nancy Sullivan 



From: Cathy Wasserman 


Cc: vicsolutions@comcast.net 

Subject: Comprehensive Plan 

Date: Monday, June 11, 2012 11:27:52 PM 

It is my understanding that the draft comprehensive plan includes plans to open Decatur St SW to 

Caton Way. As a resident of the Southwest neighborhood residing on Decatur St between 8th and 

9th streets I am vehemently opposed to connecting these streets. Currently there is bike and 

pedestrian passage, but no pass through accessible to cars. I feel this is appropriate to preserve the 

safety and community feel of the neighborhood. I walk my dog daily throughout the neighborhood, 

and car traffic seems largely limited to residents of this area. Residents know that there are 

pedestrians, bicyclists, dog-walkers and children playing throughout the area and travel 

accordingly. Opening up Decatur/Caton Way would encourage drivers to skirt the main roads like 

Harrison and Black Lake Blvd and travel through the southwest neighborhood as a short cut. I feel 

such pass through traffic would be likely to travel faster than the speed limit, and would not be as 

attuned to the pedestrian and bike traffic. 

I also oppose opening up Fern St to Carriage Loop for similar reasons. 

Thank you for your consideration of my concerns, 

Cathy Wasserman 

From: Bethany Weidner 


Cc: brad obrien; Jerome Parker; Stephen Langer 

Subject: Comments submitted re: draft changes to the Olympia Comprehensive Plan 

Date: Thursday, May 24, 2012 1:14:24 PM

(The below comments are only in reference to Decatur/16th) 

Transportation PT 4.20: The stated presumption that "all connections are 

needed" cannot be supported: many of the connections listed in the Appendix were 

flagged 10-20 years ago, with a provision in the Comprehensive Plan that, at such 

time as they might be connected, the City would undertake a process to determine 

whether they were needed, and what the impact would be. This process was aimed 

especially at connections that involved established neighborhoods, and explicitly 

provided for neighborhood involvement in the process. Here is the language from 

the current Comprehensive Plan. It should be kept. 

T3.20 f. Require that streets and trails connect with other streets and trails whenever 

practical; dead-ends and cul-de-sacs should be avoided. Use "stubbed out" streets and 

trails to provide linkages with future neighborhoods. 

In determining where it is practical to connect new streets with existing ones, the City or 









Effectiveness of proposed traffic-calming measures.

From: Jim Lengenfelder & Emily Ray 


Subject: Via Website--Comments on the Draft Comprehensive Plan Update 

Date: Friday, July 27, 2012 5:01:04 PM 

Amy Tousley, Chair, and Members 


Overall, I am impressed with the huge job you have accomplished. 

Briefly, to focus mainly on the negative: 

Emphasis on alternative means of transportation. Excellent! Therefore, 

I find it peculiar that the plan pushes for a great increase in road 

surface, including the extension of Log Cabin Road. Several years ago 

residents "pushed back" on that proposal; I expect they will again. 

Decatur Street faced a similar proposal and defeated it, too. 

High density corridor designations. Generally, I agree with them. I do 

not agree with the inclusion of Capitol Way south of the I-5 bridge. 

Visually and aesthetically, the Wildwood and the Governor Stevens 

neighborhoods are extensions of the South Capitol Neighborhood. At the 

very least, the proposal for this high density corridor does violence to 

the attributes of these historic neighborhoods, attributes that 

elsewhere the plan calls for protecting. 

If the area south of the I-5 bridge sprouts taller buildings, apartments 

and condos, traffic will increase not only on Capitol Way but also on 

O'Farrell and Carlyon and Governor Stevens through to Henderson 

Boulevard. The next step would of course be to transform these local 

streets to urban arterials. This prospect defeats the effort to protect 

and enhance the older neighborhoods. 

Street front designs. Several places in Olympia we see fake or blocked 

doors facing sidewalks around commercial buildings. One example is Rite 

Aid on the west side. The new building going up on the Sunset Life 

property is another example. The existing building is in a park-like 

setting, with trees and a lawn facing Capitol Way. The new building 

will have a "wall" next to Capitol Way. Yes, I understand the need to 

accommodate parking behind buildings. However, we need to encourage 

some minimal landscaping on the street side especially in transitional 

areas. 

Port of Olympia. I strongly support the proposal to increase 

coordination between our jurisdictions. 

Storm water. Today's newspaper announces that Ward Lake is almost 

opaque due to algae and phosphorus. I find particularly alarming that 

runoff from THREE subdivisions apparently is goes into the lake. 

Somehow the runoff from these neighborhoods must be redirected away from 

the lake.



Subject: FW: Sophie Stimson & OPC: Decatur/16th 


Attachments: License plate study and correspondence.pdf 




360-753-8046 




To: Amy Buckler; Stacey Ray 

Subject: Fw: Sophie Stimson & OPC: Decatur/16th 

-------------------------- 


From: Rose Ann Penney [mailto:R.Penney@soundpathhealth.com] 


To: Dan Leahy ; Sophie Stimson 




; Roger Horn 

Subject: RE: Sophie Stimson & OPC: Decatur/16th 

Dan, 

I have the traffic study and will forward a copy to you. I am in the process of trying to finish my 

response to get it to the planning commission by the 5:00 pm deadline. Rose Ann 

Rose Ann Penney 

1532 Fern St Sw 

Olympia WA 




Cc: Amy Tousley; Jerry Parker; Rob Richards; Larry Leveen; Paul Ingman; Judy Bardin; James Reddick; 

Agnies Kakisza; Roger Horn 

Subject: Sophie Stimson & OPC: Decatur/16th 

Ms. Stimson:

Thank you for your response to my questions and the 33 pages of material you sent to me. I have 

read every page. I hope you have. I was actually at both the 2001 and the 2004 meetings you cite in 

your response. 

Before I respond to your answers, I hope you realize that many of the Riker/Wesselman statements in 

these 33 pages are promotional statements as opposed to factual ones made by these two long time 

advocates of opening of Decatur and 16th to automobile traffic. 

Their statements, contained in the materials you sent to me, are in quotation marks. 

1. "The designation for the Decatur street would be as a neighborhood collector." 

(2001 study session) Of course, we both know that the City classified Decatur as a "major collector" 

with a capacity of 14,000 vehicles per day. 

2. "However, staff has completed a license plate survey for Fern/16th street 

connection indicated most of the traffic was from within the broader southwest 

neighborhood..." (2001 study session). In 2004, Roseanne Penny pointed out that the study 

actually showed that 66% of the license plates were from out of the neighborhood. Then in 2004 Riker 

himself pointed out that his "link" analysis shows "through traffic would occur from north of Harrison 

Avenue." Harrison Avenue is not in the southwest neighborhood. 

3. "Currently, emergency response vehicles would have to go through the Black 

Lake interchange to access the neighborhood." (Council Minutes 3/16/04). Response 

vehicles from Capital Medical Center on 9th Avenue, the Fire Station on Kenyon and the Police station 

on Perry do not need to go through the Black Lake interchange to access the neighborhood. 

4. "He (Riker) also noted that most of the homes on Decatur Street do not face the 

street." (2001 Study Session). This is statement is so factually incorrect I just can't imagine why Mr. 

Riker is still on staff. 

5. "The neighborhood stated they would need another way out of the neighborhood 

and access to the freeway system." (Council Minutes 3/16/04). By this date, the Council had 

received petitions signed by the majority of single family households in the southwest neighborhood 

asking that both Decatur and 16th be closed to automobile traffic. "The neighborhood stated" is a 

fiction. 

6. "Staff is proposing to go through a mitigation planning effort." (Council Minutes 

3/16/12). As the minutes indicate, this request was denied. You should also know that the "staff" has 

never proposed a planning process that asks the question of whether these connections should 

be opened, let alone ever studied the potential effects of these openings on the southwest 

neighborhood north of 9th avenue. 

7. Randy Wesselman's promotion of Council action on November 9, 2004 to include 

Decatur & 16th connections in the Comprehensive Plan. I can only say that despite the 

previous four years of opposition to these connections, there was no representation of the SW 

Neighborhood Association at this Council meeting. SWONA is on record as opposed to the opening of 

these connections to automobiles. 

The continued involvement of these two staff members (Riker and Wesselman) in decisions about 

Decatur and 16th is indicative of the City Manager's policy of promoting the opening of these two 

connections to motor vehicles. 

I can only assume these two individuals were involved in writing the numerous incorrect statements in 

the Appendix A section, the incorrect statements in your "staff response" and in the creation of new 

policy language that mandates the opening of Decatur & 16th in contradiction of Council action.

With regard to several of your current "staff" statements, I want to point out the 

following. 

1. No where in the 33 pages you sent me is there any study or even statement justifying your 

language that says, "the majority users of the Decatur Street connection would be 

residents of the Southwest Olympia Neighborhood..." (Transportation section of current draft 

Comprehensive Plan, Appendix A). In fact, the statements made by your staff contradict this 

statement. Would you please delete this statement? 

2. At the bottom of the same statement there is this reference: "Ordinance #6389, 1/24/06." 

There was no such ordinance passed by the Council on January 24, 2006, at least according to 

Council minutes of that date. We now understand from the City Clerk that this very important 

ordinance was passed on 12/13/05. Please correct this. 

3. As you have pointed out to me, the 2008 date of Council action in your "staff response" to our 

current comments was an incorrect date. Please correct this statement to 11/09/04. (Note: We spent a 

good deal of time searching the 2008 Council minutes trying to find this decision which was not there.) 

4. Your staff response statement also states, "The decision about whether or not to open Decatur and 

16th to motor vehicles must be an informed one." This is not what Ordinance # 6389 states. Please 

replace your statement with the actual ordinance passed by the Council which states: 

"Any decision and on whether to connect Decatur Street to Caton Way, and open 

16th Avenue as through vehicular connections will not be made until the Westside 

Access and Traffic Circulation Study is complete." 

With regard to how the draft Comprehensive Plan language mandates the opening of Decatur to 

automobiles. 

1. The listing of Decatur connection in Appendix B must be deleted from the draft 

Comprehensive Plan because the new policy language (cited below) contradicts the 

Council's mandate. 

The below language from the draft comprehensive plan's "connectivity" section means that all 

connections listed (such a Decatur) are "needed" and will be opened to vehicular traffic. This language 

does not say to me, as you suggest, that all connections "have value"; it says explicitly they are all 

"needed." 

Change: 



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. 

With respect to Decatur and 16th, this change contradicts Council policy contained in Ordinance 6389. 

Council policy does not assume Decatur connection is needed. It says only after the completion of the 

Westside Traffic Study will be question of whether to connect Decatur and open 16th be determined. 

2. As I pointed out staff had deleted the criteria language listed below. You 

suggest it should be reintroduced. Since, at least in terms of Decatur and 16th, the 

question of need is open, these criteria will be important for any honest study of

these potential connections: 











Thanks again for your very timely response to my questions. 

Best of luck with incorporating the Commission's suggestions into the final draft of the Comprehensive 

Plan that will be submitted to the City Council. 

Sincerely, 

Dan Leahy 



cc: OIympia Planning Commission: Public Comment on draft Comprehensive Plan 



SWONA Officers

--- On Tue, 7/24/12, Sophie Stimson wrote: 


Subject: RE: Staff response to Decatur/16th comments 

To: "Dan Leahy" 

Cc: "'Geoffrey Mueller'" 

Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 5:24 PM 

Hello Mr. Leahy,

Thank you for your comments. I have repeated your questions below, and provided a 

response for each in italics. 




Staff did not change the July draft of the comp plan because our direction from the City Council has 

been to address these street connections once the West Olympia Access Study was complete. It would 

have been inappropriate for staff to make any changes to the draft comp plan related to Decatur and 

16th street connections. 

2. Can you send me a copy of the 2008 City Council decision the staff referenced in the staff response 



I was incorrect about the year of the decision, and I apologize. 

At the November 9, 2004 City Council Meeting, the City Council decided to retain the Decatur Street 

and 16th Avenue connections as vehicle connections in the comp plan and Regional Transportation 

Plan, pending completion of the Westside Access and Traffic Circulation Study (later renamed the West 

Olympia Access Study). Also, text was to be added to the comp plan to reflect that any decision on 

whether to open Decatur Street and 16th Avenue as vehicular connections will not be made until the 

Westside Access and Circulation Study is complete. 

In this Council action, it was also decided to construct a bike and pedestrian access at Decatur, and 

allow emergency vehicle access at 16th Avenue. 

As a follow up to the November 2004 Council Meeting, text was added to the comp plan, which can be 

seen today in the current plan. The ordinance amending the comp plan was #6389. That text reads: 

“Any decision on whether to connect Decatur Street to Caton Way (south of the existing end of Decatur 

Street) and open 16th Avenue (west of Fern Street) as through vehicular connections will not be made 

until the Westside Access and Traffic Circulation Study is complete.” 




At the March 16, 2004 City Council meeting, a discussion of the connections occurred. The minutes 

describe how the connection will serve the neighborhood in accessing the freeway, and that the traffic 

model indicated the connections would not be used for through traffic; the connections would distribute

traffic throughout the neighborhood better. The staff report and minutes of the meeting are attached. 

4. The staff response says "The decision about whether or not to open Decatur Street and 16th 

Avenue to motor vehicles must be an informed one." Since the staff says the Phase II Traffic study 

anticipated to begin in 2013 is the basis upon which an informed decision can be made, why have the 

staff listed these connections at all in the current draft Comprehensive Plan? It would only be logical 

for the staff to include such proposed automobile connections only after completion of their study which 

might suggest such a need for "motor vehicles." 

That was the direction of the City Council in November 2004 to retain these in the comp plan. 

5. The staff response says that "As part of this study, transportation issues and needs will be 

evaluated alongside public ideas and concerns", yet the staff has eliminated all the bases upon 

which citizens could voice their concerns from the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Here is the 

language from the previous Comprehensive Plan. Why did the staff eliminate this language from this 

new draft Comprehensive Plan? 

You make a good point that discussions with neighborhoods about a street connection would be 

removed with the removal of the policy T3.20f. That was not the intent of removing the policy in the 

draft plan. 

It would make sense to add text to the updated comp plan that a process to discuss a street connection 

with adjacent neighborhoods is needed when a street connection is pursued. Staff expects that there 

would always be a public process when a street connection is pursued, whether the connection is 

pursued by the City or as part of a private development. It is also expected that there would be 

mitigation measures for any connection that is made. 

The intent of the proposed new policy PT4.21 is to shift from having to justify every connection, to a 

general premise that all street connections have value. If a connection is opposed, PT 4.21 provides 

an objective tool to describe the relative value of the connection. If the connection does not prove to 

reduce travel times, for example, it may be decided the connection’s value is not significant. If the 

criteria lead to the conclusion that the connection would improve mobility for all users in the area, 

decision makers would have better information on which to base actions, and affected interests would 

have a better understanding of the reasons for actions. 

Lastly, some items in 1 to 9 in the current policy T3.20 f will be addressed through the design of a new 

street, or as mitigation measures to a street connection (pedestrian safety, presence of sidewalks, road 

width, sight distance, for example). The other items listed in the policy - neighborhood development 

plans, environmental constraints, bike and ped access, and traffic patterns - would be addressed 

through the initial planning for a street connection and discussions with the neighborhood. For these 

reasons, it seemed appropriate to remove 3.20f. 

I hope this information is useful. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sophie 





360-753-8497 


Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:55 PM 


Subject: Staff response to Decatur/16th comments 

Hi Ms. Stimson, 

Thanks for sending out a copies of emailed comments with regard to keeping Decatur and 16th closed and deleting 

these connections from the draft Comprehensive Plan. 

On this issue, there were 25 separate emailed comments from Westside neighbors, perhaps the greatest number of 

comments on any single issue. Also, these 25 comments represent a majority of the 47 comments received on the 

transportation section of the April Comprehensive Plan draft. 

Twenty-three of these comments asked that these connections be deleted from the Comprehensive Plan. Only 1 

anonymous person wanted Decatur opened to automobiles. 


1. Can you tell me how this significant expression of community desire informs staff decision making? The staff 

made no reference to the explicit request to keep these connections closed to automobiles in the "staff response." 

2. Can you send me a copy of the 2008 City Council decision the staff referenced in the staff response to these 

comments? I am not aware of a 2008 Council decision with regard to these connections or the Westside Traffic 

Study. 

3. The connection statement in the draft Comprehensive Plan says that "The majority of users of the Decatur Street 

connection would be residents of the Southwest Olympia Neighborhood..." Can you send me the study the staff 

used to inform their statement? 

4. The staff response says "The decision about whether or not to open Decatur Street and 16th Avenue to motor 

vehicles must be an informed one." Since the staff says the Phase II Traffic study anticipated to begin in 2013 is the

asis upon which an informed decision can be made, why have the staff listed these connections at all in the current 

draft Comprehensive Plan? It would only be logical for the staff to include such proposed automobile connections 

only after completion of their study which might suggest such a need for "motor vehicles." 

5. The staff response says that "As part of this study, transportation issues and needs will be evaluated alongside 

public ideas and concerns", yet the staff has eliminated all the bases upon which citizens could voice their 

concerns from the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Here is the language from the previous Comprehensive Plan. 

Why did the staff eliminate this language from this new draft Comprehensive Plan? Below is the language the staff 

eliminated. 











The Olympia Planning Commission is holding hearings Monday and Wednesday and is accepting written comment 

until Friday of this coming week. I'd greatly appreciate it if I could have your answers by Friday morning at the 

latest. 


Sincerely, 

Dan Leahy 










Comments on the first draft of the update of the Olympia Comprehensive Plan included concerns about the opening 

of Decatur Street and 16th Avenue to motor vehicles. The potential street connections at Decatur Street and 16th 

Avenue are mentioned in the text of Appendix A and shown on the Transportation 2030 Street Capacity and 

Connectivity Map for the Westside in Appendix B. 


In 2008, the City Council indicated that the decision as to whether or not to open Decatur Street and 16th Avenue 

to motor vehicles would be made once the West Olympia Access Study is complete. For this reason, any reference 

to these potential street connections has not been removed from the draft Comprehensive Plan.

Phase I of the West Olympia Access Study occurred from 2008 to 2010 and explored highway access needs. Phase 

II of the study is anticipated to begin in 2013, and will explore the local street issues on Olympia’s Westside. The 

scope of phase II will examine: 

• the capacity improvements needed as an outcome of the first phase of the study, (such as new turn lanes) 

• the bike, pedestrian and transit needs on Westside streets, including those identified by the public in the first phase 

of the study, and 


The decision about whether or not to open Decatur Street and 16th Avenue to motor vehicles must be an informed 

one. Phase II of this study will allow for an adequate process to examine connectivity needs on the Westside, 

including these potential street connections. As part of this study, transportation issues and needs will be evaluated 

alongside public ideas and concerns. 

--- On Thu, 7/19/12, Sophie Stimson wrote: 


Subject: Thanks for your comments on the Comp Plan 

To: 

Date: Thursday, July 19, 2012, 1:30 PM 

Hello, 

Thank you for providing comments on the Transportation Chapter of the draft update of the Olympia 


Forty seven individuals or agencies provided transportation-related comments on this first draft of the 

Comprehensive Plan, the April draft. 

You can see all the comments received on the April draft on the Imagine Olympia website. 

All comments submitted relating to transportation were considered as we updated this next draft of the 

Comprehensive Plan. In many cases, we were able to make changes to the policies or clarify language. We were 

not able to incorporate all comments. Please visit the City’s Transportation website for more information on how 

the comments were incorporated. 

th

We received several comments about the potential street connections at Decatur Street and 16 Avenue, SW. A 

response to those comments is also on this website. 

You will also see that the next draft of the comp plan, the Olympia Planning Commission draft, was released July 6 

(the July draft). The Olympia Planning Commission plans to hold public hearings on this draft July 23 and 25. The 

July draft and details of the hearings can be found on the Imagine Olympia website. 

Thanks again for your comments. If you would like to discuss your comments more specifically, please feel free to 

contact me. 

Sophie 





360-753-8497

Auto Mall SW Neighborhood NW Neighborflood 

.... " " 

" " " 

.. o· .. 

.. .. '0 

.. . ... .. 

1-. .. . ... • 

...... .. 

.. .. · 

.. .. · 

.. .. · 

· " · 

· .. 

· .. · 

0 ... · 

0 .... 

· .. · 0 

· .... · 

· .. · 

.. · 

0 .. · 

· .. · 

· .. · 

· 

.. 

· .. 

· .. · 

0 .. 

.. · 

.. · 

- . .. · 

... 

.. 

.... 

..... 

.... 

.. 

.. 

4N umber of Time ... Seen 

. 

{ 

161h A,,'enue' Fu n Street. SW 

I kepse Plate Study 

August 9 200 I 

, 

NEOlympia 

SE Olympia 

.... .... 

.. 

" 

.. · 

.. 0 

0 

· 

0 

· 

· · 

0 · 

· · 

· · 

0 · 

· · 

· 0 

0 

0 

· 0 

· 

0 

· 

laceylTumwater 

Tumwater··· · 

Tum'fllafC('" 

la

-'- WEWNGTON 

August 8. 2002 

City Council 


PO Box 1967 


WESI' NEIGHIIORHOOD AssocIATION 

1532 fERN ST. SW. OLYMPIA. WI\. ,.502 

(3,0) 9+3-5130 

Dear Mayor Biles and Honorable Councilors: 

Once again I must address the Council conceming their receipt of biased and 

skewed information provided by City staff. I am referring to a statement made in 

the lessons Learned Study session of last December regarding the closure of 

16 m Ave. into the Auto Mall. 

During that presentation, Dave Riker, Transportation Division Manager, 

com mented that there was a license plate study conducted at the intersection of 

16'" Avenue and Fern SI. He stated that the ovl!lWhelming majority of traffic was 

from the Southwest Olympia Neighborhood. That evening I requested a copy of 

the study from him. I received a letter with that study on May 29, 2002, copy 

enclosed, from Sally Blonien, Transportation Engineering Technician" from the 

Public Works Department, with the data from that study. 

I have two points to make about the license plate study. First, the data is 

incorrect; second, the concJusions are incorrect because they did not apply the 

data to the correct question. 

FIRST: INCORRECT DATA 

1. The numbers quoted in Sally's letter are incorrect when compared to the 

actual data they provided us. Noting that filtered data was used by 

eliminating registrations with anything but a physical address, we do not 

know how many more trips are originating and ending outside the 

neighborhood. 

2. The number of plates used in the study is quoted as 540. The actual data 

shows only 507 plates. A difference of 7%. 

3. The SW Neighborhood is quoted at 239 trips. The adual data shows only 

226 trips. Another 6% error. 

4. The lacey-Tumwater trips are quoted at 87. The adual data shows 98 

trips. A 12% error. 

5. You might say they are such small percentages as to be within the 

standard of error. I say such a small study could afford to be accurate. 

Inaccuracies at this level make us question the accuracy of reporting at all 

levels.

· . . 

WEWNGI'ON WESI' NElGIIBOUIOOD As5oaA11ON 

l53l FERN ST. SW. OLYMPIA. WA .S50l 

(3"') .43-5130 

SECOND: ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION 

1. The study very nicely devoted time and energy to plotting out the many 

areas where the traffic comes from. This infomlation may prove to be 

useful in a Mure study. 

2. However, the concern posed by Wellington West and SW Olympia 

Neighborftood Associations was NOT that the connection was used in 

excess by any ONE other neighborhood. 

3. The concern is that it is not a connection fQr the SW Neighborhood, but 

rather it is a cut·through connection for everyone outside the 

Neighborftood. 

4. Mr. Riker never reportad to the Council that, In the 6 peak hours 

studied, an overwhelming 67.3% of the traffic using the 16 th Avenue 

connection is registered to vehicl .. from OUTSIDE the SW 

Neighborhood. 

5. Instead. as also quoted from Sally's letter, it was stated that· ... the vast 

majority of the trips observed were made in cars registered to people that 

reside in the southwest area of Olympia.' Yes, when compared to any 

other single neighborftood. we had more trips. But as a oercent of the total 

trips, our neighborftood generated only 32.7% Of the traffic, 

6. Also, quoted from Sally's letter. 'Overall, it does make sense that those 

that live near the area would be the overwhelming users of the 

connection.' I ask, overwhelming compared to what? 32% of the total is 

under-whelming in my book. 

Mr. Mayor, and Councilors, I offer this as one more piece of evidence that the 

designation of 16'" Avenue and 14'" Avenue (as it runs through Wellington West) 

as Neighborftood Collectors is a misnomer of the highest order. It needs to be 

called a Tri·City Collector because that is where the TRUE 'vast majority' of the 

traffic is coming from . 

As always, we remain firm that there were a number of mistakes made in the 

development of Wellington West as a residential neighborftood. But since those 

mistakes were made. they should not be compounded by allowing it to be 

destroyed by cut-through traffic. Please consider removing 16'" Ave. SWand 14'" 

Ave. SW from the list of neighborhood collectors. 

Sincerely, 


Wellington West Neighborftood Association 

Ene.: Correspondence - Rose Ann Penney 

Correspondence - Sally Blonien, License Plate Data from CitY of Olympia



Subject: FW: Comments for July Draft Comprehensive PLan 


Attachments: Traffic Data.pdf 

License plate study and correspondence.pdf 

Traffic Calming address to City Council.pdf 

Traffic Volume graph.pdf 




360-753-8046 




To: Stacey Ray; Amy Buckler 

Subject: Fw: Comments for July Draft Comprehensive PLan 

-------------------------- 


From: Rose Ann Penney [mailto:R.Penney@soundpathhealth.com] 


To: imagineolympia@ci.olympia.wa.us 




; Roger Horn ; Sophie Stimson 

; Dan Leahy 

Subject: Comments for July Draft Comprehensive PLan 

My name is Rose Ann Penney and I live at 1532 Fern St SW, Olympia WA 98502. 

Thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity to comment on the July Draft. 

I am a past president and founder of the Wellington West neighborhood Association, 

WWNA in 2000. Over the last few years SWONA, South West Olympia 

Neighborhood Association has addressed our concerns to the point where it was 

redundant to have two neighborhood associations for the same area and WWNA has 

been disbanded. 

First I have to say that I am very sad that we have to keep having this discussion after

12 years. That staff is still trying to justify a connection which studies have shown will 

have a significantly negative impact on our neighborhood. That Mr. Wesselman, still 

believes that correct process is to open a street and then see what kind of traffic 

calming he can come up with to mitigate the ensuing onslaught of automobiles. 

Rather than using past studies and common sense to look at a map and make the 

beeline connection between the enticement of Westside Mall and the surrounding 

areas. 

My comments address three things regarding the Decatur and 16 th Street 

connections: 

1. Language eliminated from the plan regarding the process of determining the 

decision making process to open/develop a street connection. 

2. A city traffic study that showed definitively that the traffic on 16 th St., when 

open, came predominantly from OUTSIDE the neighborhood. 

a. Letter showing that staff erroneously claimed the “vast majority of traffic 

came from the Westside. 

b. Letter showing response to City Council pointing out discrepancies 

3. Traffic calming, which is claimed will reduce traffic, which not only does not 

reduce traffic; it does not ‘calm’ or slow down traffic. 

I want to start first by addressing a paragraph in the current plan that contains 

incorrect statements about the closure of 16 th St. 

GT29: 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 earthquake is not what created the traffic on 16th. The traffic was already over 

2,000 VDT BEFORE the earthquake (See attachment “Traffic Data”). All that by word 

of mouth. Some caused by the neighborhood itself (me) when we told friends, who 

told friends, who told other friends, about this great shortcut to the Westside Mall. I 

had a friend who lived in Tumwater and worked at the bookstore at the mall. She told 

everyone she worked with and customers too! That is a myth created by city staff to 

justify keeping 16th in the plan for vehicular traffic. Just look at a map and you can 

see what we mean. 

1. Language eliminated from the plan: “In determining where it is practical to

connect new streets with existing ones, the City or County, as appropriate, will 

determine whether the merits outweigh the demerits of the whole package, 

and whether the connection would be in the best interests of both the 

community at large and the neighborhood. In discussions with the existing 

neighborhood, the following will be considered: (1) Neighborhood development 

plans, (2) Pedestrian safety, (3) Availability or feasibility of sidewalks, (4) width 

of roadway, (5) topography and environmental constraints, (6) Sight distance, 

(7) Likelihood of diverting significant cross-town arterial traffic onto local 

neighborhood streets, (8) Whether pedestrian/bicycle connections, rather than 

streets, would accomplish the desired goals, and (9) Effectiveness of proposes 

traffic-calming measures.” 

PT4.20 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. 

I agree with Dan Leahy’s comments that this effectively eliminates all the 

bases upon which citizens could voice their concerns form the proposed 

Comprehensive plan. 

2. A license plate study was done August 9, 2001. The city submitted a summary 

letter to the City Council as part of the “Lessons Learned” session in 

December of 2002. The neighborhood was never made aware of the study. 

Because I attended the lessons learned session, I requested a copy of the 

study that night and finally received it on May 29, 2002. In their summary they 

claimed that the overwhelming majority of the traffic came from the west side. 

When looking at the actual data it is obvious that the overwhelming majority of 

the traffic came from OUT of the neighborhood. 

a. I have attached: The May 2002 letter from Sally Blonion, the table of 

data from the study, my response to her data, (which was never 

answered) and a copy of my notes presented to the City Council on 

August 8, 2002. 

3. My submission to the City Council on April 13, 2002, in response to a Lessons 

Learned meeting on connecting streets in south Wesside neighborhood and it 

is attached to this email and summarized below: 

a. Traffic calming does not reduce the volume of traffic. It was cited to us 

that traffic calming on 5 th Ave reduced the traffic volumes. And at no 

appreciable change to surrounding streets, other than doubling the 

traffic of an adjacent street. 

b. Traffic calming can be ineffective when faced with 3000 VDT. 

c. I have included 2 graphs which are constructed using data from the City

of Olympia’s traffic counters in July of 2001. It is a good representation 

of what it looks like to sit on my front porch and hear/see the constant 

whiz of traffic in a neighborhood. 

One last comment. The whole idea of opening Decatur and 16 th to vehicular traffic is 

inherently flawed. Connections are meant to disperse traffic, which is physically 

impossible when there can only be two connectors on the west side. Funneled rather 

than dispersed is more like it. 

I respectfully ask that you look at the whole picture and impact on a great bicycle and 

pedestrian friendly neighborhood before making these changes. And that you 

consider the real data behind lessons learned in the 16 th street fiasco as you go 

forward in the process. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment and input to the Planning 

Commission. I am happy to address any questions you may have. 

Best regards, 


1532 Fern St SW 

Olympia, WA, 98502 

Phone: 360-789-8155

To: City Council 


City Council Meeting, December 18, 2001 

Subject: Connecting Streets in South Westside Neighborhood 

April 13, 2002 

Attachment "E": Lessons Learned From the 16 th Avenue Street Connection 

This letter represents the Wellington West Neighborhood Association's (WWNA) 

response to the statements and assertions made by Messrs. Wesselman and 

Riker during the noted Council meeting. The Association felt it necessary to 

formally reply due to perceived inaccuracies that the City presented during the 

noted meeting. The subject matter is reproduced along with the Associations 

reply to each. 

1) We need to continually communicate with the public and residents living in 

"connected" neighborhoods the vision and goals of connected streets, in order to 

help people understand the big picture of why they are important. 

16th Avenue connected a quiet residential subdivision with the commercial 

Olympia Auto Mall. This connection was done on an ad hoc basis with no notice 

of such fact printed in the newspaper, no meetings with the neighborhood 

residents, nor any formal correspondence from the City to the affected people. 

The Olympia Comprehensive Plan (OCP) calls for formal notification to be 

accomplished prior to the opening of any new connection. Therefore what the 

City is in fact saying is that in future they will abide by the appropriate sections of 

the OCP. 

2) Continue to consider building in traffic calming devices arid features into the 

existing street structure, when connecting an existing street with a new one. If a 

new street connection has the potential to be so desirable to substantially alter 

existing travel patterns, consider using an incremental approach to implementing 

traffic calming along the street connected, to mitigate impacts of the additional 

motorized traffic. Also, when traffic calming is being considered as part of a new 

street connection, it should be considered for the entire section of the street that 

is being connected, not just near the point of connection. 

Traffic calming, so-called, demonstrably did not work on le Avenue and Fern 

Street. Citizens who experienced the traffic volume in August, 2001, presented 

their observations to that fact: The seven (7) devices that had been installed had 

no appreciable effect on the 3000+ cars per day that were using the connection.

3) The threshold volume (500 to 3000 vehicles per day) for a INeighborhood 

Collector may not be appropriate. 

3000 vehicles a day on Fern Street (2,100 experienced before the Nisqually 

earthquake) made life almost unendurable for the affected residents. Fern Street 

should be reclassified as a purely residential street and 16 th Avenue permanently 

closed to vehicular traffic. Yes, in this case we do agree with Public Works staff: 

500 — 3000 vehicles per day is totally inappropriate for a Neighborhood Collector 

classification. 

4) New connections to existing developments are difficult to make (older, 

established neighborhoods are even more difficult). Residents become 

accustomed to less traffic volumes/impacts. 

Residents of the Wellington West neighborhood are entitled to be safe in their 

homes, safe to walk upon the sidewalks and cross the street and experience a 

quality of life in keeping with the dense construction standards that the City 

developed for the subdivision. The City cannot have envisioned 3000 vehicles 

per day traveling down narrow streets with children playing in their front yards a 

few feet from the roadway. 

5) Use the transportation model projected volumes for major street connections 

to help assess impacts on these new street connections. If volumes are near or 

above the classification threshold traffic volume, additional mitigation plans need 

to be established before the connection is open to motorized traffic. 

Based upon the experience of Wellington West Subdivision residents, Public 

Work's traffic count estimates are low. In addition, once a connection is made the 

presence or absence of traffic calming has no effect whatsoever upon the users 

of the connection. They (i.e. traffic calming devices) are simply viewed as 

another obstacle, an inconvenience that the motorist feels he or she must 

overcome. 

'Successes": 

6) Traffic calming features were built into Fern Street and 16 th Avenue, in 

anticipation that the Fern Street/16th Avenue street would be a desirable 

secondary access to the neighborhood. These features include a narrow point on 

16th Avenue, the "T" intersection on 16 th Avenue and Fern Street, and the traffic 

circle at Fern Street and 15 th Avenue. 

At no time after the connection was opened was 16 th Avenue and Fern Street a 

`secondary' access to the neighborhood. It was the primary almost exclusive 

connection between SR 101/Cooper Point Road and streets to the East.

As stated previously in points 2) and 5), traffic calming was totally ineffective for 

this neighborhood. Attached is the Traffic Calming Device Analysis presented as 

evidence to the City Council in August, 2001 to support that assertion. 

7) Overall, speeds on Fern Street were acceptable. We feel this was due to the 

traffic calming features that had been installed as part of the new development in 

this immediate area. 

Acceptable? To whom? The residents of Wellington West called the Police 

Department about speeding, screeching of tires, rude behavior by motorists, on a 

weekly basis. The City's own statistics placed the 85 percentile at 27+ miles-perhour, 

that is to say, speeding. That leaves 15%, or 450 vehicles, in excess of the 

25 mph limit, certainly from VVWNA observations, some well in excess of the 

limit. How can this therefore be considered a "success"? 

Conclusions: 

The WWNA, except for item 3) re. traffic volume classification for a 

Neighborhood Collector, conclude that the City of Olympia Public Works 

Department did not learn anything from the mistake of opening the 16 th Avenue 

and Fern Street connection to arterial traffic. In addition and finally, the only 

successes that should be recognized are those of the residents of Wellington 

West who had the street connection closed after bringing the issues of personal 

safety and quality of life in person to the City Council for immediate decision. 

Signed: 

Rose Ann Penney, 

President, 

Wellington West Neighborhood Association 

Attachment: Traffic Calming Device Analysis

FERN STREET CONNECTION — TRAFFIC DATA 

14th Avenue SW to 6th Avenue SW 

LOCATION TRAFFIC VOLUMES 85TH PERCENTILE SPEEDS 

Before 

Connection 

2/00 

After 

Connection 

2/01 

After 

Earthqu 

5/01 

Fern St — N 

of 14'h Ave 507 2282 

(6/01) 

e 

01 

Before 

Connection 

After 

Connection 

After 

Earthquake 

25 mph 

Fern St — S 

of 14' h Ave 2040 2766 2705 25 mph 25 mph 

14'h Ave — E 

of Fern St. 348 964 915 27 mph 

le Ave —W 

of Fern St. 2090 2365 2555 30 mph 29 mph

300 

280 

260 

240 

220 

200 

180 

a) 

> 160 

0 140 

z 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

For 17 Hours, vehicles are passing through at more than 1 

per minute, reaching a peak_ of4.5__per _mi 

ka. 

"MI! 

. 9) s) 

p i*,r (1,. r5 tV ' 

Fern Street Traffic Volumes Fri. - Tues. July 13-17 

Chart Data from City of Olympia, Graphic by Rose Ann Penney 

rift MA 

..VINWEr" - 

6) .6) .o° .ci° .c,Q. .6) :6) .6) 4) .Qc?' :6) .6) .6) .6C) 

(6. (b NN. ,(1/ Nrb . \°. N 9) . 0' ( -19 . 

Begining of Hour Interval 

Friday 

--m— Saturday 

Sunday 

Monday 

-iii—Vuersday

300 

280 

260 

240 

220 

200 

73 180 

160 

0 

t 140 

§ 120 

100 

80 

VV 

40 

20 

0 

Traffic Volumes Wed and Thurs. July 25-26 

Data obtained from City of Olympia. Graphic by Rose Ann Penney 

\-\\ oc) (§) ■6( ' .6) o°.6`) .(§) (§) o° c§) C§) 

COUNCI 

Stan Biles 

Mayor 

Mark Fou h 

Mayor P Tern 

Laura Wa 

Curt Pay. a 

Matthew reen 

Doug Ma 

Jeanette wkins 

*TY M AGER 

chard a Cushing 

18 0 20( 0 

15( 

city of 

OLYMPIA, 

P.O. Box 1967, Olympia, WA 98507-1967 

May 16, 2002 

Ms. Rose Ann Penney 

1532 Fern Street, SW 


Dear Ms. Penney: 

SUBJECT: License Plate Study Conducted at 16 th Avenue/Fern Street, SW 

I am writing in response to your request for a copy of the information obtained from 

the license plate study conducted at the intersection of 1 6 (8 Avenue and Fern Street, 

SW, in the latter half of 2001. Enclosed is a table summarizing the results of our 

study; it is broken down by area, according to the vehicles' registered owner's address. 

We used the vehicle owner's addresses, making sure to exclude any Olympia 

addresses that used post office boxes or anything other than a physical street address 

on their registration because we would be unable to "place" them in a specific area of 

the City. We did use post office box addresses, etc., from outside the Olympia area 

because we did not need to pinpoint a particular area of the City for them. In total, 

there were 540 license plate numbers collected that were of use in our study. 

Please understand that we did not have the time and staffing to do a complete study. 

In order to conduct a "complete" license plate study, we would have had to place staff 

at each accessipoint in and out of the neighborhood (9th Avenue, Harrison Avenue, 

Decatur Street, etc.) to see where cars were corning from and going to. We only had 

staff placed at one connection point in the southwest neighborhood area, One staff 

member was at the Fern Street side of the connection and one was at the Auto Mall 

Drive side for the three peak-commuting periods of the day. 

The information on the table is broken down by the location of where the vehicles 

were registered and how many trips they made in and out of the access point. The 

location columns are broken down as follows: 

Auto Mall--businesses and/or addresses associated with the Auto Mall (42). 

Southwest (SW) Neighborhood—between Black Lake Boulevard and Capitol Lake; 

and south of Harrison Avenue to State Route 101 (239). 


City Manager 

City Attorney 

Administrative Services 

(360) 753-8450 Community Planning & Development (360) 753-8314 Police (360) 753-8300 

(360) 753-8447 Fire (360) 7538348 Public Works (360 ) 753-8362 

(360) 753-8449 Human Resources (360) 753-8442 

(360) 753-8325 Parks, Arts & Recreation (360) 753-8380

s. Rose Ann Penney 

ay 16. 2002 

age 2 

Northwest (NW) Neighborhood—addresses between Cooper Point Road and the Bay; and from 

Harrison Avenue to north City limits (33). 

quadrant of Olympia City limits (19). 

in the northeast 

Northeast (NE) Olympia—addresses 

quadrant of Olympia City limits (29). 

Olympia—addresses in the southeast 

Southeast (SE) 

within Lacey or Tumwater City limits of (V). 

Lacey/Tumwater--addresses 

Olympia Area-County—Olympia addresses outside Olympia, Lacey, and fumwater City limits 

(99). 

Out-of-Area—addresses 

out-of-state or outside the immediate area of Olympia, Lacey, and 

Tumwater (128). 

The number of asterisks on the table denotes the number of trips the vehicle made coming or going 

from the access point. We used the address of the registered owner to determine from what part of 

town the cars came. 

As you can see from the table, the vast majority of the trips observed were made in cars registered to 

people that reside in the southwest area of Olympia. Staff analyzed traffic counts collected on Fern 

Street and 9` 1' Avenue, SW, before and after the opening of the connection. These counts indicate that 

the connection redirected approximately 20 percent of the traffic that was previously using Decatur 

Street west of Fern Street to the Fern Street/16 °' Avenue connection. The northbound Fern Street 

traffic volumes at Fern Street also indicated that approximately 20 percent of the previous traffic was 

redirected to the connection. These differences would indicate that those vehicles were previously 

using Black Lake Boulevard to Cooper Point Road. This would account for vehicles that had a 

southerly destination coming from the neighborhood. Overall, it does make sense that those that live 

near the area would be the overwhelming users of the connection. 

If you have questions about the study or traffic counts, please feel free contact me at 

(360) 753-46.5 or Randy Wesselman, Transportation Engineering Supervisor, at (360) 753-8477. 

Thank you for our continued interest in traffic safety. 

454 

Sincerely, 

SALLY BL NI N 

Transportation Engineering Technician 11 

Public Works Department 

SB:kam 

Fl) WSECSERV.TRANSPORTATION Sally\SBPenney.LicPlateStudy.doc 

Enclosure 

cc: David Riker, Transportation Division Manager Randy Wesselman

Auto Nla-0—SITV—Neighborhood 

*Number of Times Seen 

16th avenue; Fern Street, SW 

August 9, 2001 

VW Neighborhood NE Olympia 

_ _ 

SE Olympia Lacey!Tumwater Olympia Area- 

.. 

** 

_______ 

—.. — 

Tumwater." 

Tumwater' 

Count 

f 

Out-of-Area 

Elma. 

Shelton** 

. Lacey** J 

Vancouver 

. 

Tumwater" 

Elma** 

Vancouver* 

uti Lt-mmm aace wa wwa ceayYt tt*er e.i *: 

Puyallup. * 

-----7---- 

Arlington** 

South send 

Portland.* 

Yelm*. 

Tacoma** 

Rochester' ... 

___ 

_ 

. . 

Tumwater* 

... 

—________ . __ 

. — 

Lacey 

Lacey** 

Lacey 

Lacer 

* 

— 

. 

tvitssoun 

Turnwater.*** 

Tacoma** 

Lacey 

Rochester.*** 

Tumwater 

Seatac . 

Lacey 

Rochester" 

Lacey 

Bother* 

Tumwater 

California— 

Tumwater 

Orting 

Tumwater 

Tenino 

— . 

Tumwater 

Tumwater 

Morton 

_ 

Tacoma 

Tumwater 

Yelm 

Tumwater 

Tumwater 

— Shelton 

Rochester - 

Tumwater 

Tacoma 

Tumwater 

Tacoma 

Lacey 

______ 

Tumwater 

Mill Creek 

Yetm 

— 

_ 

— T alma wc eaLt el 

Richland 

Yelrn 

___ 

___,______+_ .__ 

___J 

Lacey 

Lacey 

Tumwater 

Lacey 

Shelton 

. Seattle 

Tacoma 

Spokane 

',CalvinTW\PWSECSER V , TRANSPORTATION \Sally'SBLkPlaleStudy.doc 

_

16th Avenue/Fern Street, SW 

License Plate Study 


Auto Mall SW Neighborhood NW Neighborhood NE Olympia SE Olympia Lacey/Tumwater 

kit Tumwater 

Olympia Area- 

County 


Eatonville 

.. Lacey Marysville 

Tumwater Tacoma 

Lacey 

Renton 

Tumwater Des Moines 

Lacey 

Coupeville 

Tumwater Centralia 

Tumwater 

* Tumwater Napavine 

Tumwater 

. 

Chewelah 

Shelton 

Tumwater Wenatchee 

Tumwater Tacoma 

Tumwater Seattle 

Lacey Vancouver 

Tumwater Raymond 

Lacey Spokane 

* Lacey Spangle 

Lacey Ocean Park 

Tumwater Yelm 

Lacey e Tacoma 

. Lacey Shelton 

Lacey Renton 

Tumwater Tenino 

Lacey Montesano 

Tumwater Centralia 

Tumwater Emma 

* Lacey Rainier 

Lacey Oak Harbor 

Lacey Shelton 

Tumwater Spanaway 

— Lacey Rainier 

Lacey Tacoma 

Lacey Shelton 

Tumwater Yelm 

Lacey Darrington 

*Number of Times Seen 2 \\Calvin\PW\PWSECSERV\TRANSPORTATION `Sally SBLocPlateStudy.doc



U S II 

Auto Mall SW Neighborhood NW Neighborhood NE Olympia SE Olympia LaceylTumwater 

. 

. 

. 

* Rochester 

-1-oly mpia Area- 

County 


Des Moines 

Vancouver 

Coupeville 

Marysville 

Newport 

Tacoma 

Bothell 

Tacoma 

Renton 

Shelton 

Ellensburg 

Steilacoom 

Cashmere 

Shelton 

Union 

Port Orchard 

Enumclaw 

Tacoma 

Lakewood 

Camas 

Westport 

McCleary 

Eastsound 

New Jersey 

Rainier 

Elma 

Everett 

Centralia 

Raymond 

Tacoma 

Chehalis 

Yetm 

College Place 

*Number of Times Seen 3 A 'al vin ■PW \PWSECSER V \ TRANSPORTATIONSally SBlicPlateStudy.doc 

Chehalis



August 9, 20111 

Auto Mall SW Neighborhood NW Neighborhood NE Olympia SE Olympia Laceyllumwater 


Coun 


*Numher of Times Seen 4 ACalvinTW P WS FC SERV 7RA NSPORFATION‘,Sallv\SBLAcrlateStudy.doc



August 9, LifUl 

Auto Mall SW Neighborhood NW Neighborhood NE Olympia SE Olympia Lacey/Tumwater 

I— 

t 

1 

*Number of T irnes Seen 

I 

1 


County 


, ',CalvinTWAPWSECSERV TRANSPoR r t ION \Sally S tiLiePlatcStudy.doc


Ms. Sally Blonien 

PO Box 1967 


Dear Sally: 


1532 Fern St. SW 


RE: License Plate Study Conducted at 16th Avenue/Fern Street SW 

Thank you so much, for forwarding a copy of the above study. Please be assured we 

understand the City's limitations of staff and funding to perform a complete study. 

However, we do have some concerns with the information provided. You stated in your letter 

that 540 license plate numbers were of use for the study and yet the data only recorded 

507 plates. Also, we would be interested in knowing the number of plates that did not qualify 

for inclusion in the report. 

Additionally, there were some discrepancies in the totals as reported in your letter and those 

recorded in the data. Specifically for the SW neighborhood, the Lacey/Tumwater, and the out 

of area trips. For example the SW had only 226 compared to your 239, and Lacey-Tumwater 

had 98 compared to your 87. 

Most importantly, we are wondering how you can say that "...the vast majority of the trips 

observed were made in cars registered to people that reside in the southwest area of 

Olympia." In my book a majority has to be 51% and vast would have to be upwards of 90%. 

The SW Neighborhood accounted for only 32.7% of the total plates and 33.5% of the total 

trips. 

We are especially concerned that this skewed information was delivered to the City Council in 

their "Lessons Learned" study session. They were given the impression that the Westside 

Neighborhoods had the greatest impact, when in fact they had the least overall impact. 

Surely, no one has ever suggested that any other individual neighborhood impacted the 

traffic counts more than our own. However, your data firmly supports the argument that our 

neighborhood has an overwhelmingly small impact compared to that of the total out-of-theneighborhood 

trip volumes. 

Finally, your paragraph about the redirection of traffic was a little confusing. How do you 

redirect 20 percent of traffic using Decatur to the Fern St./16th Ave. connection when the 

Decatur connection is not even open? Where are they using Decatur to go to? 

I would appreciate any clarification you might wish to provide. Once again thank you for 

responding with the study. 

Sincerely, 


President 

Wellington West Neighborhood Association

August 8. 2002 



PO Box 1967 


WELLINGTON WEST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 

532 FERN ST. SW. OLYMPIA. WA 98502 

(360) 943-5130 

Dear Mayor Biles and Honorable Councilors: 

Once again I must address the Council concerning their receipt of biased and 

skewed information provided by City staff. I am referring to a statement made in 

the Lessons Learned Study session of last December regarding the closure of 

16t" Ave. into the Auto Mall. 

During that presentation, Dave Riker, Transportation Division Manager, 

commented that there was a license plate study conducted at the intersection of 

16th Avenue and Fern St. He stated that the overwhelming majority of traffic was 

from the Southwest Olympia Neighborhood. That evening I requested a copy of 

the study from him. I received a letter with that study on May 29, 2002, copy 

enclosed, from Sally Blonien, Transportation Engineering Technician II from the 

Public Works Department, with the data from that study. 

I have two points to make about the license plate study. First, the data is 

incorrect; second, the conclusions are incorrect because they did not apply the 

data to the correct question. 

FIRST: INCORRECT DATA 

1. The numbers quoted in Sally's letter are incorrect when compared to the 

actual data they provided us. Noting that filtered data was used by 

eliminating registrations with anything but a physical address, we do not 

know how many more trips are originating and ending outside the 

neighborhood. 

2. The number of plates used in the study is quoted as 540. The actual data 

shows only 507 plates. A difference of 7%. 

3. The SW Neighborhood is quoted at 239 trips. The actual data shows only 

226 trips. Another 6% error. 

4. The Lacey-Tumwater trips are quoted at 87. The actual data shows 98 

trips. A 12% error. 

5. You might say they are such small percentages as to be within the 

standard of error. I say such a small study could afford to be accurate. 

Inaccuracies at this level make us question the accuracy of reporting at all 

levels.

WELLINGTON WEST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 

1532 FERN ST. SW. OLYMPIA, WA 98502 

(360) 943-5130 

SECOND: ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION 

1. The study very nicely devoted time and energy to plotting out the many 

areas where the traffic comes from. This information may prove to be 

useful in a future study. 

2. However, the concern posed by Wellington West and SW Olympia 

Neighborhood Associations was NOT that the connection was used in 

excess by any ONE other neighborhood. 

3. The concern is that it is not a connection for the SW Neighborhood. but 

rather it is a cut-through connection for everyone outside the 

Neighborhood. 

4. Mr. Riker never reported to the Council that, in the 6 peak hours 

studied, an overwhelming 67.3% of the traffic using the 16 th Avenue 

connection is registered to vehicles from OUTSIDE the SW 

Neighborhood. 

5. Instead, as also quoted from Sally's letter, it was stated that "...the vast 

majority of the trips observed were made in cars registered to people that 

reside in the southwest area of Olympia." Yes, when compared to any 

other single neighborhood, we had more trips. But as a percent of the total 

trips, our neighborhood generated only 32.7% of the traffic. 

6. Also, quoted from Sally's letter, "Overall, it does make sense that those 

that live near the area would be the overwhelming users of the 

connection." I ask, overwhelming compared to what? 32% of the total is 

under-whelming in my book. 

Mr. Mayor, and Councilors, I offer this as one more piece of evidence that the 

designation of 16 th Avenue and 14th Avenue (as it runs through Wellington West) 

as Neighborhood Collectors is a misnomer of the highest order. It needs to be 

called a Tri-City Collector because that is where the TRUE 'vast majority' of the 

traffic is coming from. 

As always, we remain firm that there were a number of mistakes made in the 

development of Wellington West as a residential neighborhood. But since those 

mistakes were made, they should not be compounded by allowing it to be 

destroyed by cut-through traffic. Please consider removing 16 th Ave. SW and 14th 

Ave. SW from the list of neighborhood collectors. 

Sincerely, 



Enc.: Correspondence — Rose Ann Penney 

Correspondence — Sally Blonien, License Plate Data from City of Olympia



Cc: Amy Buckler 

Subject: FW: Comments on the Comprehensive Plan - Connection policy 


Attachments: Decatur Comments connecting streets.doc 




360-753-8046 




To: Amy Buckler; Stacey Ray 

Subject: Fw: Comments on the Comprehensive Plan - Connection policy 

-------------------------- 


From: fanny cordero [mailto:fannycordero@gmail.com] 


To: Tousley, Amy 

Cc: Kathleen Byrd 

Subject: Comments on the Comprehensive Plan - Connection policy 

Dear Chair Tousley, 

Here are my comments. Thank you for your attention, 

Fanny Cordero

To the Planning Commission: 

Despite statements by the staff that because of the City Council’s directive in ordinance 

#6389, it cannot make changes to the Comp Plan as it relates to Decatur and 16th 

connections, it has done so. In changing the connections policy from one where the city 

asks whether benefits of a connection outweigh the drawbacks before making its 

decision, to a policy that states “pursue all connections,” it has made an end-run around 

the Council’s directive that “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.” 

In simple terms, by shifting the policy governing connections from one that asks whether 

a connection should be made, to one that requires “an opponent” to demonstrate that it 

should not be made, the staff has preemptively authorized all connections to be made. 

Thus, the status of Decatur & 16th Street connection under the draft policy is that they 

will be pursued. If it's inappropriate for the staff to make any changes to the draft plan 

related to the Decatur & 16th street connections, then these connections must come out of 

the Plan, the draft policy has to be revised, or there has to be an exception for these 

streets that is consistent with the Council's direction and even the official staff response 

to the April draft comments that “the decision about whether or not to open Decatur 

Street and 16th Avenue to motor vehicles must be an informed one.” 

The new draft policy precludes an informed decision about whether or not to open 

Decatur and 16th Avenue. Regardless of whether or not this is the intent of the drafters, 

the new policy makes the decision that all connections should be pursued. Only if there 

is "opposition" to this decision is there an opportunity for "the opponent" to "make the 

case proving that the connection should NOT be made." So, without "opposition" the 

new policy-driven decision to pursue the Decatur connection (coming, of course, after the 

completion of the West Oly Traffic Study) need not reflect anything new. 

Nor is it clear that opposition by members of the affected neighborhood will be deemed 

“opposition.” Reading the draft language, it is unclear who the City will define as 

"opposition." Do the drafters assume that the opposition will only come from...a 

developer? Will a petition by 100 neighbors represent "opposition?" In the past, the staff 

has ignored or dismissed such petitions. Under the new policy, there would have been no 

“opposition,” only “some residents expressed concern.” 

In the unlikely event that the City would recognize the neighborhood’s opposition –on 

record since 1988 – as “opposition,” where would the resources come from to perform 

the analysis required by the city? 

The new draft policy also eliminates the role of a “public process” from the decision 

about whether a connection should be opened. The new policy mandates pursuing a 

connection independent of any evaluation of a connection's costs, benefits and 

drawbacks. The staff evidently sees a discussion with the neighborhood as addressing 

Comment on Connected Streets 1

HOW to make a connection and not WHETHER to make the connection. This might be 

a reasonable approach to connections associated with new developments, or connections 

between two adjacent neighborhoods. But a decision to connect an established 

neighborhood to a freeway -- as is the case with Decatur and 16th -- cannot be made 

independent of an evaluation of whether to make the connection, as mandated by the City 

Council and in fact, consistent with other transportation policies. 

The new criteria to be analyzed if there is [recognized] opposition, makes it unlikely that 

“the opponent” can “make the case against a connection.” The criteria for analysis in 

TP4.21 do not appear objective nor do they necessarily result in outcomes that further 

Olympia's transportation policies. A connection could reduce travel times and effectively 

destroy the character of a neighborhood: For example, if Decatur were to be connected to 

SR-101, it would likely reduce travel times for a lot of drivers who aren't from either the 

SW or NW neighborhoods. For example, drivers coming from south county and Lewis 

County towns to Westfield Mall or Capital Medical Center etc. could reach their 

destination more quickly by driving down Decatur, turning left on 9th and and avoid 

congestion at the Black Lake/Cooper Point intersection and on Cooper Point itself. 

It might be useful for the staff to look up the impact on the street system in the late 1980s 

when the City decided to permit construciton of the auto mall. The businesses there 

wanted a new access off of SR-101. In agreeing to this, the city projected that only 

people buying cars would use it. In fact, within a couple of months of its completion this 

new access (Auto-Mall Drive) was filled with cars. Eventually, congestion became so 

bad that cars couldn't readily turn into and out of the auto-mall, so the city added traffic 

lights and expanded the exit off the freeway at Crosby Road. The SW neighborhood 

residents at the time argued that that this would happen and so they won a promise from 

the City that Decatur Street would never be opened to the freeway. (This promise was 

enshrined at that time in the City's comprehensive plan.) 

It appears that in drafting this policy the staff has not considered the differences between 

connections to established neighborhoods and connections within or between recently 

built or new developments. 

Where the connection would be to an established neighborhood, the items in the current 

Comprehensive Plan at T3.20 are intended to be evaluated BEFORE the decision to make 

a connection...T3.20 says that "to determine when a new connection should be made to 

existing streets, the City will determine whether the merits outweigh the demerits of the 


community at large and the neighborhood." 

The staff eliminated all of T3.20 – including criteria that include neighborhood impacts 

and concerns. The new draft policy of pursuing connections and requiring an opponent 

to prove a connection should NOT be made, based on criteria that look primarily at the 

problems in the existing street system, doesn't address any of the concerns underlying the 

criteria in the current Comprehensive Plan. 


For example, item (7) likelihood of diverting significant cross-town arterial traffic onto 

local neighborhood streets and (8)Whether pedestrian/ bicycle connections, rather than 

streets, would accomplish the desired goals are irrelevant when the city has already 

decided to pursue a connection. Nothing in the new draft policy addresses the issue of 

diverting through traffic into our neighborhood. Another example -- whatever is the 

design of a connection at Decatur (and the already-built connection at 16th) will not 

address pedestrian safety throughout the neighborhood on the continuation of Decatur 

Street, Percival, Milroy and Cushing and all the other streets named by residents as 

streets that will become new routes for through traffic from SR-101 to the downtown, to 

the commercial/medical/residential areas west of us and north of us. Design of the new 

street will not address the absence of sidewalks on many of those streets, nor the width of 

roads newly host to through traffic, etc. 

Fanny Cordero 

1317 – 8th Ave SW 


Kathleen Byrd 

127 Plymouth NW 


. 




Subject: FW: Decatur and 16th Street connection 

Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:08:43 AM 




360-753-8046 


From: Sophie Stimson 

Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 5:42 PM 

To: 'Geoffrey Mueller' 

Cc: Stacey Ray 

Subject: RE: Decatur and 16th Street connection 

Hello Mr. Mueller, 

Staff is compiling all comments received after the comment period that closed on Friday, July 27 at 

5 pm, and will be making them available to the Planning Commission. 

Comments received after the July 27, 5pm deadline will be collected and distributed to the 

commission at one time between now and the start of their deliberations. Comments 

should be sent to the Imagine Olympia email address: imagineolympia@ci.olympia.wa.us. 

Please feel free to check the Imagine Olympia website for an update on the comp plan 

process. 

I hope this answers your question. 

Sophie 

From: Geoffrey Mueller [mailto:geolorm1944@gmail.com] 



Subject: Re: Decatur and 16th Street connection 


Thank you for your message. I hope that the comments attached to this message will be 

considered, since they are being transmitted on Friday, July 27, even though the time of 

transmission is after 5:00. If there is a reason they will not be considered because they are

deemed to be tardy, please so inform me so I can contest the decision. 


Geoff Mueller 

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Sophie Stimson wrote: 

Hello Mr. Mueller, 

Yes, I will share my reply to Mr. Leahy with you. 

I apologize that you did not receive my June 19, 2012 email to people who had commented on the 

April draft of the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. In the PDF copy of the 

comments I received, I was not able to see some email addresses on some of the printed emails. I 

appreciate that Dan Leahy shared the email with you and possibly others. 

You can expect to see my response to Dan Leahy in the next day or two. 

Sophie 





360-753-8497 

From: Geoffrey Mueller [mailto:geolorm1944@gmail.com] 

Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 11:31 AM 


Cc: Dan Leahy 

Subject: Decatur and 16th Street connection 


Mr Leahy has provided us with your responses to comments regarding the Draft 

Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for keeping us informed. 

Mr. Leahy has requested that you provide him with responses to his questions in time to 

provide comments on the plan by next Friday. I am hereby requesting that you furnish me 

with a copy of those responses as well.

I am particularly interested in the statement that the majority of the users of the Decatur 

Street connection would be residents of the Southwest Olympia Neighborhood, and the basis 

for this conclusion. As a resident familiar with the traffic in the southwest Olympia 

neighborhood, I would tend to believe that a large portion of the traffic that would pour 

through the connection would be residents of Tumwater Hill using the connection to get to 

downtown Olympia and other westside destinations, not to mention cars using the connection 

to get from downtown to the Olympia Auto Mall. 





360-561-2286

Comments regarding the opening of Decatur Street to through traffic. 

I would really like to know who is pushing the idea of opening Decatur 

and 16 th Street. The Plan states that the majority of the users would 

be the residents of the southwest neighborhood, and continues by 

stating that there would be better access to Tumwater, the 

courthouse and US 101. The strong implication is that the connection 

would be opened to benefit those residents. It seems somewhat 

ironic that a large number of those apparent intended beneficiaries 

DON’T WANT IT. Not to seem ungrateful, but it appears an example 

of planners telling the people that they know best what they need, so 

just sit down and shut up. 

In the over 10 years since this was broached to the City Council in 

2001, the traffic at the Cooper Point interchange with 101 has 

skyrocketed. I would not believe anyone who would try to tell me that 

if Decatur was opened to traffic, people from Tumwater going to 

downtown Olympia would not use that connection. It is a nice idea to 

monitor the traffic once the connection is opened to assure that the 

new connection is serving mostly local traffic, but once it is opened, 

what would really be done to curb the flow, as long as it is not more 

than what the planners planned on? 

It appears to me that the thrust of PT4.21 is to plan for automobiles, 

without consideration of the effects on the area. It specifically starts, 

“Pursue all street connections.” It continues to direct an analysis of 

the effect of the connection on the street network, solely from a traffic 

standpoint, and not considering the effect on the community AT ALL. 

It also does not include consideration of alternatives. In short, it 

appears to be another case of “We traffic planners know best what 

you need, so just sit down and shut up.” I believe thorough planning 

should involve more than just how to get the most cars from point A 

to point B. A computer could do that. That is why human planners 

will always be needed. 

At the December 11, 2001, City Council Study Session, Mr. Dave 

Riker, Transportation Division Manager, stated that projections 

indicated for Decatur that approximately 3,500 vehicles per day, or 

350 per hour during peak times, would use the street. That is one 

vehicle every 10 seconds. It may not be much for I-5, but for a

esidential street? And the apparent intent was to “guarantee” that 

volumes would not increase above this level, by restrictions if 

needed. It does not appear to me that one car every ten seconds is a 

desirable level for a residential street. 

Mr Riker also stated that the designation for the Decatur Street 

connection would be as a neighborhood collector, which include onstreet 

parking with a traffic range of 500 to 3,000 vehicles per day, 

and it would experience traffic volume at the low end of the average 

traffic volumes. How a projection of 3,500 vehicles per day is toward 

the low end of a range with a high figure of 3,000 vehicles per day 

escapes me, but that is what the minutes reflect. More important, Mr. 

Riker stated that major collector street volumes are typically between 

3,000 and 14,000 vehicles per day, many of which have up to four 

lane configurations. 

By 2004, the projection had decreased to 2,800 vehicles per day, with 

traffic calming. The model used was stating it was not projecting 

these connections to be used as through traffic. While it was stated 

that the staff proposed to work with neighborhoods to use more 

restrictive measures, it was not clear how they would differentiate 

between local and through traffic. It was noted that Decatur was at 

that time classified as a major collector, which allows volumes of 

3,000 to 14,000 vehicles per day. The model also showed that most 

of the through traffic would occur from residents from north of 

Harrison Avenue. This is scarcely “most” traffic being from the 

southwest neighborhood. 


805 5 th Ave. SW 

Olympia, WA 98502

From: Amy Buckler 


Subject: FW: Jackie Barrett Sharar re Ag Ordinance 


From: Jennifer Kenny 

Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:13 AM 

To: Amy Buckler 

Subject: FW: Jackie Barrett Sharar re Ag Ordinance 

Not specific to Comp Plan but she requested the OPC get this. 

From: Jackie Barrett [mailto:tacobet@comcast.net] 


To: Jennifer Kenny 

Subject: Jackie Barrett Sharar re Ag Ordinance 

Jennifer, 

If you could pass on to the Planning Commission my comments I would appreciate it. Though it 

was my understanding that the Ag Ordinance was off the schedule for the Planning Commission for 

the near term. 

If the city is to contemplate an Ag Ordinance for urban Ag then there is a great deal that is new and 

a great deal of disruptive technology coming into practice that will change Ag and how it is 

practiced. I think if the City is to contemplate an Ag Ordinance then extreme care, caution and 

comprehensive research is necessary to formulate the policy. We aren’t solving old problems in 

old ways. We are solving old problems in very new ways and they are on the horizon and coming 

here soon. As you know Ag is a very, very diverse subject and state laws do restrict what local 

governments can do. 

My deepest concern is one of inclusion for all of Ag to be included in the planning and designing of 

Urban Ag Ordinances. This is a MAJOR undertaking with a great deal of complexity and nuance. It’s 

not as simple as organizing some farms in the City limits and designing policy for just their needs. 

All the diversity and the new tech of Ag must be included. 

We have a new WSU Extension leader here in Olympia Lucas Paztek, whom I must assume you 

have met. Attempting an Ag ordinance will require a great deal of expertise and the experts of 

small farms and the scientists and researchers that have an eye on rapid climate change and the 

food supply issues must be in the loop going forward planning any ordinance. No one person or 

school as all the answers going forward. 

Ag has lagged behind the technological innovation coming in energy and transportation and it’s 

shows in our planning efforts regionally. We don’t need to hastily plan an Ag Ordinance and risk a 

divided community again. Ag and the natural resources used are a very hot topic. There is some

agreement, we really don’t have corporate farms here but we do have a lot of very small plot 

successes here. The very definitions of what a farm is, is changing rapidly in practice. 

These are just a few of my concerns around Ag and an ordinance. To plan this well it has to be a 

diverse and well researched inclusionary process. Food security is too important an issue going 

forward to make haste attempting to push through an Ag Ordinance at warp speed. My 

recommendation is to slow down and design a process and investigation that is thorough and 

complete. 

Warmest regards, 

Jackie Barrett Sharar



Subject: FW: CPU Comments 


Attachments: Comments on Draft CPU.docx 

EcoDistricts.pptx 

From: Carole Richmond [mailto:laikodi@comcast.net] 



Subject: FW: CPU Comments 

Hi Amy, 

Please forward my comments on the draft Comprehensive Plan to the members of 

the Planning Commission. Thanks very much. 

Carole 

From: Carole Richmond 

Date: Friday, July 27, 2012 4:58 PM 

To: 

Subject: CPU Comments 

Please find my comments attached. 

Thank you! 

Carole Richmond

Carole Richmond 

3003 Langridge Loop NW 


City of Olympia Planning Commission 

City of Olympia Community Planning & Development Department 

July 27, 2012 

Dear Planning Commission Members and Staff: 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment on the July 2012 draft of the Olympia 

Comprehensive Plan. Rather than commenting on specific Plan language, I would rather provide 

some general observations and recommendations: 

Timeline and Planning Scope 

1. I agree with comments made at the public hearings that more time is needed to develop the 

Comprehensive Plan. I would recommend at least one more year to develop the plan itself. 

Zoning and development regulations should be developed after the plan has been approved. 

2. I realize that the scope of the plan assumed that the 1994 plan would only need to be 

“tweaked,” however, I have always disagreed with this – not because I disagree with the 

underlying plan – but because many things have changed since 1994. For example, our 

demographics have changed and many people now want to live an urban lifestyle. The most 

important change, however, is the reality of climate change and the need to not only react to 

sea-level rise and other impacts of climate change, but to be pro-active as a community to try 

to prevent climate change from getting any worse. While no one apparently wants to discuss 

this, we face the risk of catastrophic climate change as a planet unless we collectively 

eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and reduce ambient CO2 from 390 ppm to below 350 

ppm. Some may believe this is not the concern of towns and cities, or that whatever we do 

will be negated by other jurisdictions, or that it will be more costly to conserve and 

transition to renewable energy than to continue using fossil fuels. All of that may be true, but 

my view is that if we can make a difference, then we should make a difference. We have a 

moral obligation to make a difference and set an example for others. If all jurisdictions took 

this approach, we could collectively make a tremendous difference and avoid the very high 

environmental and financial costs of further fossil fuel development. Personal transportation 

and buildings are estimated to be responsible for some 60 percent of greenhouse gas 

emissions (this number is calculated in different ways, and therefore different numbers are 

often seen). Therefore, the way we develop land has a tremendous impact on greenhouse gas 

emissions. For an excellent discussion of these issues, I recommend Peter Calthorpe’s 2011 

book: Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change. Addressing climate change involves many of 

the same policy prescriptions as for “smart growth;” that is, increasing urban density and 

preserving the rural character of the county. 

3. I recommend that the Comprehensive Plan include a carbon-reduction goal. My preference 

would be that Olympia adopt a goal of carbon neutrality by 2030. This would be consistent 

with goals adopted by the City of Seattle and other planning entities. I realize, however, that 

a community conversation is needed, which is another reason for taking more time to 

develop the plan. 

4. Aside from climate change, I believe that the City’s Comprehensive Plan should do more than 

what the GMA calls for; it should do more than simply plan for growth. This Plan should 

provide a policy direction for how we will achieve multiple goals centered on fostering 

community and sustainability. Comments made by residents of the Carlyon, Governor 

Stevens and Wildwood neighborhoods reminded me that the goal of planning should not be

to encourage growth at all costs, but to achieve and maintain healthy, stable communities 

such as these. 

The Need for Sub-Area Master Plans and Form-Based Code 

5. To encourage urban density in a community-sensitive manner, I believe that the City should 

create a process to develop and adopt Master Plans for identified sub-areas of the City. These 

plans would identify how growth and development would occur over time and would 

replace conventional zoning with form-based code. The planning process should involve the 

residents and property owners of the affected areas, as well as urban design experts. There 

would be many benefits to this, including providing certainty and predictability for residents 

and developers alike. Under the current system, developers propose development and 

negotiations are held between developers and permitting staff. The results of these 

negotiations often come as a complete surprise to neighboring residents. Examples are the 

Larida Passage proposal, the formerly proposed 7/Eleven on the Westside and a proposed 

six-story apartment building in a neighborhood of 1930s cottages also on the Westside. Two 

of these projects have been stopped. 

6. To encourage housing and infill downtown and on the Westside, it is not sufficient to build 

housing. People need a reason to move to urban areas that are in transition, such as ours. 

There is a need for “complete neighborhoods,” and the only way to create complete 

neighborhoods is by first creating a master plan for a district, such as downtown (e.g., Union 

Street north to the water, including the entire Port Peninsula), that identifies "character 

zones," "catalytic projects," areas for infill, and planned services and amenities. The 

challenge is bringing existing landowners together to agree on a plan, but the public sector 

would be able to facilitate this using all of the tools at its disposal (direct investment, 

strategic use of public property, grants). This in turn would encourage private lenders to 

invest. 

7. The master plan is basically a schematic layout of the proposed development in an area or 

district, so that all of the relationships between sites can be analyzed, as well as economic 

development opportunities, transportation design and streetscapes. Since a certain 

threshold of density is required to ensure the viability of retail, that threshold would be a 

goal. "Mixed use" can provide ground-level retail with condos above. The master plan would 

largely replace current zoning, which is responsible for segregating uses that discourage 

community and diversity. The plan gives everyone the certainty and predictability required 

to make investments and commitments to an area. This in turn increases value for both 

residents and the city. It's no accident that the highest property values are in urban cores. 

8. This, to me, is much more preferable than leaving planning in the hands of developers, who 

have no incentive to invest in the long-term health of a community and who don't 

understand or care about the character of a community. Master plans would take land use 

decisions out of the hands of developers. In fact, Christopher Leinberger's The Option of 

Urbanism (or www.chrisleinberger.com/) identifies the 19 basic building types that lenders 

are willing to invest in, which do not generally include mixed use and the kind of high-quality 

buildings we would all like to see. Instead, developers plan to extract profit in the first 5-10 

years and then allow the buildings to decay, which is why strip malls get built. This is the 

kind of development the City has already said it wants to discourage. It’s time for the City to 

adopt the means to ensure that high-quality, aesthetically pleasing, sustainable buildings get 

built to encourage small business and residential use. National retail chains will adapt to our 

demands. 

9. I believe two initial master plans should be developed: One for downtown (Union north to 

the water) and one for the Westside, where a lot of Olympia’s future growth is planned. Port 

property must be covered in the City’s downtown Master Plan. The Port is a developer and 

does not have land-use jurisdiction. Master plans should include “character zones,” which for 

downtown would include a maritime zone, a marina zone, a retail core, urban waterfront as 

an amenity for all of downtown, and a mixed-use live-work zone. Other master plans are 

currently being developed: Two in Tumwater (Brewery property and Capitol Boulevard) and 

2

one in East Olympia (Martin Way and Lily Road). With the addition of these two Master 

Plans (downtown and the Westside), many of the highest-priority areas would be covered by 

these plans. 

There is much more to say, but I will close here, and look forward to future discussions. This is a very 

exciting time to be involved in land-use planning and I believe the City needs to be bold and 

visionary. 

Thank you. 

Carole Richmond 

3

Land use and climate change: 

Why ‘Business as Usual’ no longer works for People 

and the Planet, and What We Need to do Instead 

Carole B. Richmond 

Sound Advocates for Sustainable Communities 

March 12, 2012

Climate change 

• Threats 

• “Climate chaos” 

• Sea-level rise 

• Loss of biodiversity, 

agriculture, forests, and 

carbon storage 

• Opportunities 

• Preservation of forests, 

farmlands, water, and 

biodiversity 

• Energy conservation and 

renewable energy 

• Compact development

Car dependence 

• 68 % of total carbon 

emissions 

• “The American 

Dream” 

• Single-use zoning 

• Transit not workable 

• Government 

investment in 

highways 

• People like suburbs!

The costs of sprawl 

• Energy cost 

• 5 metric tons of CO2 per 

vehicle per year 

• Infrastructure cost 

• Loss of resource lands 

and biodiversity 

• Water and storm-water 

• Public health 

• Unsustainable

Window of opportunity 

• Changing preferences 

• Demographic 

changes 

• Low-density SFH glut 

• Population growth 

• Economic doldrums 

• Green building saves 

resources, protects 

environment

Walkable and transit-served urbanism 

• More choice 

Townhouses, lofts, 

bungalows, apartments 

and ADUs 

• More diversity Mixed 

use, mixed income, 

mixed age classes 

• Fewer cars and GHG

Sustainable urbanism 

The region 

Smart 

Growth 

New 

Urbanism 

Sustainable 

Urbanism 

The neighborhood 

The site 

Green 

Building 

Sustainable urbanism is walkable and transit-served urbanism with 

high-performance buildings and high-performance infrastructure

5 Tenets of Sustainable Urbanism 

• Definition: A walkable neighborhood with defined center and 

edges 

• Compactness: A neighborhood with the density to create and 

support viable long-term neighborhood commercial 

opportunities and public transit 

• Completeness: A neighborhood where all daily needs can be 

met by foot 

• Connectedness: A neighborhood that provides abundant 

opportunities to walk and bike, and provides convenient 

access to good transit service 

• Biophilia: A neighborhood that encourages interdependence 

between humans and other living systems by providing access 

to and contact with natural environments

Portland Sustainability Institute 

“The 

greening 

of cities 

is one of the world’s 

great environmental 

and economic 

opportunities.” 

“We create and incubate 

smart practices that lead 

to green cities 

everywhere.”

What is an EcoDistrict? 

• “A comprehensive strategy to 

accelerate sustainable 

development at the 

neighborhood scale…” 

• Resource efficient 

• Captures, manages, and reuses a 

majority of energy, water, and 

waste onsite… 

• Commits to achieving ambitious 

sustainability performance goals 

• Guides district investments and 

community action 

• Tracks results over time 

• Provides a testing ground for 

sustainability best practices

Other models 

• Alternatives include 

• AIA 2030 Challenge for 

Planning 

• Seattle 2030 District 

• Living City Block 

• LEED for 

Neighborhood 

Development 

• Seattle: “the nation’s 

first carbon-neutral 

city”

Outcomes we’d like to see 

By 2030: 

• Carbon neutrality 

• Unincorporated land used 

for farms, forests, and 

ecosystem services only 

• Healthy watersheds and a 

healthy Puget Sound 

• Healthy fish and wildlife 

• Food security and a vibrant 

agricultural sector 

• “A City within a (Rain) 

Garden” 

• “Mixed use” and greater 

choice of housing types 

• Affordable, highperformance 

housing

Strategies for getting there… 

• Adopt GHG reduction targets 

• Protect farm and forest land 

• Accommodate new growth 

through infill and redevelopment 

• Restore natural ecosystem 

functions and values as part of 

redevelopment 

• Require net zero energy 

capability in new development 

• Retrofit the existing built 

environment for sustainability 

• Authorize community-based 

“sub-area” plans developed with 

urban designers 

• Initiate pilot EcoDistricts or 

similar models 

• Invest in higher education

Challenges 

• Sustainable urbanism 

is illegal 

• Financing is difficult to 

obtain 

• “Infill land” is limited 

• Large investments are 

needed in urban 

infrastructure 

• Anti-planning zealots 

can stop reform 

• Lack of strong support 

for change

Summary 

• Unprecedented 

challenges 

• We can no longer afford 

“business as usual” 

• Opportunity to reset our 

approach to land use 

• Many cities and towns 

are becoming models of 

sustainable urbanism 

• We can do it too!

For more information 

• www.pdxinstitute.org 

• www.webuildgreencities.com 

• www.architecture2030.org/2030_challenge/the_2030_challenge 

• www.2030district.org/seattle/ 

• www.livingcityblock.org/ 

• www.carbonneutral.seattle.gov/ 

• www.cnu.org/cascadia 

• www.chrisleinberger.com 

• Calthorpe, Peter, Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change (2011) 

• Farr, Douglas, Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature 

(2008) 

Contact: richmond.carole@gmail.com



Subject: FW: response to Planning commission public hearing 


From: gusnlou@aol.com [mailto:gusnlou@aol.com] 



Subject: response to Planning commission public hearing 

Members of the Planning commission 

I am Greta Lou Guethlein and live at 3222 Wiggins Rd Olympia Wa. 

Please consider these words 

Living in a Watershed 

A watershed is a region defined by the water as it flows across the land within a watershed. All flowing 

water drains to a common 

outlet, pond, a lake, or the ocean. 

Yesterday 

Pristine forests and teeming rivers seemed inexhaustible to the early European Settlers. They 

harvested local water shed 

resources with little regard for the future. Ancient forests were cut, wetlands diked and drained, rivers 

dammed and rerouted 

as the population continued to grow. 

Today 

The demands of rapid population growth are changing one healthy watersheds and diminishing the 

quality of life that defines 

the Pacific Northwest. We are beginning to understand that today's resources belong to our 

descendents as well. 

Tomorrow 

We need to protect our resources. We must recognize the value of healthy natural systems and 

willingly work together 

to insure that our watersheds can sustain many generations to come. 

Water shed champions aren't all Nobel prize winning scientists' or industrial giants, they're regular folks 

with plenty of 

energy and passion for the land and water where they live. No matter where you live, big cities, small 

towns or rural area, 

you have a stake in your watersheds health. 

Do your part for watershed protection by getting involved. 

These words are not mine alone but the words on the wall at the New Aquarium in Seattle. 

They are meaningful words and we need to stop our contamination of our streams and wetlands by 

over development and 

irresponsible handling of our storm water.

Thank you for considering these words.

From: Sophie Stimson 

To: Nathaniel Jones 

Cc: ImagineOlympia; David Riker; Randy Wesselman 

Subject: RE: Closure of 16th and Decatur streets in the Comprehensive plan 

Date: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 3:05:10 PM 

Hello Councilmember Jones, 

Thank you for sharing this. I have forwarded this email to the ImagineOlympia email inbox. 

Comments received after the formal comment period will be compiled and forwarded to the 

Planning Commission for their consideration. 

I will also share his comments with other Transportation staff. 

Thanks again, 

Sophie 

From: Nathaniel Jones 

Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:34 AM 


Subject: FW: Closure of 16th and Decatur streets in the Comprehensive plan 

Sophie, 

Please find comments below from Mr. Steven Kant. 

In particular, his third and fourth paragraphs contain input on traffic management strategies for the SW 

neighborhoods. 

I'm not clear whether our processes provide a method for such comments to become part of a record 

for future consideration. 

Best regards, 

Nathaniel Jones, 

Olympia Mayor Pro Tem 

From: Nathaniel Jones 

Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:27 AM 

To: Steven Kant 


Mr. Kant, 

Thanks for your response. 

I particularly appreciate the specific suggestions you offer. I will pass your comments on to City staff. 

I am discouraged that you see a clear pattern of misrepresentation on the part of city planners. I know 

that there are those in the neighborhood who believe this is true. While I remain open-minded on this

issue, I have found some of the information used to promote this idea to be weak. 

You may be aware that the "West Olympia Access Study" is the process which is supposed to address 

the various traffic issues in the SW part of town. The second phase of that work is scheduled to kick 

off in 2013. The issues of Decatur, 16th Ave., Black Lake/Cooperpoint, and other traffic challenges are 

on the docket for that study. Strategies to reduce auto trips should be included. 

I don't expect any significant changes to the Comprehensive Plan related to this set of traffic issues. 

The Comprehensive Plan is not where these concerns will be dealt with. I believe SWONA and folks in 

the neighborhood should focus on the Access Study for traffic issues and review the Comprehensive 

Plan for land use and other issues. It is not too soon to be working on input to the Access Study. I 

would encourage you and others to make contact with the Olympia transportation planning staff to learn 

about the scope of the study and what background work has been done. 

Thanks for taking the time to send on your thoughtful comments. 



From: Steven Kant [Stevenk@workingsystems.com] 

Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 9:44 AM 

To: Nathaniel Jones 


Thanks for the response. 

As I’m sure you’ve heard from Dan Leahy and others, we do not believe that these changes are 

simply a mistake. There is a clear pattern of misrepresentation on the part of the planners. They 

keep pushing the project and seem determined to ignore the city council actions and the clear will 

of the neighborhood. 

That issue aside, I believe that creating more roads creates more traffic, not less. When I drive a car 

through the Black Lake / Cooper Point interchange, it is sometimes jammed up, and that’s the 

inconvenience I have to endure for driving a car. If we open up a new route through the 

neighborhood, even if we ignore the noise and danger we are inflicting on the residents, we will 

only encourage more people to drive and the traffic on the arterials will probably not improve 

anyway. 

As the cars rush by my house (4th and Thomas), I can see and hear that the traffic-calming devices 

on 4th do not deter neighborhood residents and others from using it as an arterial; the devices just 

make for a speed challenge for drivers. If we make Decatur into an arterial by connecting it to 

highway 101, and then put more bumps and squiggles on it, we will just create more noise. We 

cannot solve the through-traffic problem by routing traffic through neighborhoods. I believe the 

only way to solve car traffic problems is to reduce car trips; everything else is ineffective. When the 

car routes are there, people use them. 

With regard to neighborhood traffic entering and exiting, I don’t think very many people are 

bothered by lack of direct connections to Cooper Point road. One suggestion I do have: when 

residents (or through-traffic) are leaving going west on 4th , they cannot turn south on Black Lake, 

th

so they have to turn on Decatur and exit on 9 . I realize this restriction is intended to prevent cars 

from cutting through the neighborhood, but it doesn’t discourage through-traffic and they just cut 

through on Decatur. For many residents to exit the neighborhood, they have to go out of their way 

to the light at Perry street, or cut through on Decatur. Since the roundabouts increased traffic on 

4th by opening up a new route, it doesn’t help to force more cars on to Decatur. 

Thanks for your interest. 

Steven Kant 

From: Nathaniel Jones [mailto:njones@ci.olympia.wa.us] 

Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 9:57 PM 

To: Steven Kant 


Mr. Kant, 

Thank you for your message. I truly appreciate hearing from you. 

I am familiar with Decatur and 16th Streets and have spent some time walking and driving through the 

Southwest neighborhood. The neighborhood is one of the most comfortable and friendly places in 

Olympia. 

First, let me be clear that there is not a renewed effort to open Decatur or 16th streets. I am receiving 

many messages from folks who feel that the most recent draft of the City's Comprehensive Plan reflects 

a change and that the City is preparing to open these streets. This is not the case. Of course, you and 

your neighbors should remain vigilant to be sure that the Comprehensive Plan reflects your highest 

aspirations for our community and for your part of Olympia. 

There were changes in the draft document which simplified some of the language around the City 

consulting with community members when considering changes in road connections. I have 

communicated with City staff and this will be corrected. While there was no intent to change the 

existing process, it is valuable for all of us to have the procedures clearly spelled out. 

Like you, I want to find ways to keep the Southwest neighborhood safe, quiet and walkable. Yet I 

remain concerned with the traffic patterns in Southwest Olympia. I believe that we have not addressed 

sub-standard conditions for both neighborhood and cross-town circulation. I need your ideas for 

approaches which will protect the quality of life and the integrity of the SW neighborhood while 

addressing significant congestion on the main arterials. 

I completely respect your comments about the need to reduce auto traffic instead of expanding it. I 

agree that more roads encourage more driving, more pollution, and more climate change. I spent 25 

years working with local transit agencies, providing real alternatives to more auto trips and taking 

vehicles off the road. I am a cyclist and a walker. I'm looking for better solutions than what I've heard 

so far. 

Please stay in touch. I welcome your communication. 



From: Steven Kant [Stevenk@workingsystems.com] 

Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:45 AM 

To: Stephen Buxbaum; Jim Cooper; Julie Hankins; Nathaniel Jones; Stephen Langer; Jeannine Roe; 

Karen Rogers

Subject: Closure of 16th and Decatur streets in the Comprehensive plan 

I am writing about the closure of the Decatur and 16th Street connections and the guidelines for 

decision-making in the Comprehensive plan. 

I urge you to make the closures permanent and to keep the process for consulting residents about 

these types of changes. 

Routing more traffic through our neighborhood will benefit no one and will seriously impact residents. 

Why are these connections in the plan at all? Why would you want to route cross-town and freeway 

traffic through small roads with traffic-calming devices? 

I do not know anyone in this neighborhood or outside of it who sees any need for increased routes. Are 

there people who desperately need to save a few blocks of driving and are clamoring to navigate the 

slalom courses on Decatur Street and 4th Avenues? Does someone who is almost out of gas urgently 

need to buy a car at the auto mall? 

The existing connections are certainly convenient for bicycling and walking; opening them to vehicular 

traffic would destroy the only way we now have to get to SPSCC and Black Lake without fighting cars. 

I urge you to take steps to reduce auto traffic instead of expanding it. More roads encourages more 

driving, more pollution, and more climate change. 

Sincerely, 

Steven Kant 


Olympia



Subject: FW: UAC Comment Letter to OPC on the April Draft Comp Plan 

Date: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 8:13:07 AM 

Attachments: Signed UAC Letter to Planning Commission Re April Draft of Comp Plan_08-03-12.pdf 

From: Lindsay Marquez 

Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 4:01 PM 

To: Lindsay Marquez; Amy Buckler 

Cc: Liz Hoenig; Rich Hoey; Stacey Ray; Laura Keehan; Barbara Day (barbsailor@yahoo.com); Carol 

Law; David Dunn (mt.kolvir@gmail.com); Jennifer Sievert (jsievert@comcast.net); Loralei Walker 

(loralime@yahoo.com); Margaret Drennan (margaret.drennan@gmail.com); Michael Young; Richard 

Doenges (rcdoenges@comcast.net); Thad Curtz (curtzt@nuprometheus.com) 

Subject: RE: UAC Comment Letter to OPC on the April Draft Comp Plan 

With attachment this time……! 

From: Lindsay Marquez 

Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 3:31 PM 


Cc: Liz Hoenig; Rich Hoey; Stacey Ray; Laura Keehan; Barbara Day (barbsailor@yahoo.com); Carol 

Law; David Dunn (mt.kolvir@gmail.com); Jennifer Sievert (jsievert@comcast.net); Loralei Walker 

(loralime@yahoo.com); Margaret Drennan (margaret.drennan@gmail.com); Michael Young; Richard 

Doenges (rcdoenges@comcast.net); Thad Curtz (curtzt@nuprometheus.com) 

Subject: UAC Comment Letter to OPC on the April Draft Comp Plan 

Please find attached a letter dated August 3, 2012, signed by UAC Chair Thad Curtz. The letter is in 

regards to the UAC’s comments to the April Draft of the Comprehensive Plan. 

Amy: I will bring you the original for distribution to the OPC and for your record. 

Lindsay Marquez 

Program Assistant | Water Resources 

City of Olympia, Public Works Department 

Ph: 360.753.8394 | Fax: 360.709.2797 

www.olympiawa.gov 

Water Resources: "Passionate caretakers of tomorrow's water"

From: zazzyz@comcast.net 

To: Stephen Buxbaum 

Cc: Stephen Langer; Karen Rogers; Julie Hankins; Jeannine Roe; Jim Cooper; Steve Hall; ImagineOlympia; Jay 

Burney; Olympia Parks; Tomas Zvirzdys; Vida & Don Farler; zvirzdys@gmail.com; Gloria Zvirzdys 

Subject: August 14, 2012 Council Meeting, Zvirzdys Property, 612 Fifth Avenue 

Date: Friday, August 17, 2012 4:38:42 PM 

Zita Zvirzdys 

P.O. Box 3569 August 16, 2012 

Lacey, WA 98503 

Olympia City Council 

Stephen H. Buxbaum, Mayor 

PO Box 1967 

Olympia, WA 98507-1967 

Dear Mayor Buxbaum: 

I am writing tonight with a sense of sadness and dejection, because at the end of this 

letter I’m going to ask the City of Olympia to enter into negotiations to buy my building 

located at 612 5 th Avenue, on Olympia’s Isthmus. This property was purchased by 

myself and my deceased husband Bruno Zvirzdys in 1966. Our investment in the 

property has always been intended as our legacy to our four children and their 

families. 

At the City Council meeting on August 14, 2012, the discussion of “acquiring” 

properties on the Isthmus was brought forward. Our property is located on the 

Isthmus and was referred to as the “old KFC” building. While the original building did 

in fact house our KFC franchise, the building was remodeled into a modern office 

building in 1993, and has enjoyed 100% occupancy since that time. The building is 

not blight and does not promote any negative health and social effects. We have 

been approached to sell a number of times since 1966, with our most current offer of 

$1.6 million rejected back in 2008. 

During the council meeting it was said that there has been no negotiation to “acquire” 

our building. Our property sits between 4 th and 5 th overlooking the 5 th Avenue Bridge 

Dam. We did not learn of the proposed Shoreline Master Program (SMP) until mid- 

July. We were never notified about a plan that would strip value and flexibility away 

from our investment. 

We can’t help but wonder why we have not been approached like the other property 

owners on the Isthmus. Is this because it is the City Council’s goal to devalue the 

property by increasing setbacks and changing the zoning from Urban Density,

“commercial”, to Urban Conservancy “park” via the SMP and the Comprehensive 

Plan? 

During the August 14, 2012 council meeting it was also clearly stated that the plan to 

“acquire” our property is off the table for now. Is this in anticipation of the adverse 

effect the SMP will have on the value of the property, a reduction in value caused by 

the very entity that plans to “acquire” it at a later date? The SMP plan is fully 

controlled by the city, and as property owner I have never been notified by the city of 

the impending actions recommended by the Olympia Planning Commission to the 

Olympia City Council. 

Because the City of Olympia wants to acquire the building to put in a park, we are 

willing to enter into negotiations to sell the property for a fair market value; as we feel 

this would be the most beneficial path for the city, our family and the citizens of 

Olympia. If you wait until you have devalued our property to discuss the acquisition, 

then we will be forced to obtain legal representation, as this would be a blatant 

attempt to strip the value of our property so you could acquire it for a lesser amount. 

Please enter this letter into the record of the August 14, 2012 Olympia City Council 

Meeting. 

We look forward to hearing back from you, 

Sincerely, 

Zita Zvirzdys 

cc: Mayor Pro Tem Nathanial Jones, Steve Langer, Karen Rogers, Julie Hankins, Jim 

Cooper, Jeanine Roe, Steve Hall, Jay Burney, Linda Oestreich, Victor Zvirzdys, 

Edward Zvirzdys, Vida Zvirzdys-Farler, Tom Zvirzdys, 

imagineolympia@ci.olympia.wa.us

From: Larry Leveen 


Subject: Attn: SEPA Official -- comments on Comprehensive Plan Draft SEIS 

Date: Sunday, August 19, 2012 7:46:47 PM 

My questions and comments are as follows. Thank you for your attention: 

SEIS 38 What/where is Policy GE4? 

The following goal was not included in the SEIS following a title that included 

it. It was unclear whether this was an existing or new policy. If existing, why 

was it included in the title on that page of the SEIS? If new, why wasn't it 

included in the discussion? 

GE4 The City achieves maximum economic, environmental and social benefit 

from public infrastructure. 

PO1.1: Editing suggestion: do we “compare and prioritize” relative costs and 

benefits? Or do we prioritize by comparing costs and benefits? Also, how is 

the Sustainable Action Map actually used by the City? 

SEIS 40 Implies porous sidewalk increases greenhouse gases. Explain. 

SEIS 41 Should we have a policy that calls for accountability for staff in 

implementing the Comp Plan and Design Regulations? PP3.1 & 3.3 seem laudable 

but fluffy. How with they actually help participation and implementation? 

SEIS 44-45 If subarea plans are used, will Neighborhood Associations still be 

utilized? The SEIS didn't specify. The analysis was pretty short on specificity of 

process for the subarea plans. Would one-half staff position be sufficient for an 

initial flood of requests for subarea planning? 

SEIS 48 What would be the result of coordination of ordinances and requirements 

regionally? Could Olympia's standards be weakened to bring them into alignment 

with neighboring jurisdictions? Is this mostly a policy proposal for drinking water and 

stormwater? Is the coordination needed mostly between Olympia and the County?

SEIS 50 Analysis of Option 2 is over simplistic. It should include mention of 

externalized costs caused by maximizing density by having no/low grading 

requirements. The staff recommendation of Option 1 doesn't recognize that Option 3 

also allows grading (for the building, streets and sidewalks). The main difference 

seems to be that Option 3 “really means it” when it comes to preserving 

topography. 

SEIS 53 This seems to imply that we know that we should require low-impact 

development, but are timidly “supporting future progress toward sustainable building 

practices becoming the 'norm' in Olympia.” Why wait for some future date to do 

what we know is right? How can we strengthen the proposed language in P1.8, 1.9 

& 1.11? 

SEIS 55 What is meant in PN2.1 by “a shared set of priorities”? This seems vague. Is 

the intent to make acquisition and preservation actually follow the Comp Plan 

instead of political winds or the latest project promoted by a group of citizens? That 

seems sound. 

SEIS 57 How will PN2.3 actually improve upon the “piecemeal approach” being used 

today? 

SEIS 61 Is there anything lacking in the Comp Plan that prevents or discourages 

rooftop greenery/forestry? PN 3.2 should include periodic review of tree retention 

and landscaping codes. Language in PN 3.4 seems like useless fluff language – 

evaluating something we all know is a benefit. PN 3.5 should require use of native 

tree species whenever possible. The SEIS mentions the American Elm, which isn't a 

native species from what I can tell. This seems inappropriate, even as an example. 

SEIS 65 The SEIS should have citations/links to the recommendations and 

management considerations mentioned in the analysis. The Comp Plan should have 

at least the City's recommendations. 

SEIS 66 Why were most of the new Sea Level Rise policies not listed in the SEIS? 

Seems pretty relevant to include them all. 

SEIS 71 What is the problem with making building in a known flood area prohibited 

and the existing buildings non-conforming? Isn't there a variance process by which a 

non-conforming structure may be altered/remodeled, while doing what we know is 

truly correct – preventing future construction in flood-prone areas?

SEIS 72 The general direction of Option 1 is good, however, the proposed goal/policy 

language is insufficient. A proper response to global warming necessitates that 

individuals generate less carbon in their daily activities. This is significantly the 

domain of land-use/transportation and home/business energy use (lighting, heating, 

cooling) — something the City has great influence upon. Therefore proposed 

language should (more clearly) recognize that changes to align land 

use/transportation planning as well as development/building codes are needed. 

Policy PN 8.3 might have been trying to get at this, but it was not sufficiently clear. 

Additionally, that policy's reference to renewable sources of energy should be moved 

to an entirely different policy — I.e. separation of (carbon-generating) “supply and 

demand” would improve overall readability. 

SEIS 78 While bringing the Comp Plan in line with a specific Council resolution is 

appropriate, it is questionable whether the Comp Plan should only “be led around” 

by resolutions. That is, this might not be a comprehensive enough treatment of the 

issue in the Plan update. The Plan is the proper place for a vision of “where we want 

to go” and not only a reflection of where we are at. Option 3 could be more 

appropriate except that there is no detail in the SEIS by which to assess it. 

SEIS 80 By moving the oversight of a rezone away from the Planning Commission, I 

am concerned that the public will have less access to express their views about 

specific proposals. This may be due to unfamiliarity what the process would be at 

the Hearings Examiner. Also, it is not clear what if any role the City Council would 

have in a non-mirrored process. 

If the rezone process is more streamlined, the concern is that developers will use it 

to achieve lowest-cost development opportunities without adequate linkage to the 

City goals and policies. More specificity is needed. 

SEIS 85 The general direction of Option 1 is good, but does not go far enough. An 

additional policy is warranted that speaks to auditing how well code is being 

applied/regulated, as well as accountability and other corrective action when there 

are shortfalls. For example, several years ago, planning staff were made aware of a 

near-zero compliance with bicycle parking code for new construction and significant 

redevelopment. It would be reasonable to expect that corrective action would have 

taken place in The Department. A more recent check of the development that has 

occurred since revealed a situation that is almost as dismal. Without adequate 

commitment to enforcement, the Code and the Comp Plan as a whole are 

diminished in their importance and effectiveness, which does not support the 

underlying idea of the GMA. Updates without assurance are merely wastes of time 

and energy. It seems entirely appropriate that the Comp Plan itself would include 

language to guide implementation, and not just be a repository of good intentions. 

SEIS 87 The policy should include multi-family housing as well – the Code does.

Furthermore, it should be specific in requiring both short-term parking for visitors 

and long-tern parking for employees/residents. 

SEIS 91 This was perhaps the most difficult proposed change in the entire document 

due to lack of visualization tools. The public cannot know the effect of the proposal 

just from the text provided, even though the proposal might be sound. Option 3 

references a table that was not provided in the document. 

SEIS 92 Option 3 is the best course to pursue, especially in light of the consideration 

“L7. Light Industry in Commercial Areas” (SEIS p. 94). Our community deserves to 

have attractive development of all types along public streets. Additionally, the text 

could be simplified to say: 

“PL6.1 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.” 

SEIS 106 It isn't clear what was meant by “Note: the resulting policy includes two 

topics — the Commission may recommend division of the proposed policy.” What are 

the two topics? 

SEIS 107 The proposed language is weak — little is likely to result from it. The first 

part seems more like goal-language (that requires several underlying policies in 

order to be effective). Additionally, the latter part of the policy, which speaks to 

public access to food stores should be it's own policy. It was disappointing that 

there was no discussion or acknowledgement of the change from a one-quarter mile 

distance to one-half mile, which suggests that we are accepting a lower “level of 

service”. Given that, significant support for urban agriculture is all the more 

important to help ensure citizens have access to healthy food through a variety 

means. Additionally, it isn't entirely clear if the proposed text means “provide (the 

zoning) for a food store with transit stop near where people live” or “make sure 

there is transit service within one-half mile of residents that also serves a food 

store”. Please clarify. 

SEIS 115 This is perhaps the most progressive change proposed in the Comp Plan 

update. A broader definition of capacity is definitely needed. There is a social justice 

aspect to this as well, not just in providing for non-motorized modes, but in 

potentially influencing spending on projects that benefit all levels of economic

standing. 

SEIS 117 It is isn't clear what the actual benefit of the proposal is, though it seems 

consistent with the direction of the Transportation Mobility Strategy. Intercity Transit 

does a good job of assessing route needs and service, so how will this change help 

either them or Olympia? Also, although we are far from investment in other-thanbus 

service, might it be wise to use the term “Transit Corridors” instead of “Bus 

Corridors”? It could result in preventing a future amendment to change a perhaps 

overly-restrictive term. 

___________ 

Larry Leveen 

OlyBikes 

124 State Avenue NE 


360-753-7525 

www.olybikes.com

From: Todd Stamm 

To: "cb@larsenautorepair.com" 

Subject: RE: Olympia Comprehensive Plan 

Date: Monday, August 27, 2012 8:23:03 PM 

Greetings, 

Thank you for the response below. This is a quick email to acknowledge your interest and let you 

know that I’ll call tomorrow during business hours. In summary, the proposed change in the City’s 

land use plan would not immediately result in a change in zoning or other regulations. So in 

general there would not be short-term impact. However, changes in regulations could follow that 

would limit use of your property. I’d be pleased to meet with you at your convenience to discuss 

these possibilities, either here at city hall or at Hawthorne Park. 

Please note that the Planning Commission has scheduled additional opportunities for public 

comment in September and October, including in particular a hearing at 6:30 on October 15 

regarding land uses such as those in the South Bay light industry area. I look forward to discussing 

these issues with you at your convenience. 

Todd Stamm 

Planning Manager 

Olympia Community Planning and Development Department 

601 Fourth Avenue East; Box 1967 

(360) 753-8597; Fax 753-8087 

tstamm@ci.olympia.wa.us 

Note: This message and any reply may be subject to public disclosure. 

From: cb@larsenautorepair.com [mailto:cb@larsenautorepair.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 10:37 AM 

To: Todd Stamm 

Subject: Olympia Comprehensive Plan 

Dear Mr. Stamm, 

I am the Manager of Hawthorne Park LLC and because I have been out of the area I just 

received your letter dated July 16. I am contacting you to find out what impact and 

implications this will have on Me my Tenants and the Business Park, in the short and long 

term. Currently the business in the Park are mixed and not all auto repair, does this 

mean future Tenants must be auto repair? the letter is confusing, what is a change in 

designation? and how does it affect me? 

Sincerely, 

C.B. Larsen 

Hawthorne Park LLC 

310 South Bay Rd 


360-352-7065



Subject: FW: Comments of the Baywood Condominium on Need for West Bay Drive Vegetation Management Plan for 

inclusion in West Bay Park Master Plan 

Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:26:20 PM 

For the record given mention of Comp Plan update below: 

From: Cari Hornbein 

Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:41 AM 


Subject: FW: Comments of the Baywood Condominium on Need for West Bay Drive Vegetation 

Management Plan for inclusion in West Bay Park Master Plan 

Keith, Stacey, Shelly and I met last week to discuss and concluded that the Comprehensive Plan and 

SMP should be completed first before contemplating a vegetation management plan along West 

Bay. I followed up with David Hanna, and Keith sent the following e-mail to Fred. 

From: Keith Stahley 

Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 3:17 PM 

To: CityCouncil; 'fred finn' 

Cc: Councilmembers; Steve Hall; Cari Hornbein; David Hanna; Linda Oestreich 

Subject: RE: Comments of the Baywood Condominium on Need for West Bay Drive Vegetation 


Dear Mr. Finn 

Thank you for your comments and input on our Comp Plan update and vegetation management 

issues along West Bay Drive. Vegetation management along the shoreline is a complicated issue 

with multiple and competing objectives. At this point, the city’s regulations do not support removal 

of vegetation from rights of way to accommodate views. 

We appreciate the issues and concerns that your raise and would think that our Comp Plan update 

and Shoreline Master Program update processes may provide some policy guidance for 

development of clear regulations for managing vegetation and protecting views along our 

shoreline. We have reviewed the draft vegetation management plan that the Parks, Arts and 

Recreation Department has initiated and feel that this type of report starts to establish the 

information needed to possibly take action at some point in the future should our regulations 

change. 

I encourage you to stay engaged in our update processes and watch for more details and 

opportunities to participate as the process moves forward. Towards the end of 2012 or beginning 

of 2013 I anticipate that the City will start to craft a work plan or implementation strategy for the 

Comp Plan and SMP. This is where you might see the pre-work necessary to make regulatory 

changes for vegetation management such as a view shed analysis get scoped and scheduled. I also 

anticipate that the city will start to consider changes to its development regulations and will 

consider neighborhood sub-area planning approaches at some point in 2013, both of which may 

have some impact on vegetation management practices in the future.

Once again, thank you for your interest and please feel free to contact me should you wish to 

further discuss how you can participate in our update processes. 

Sincerely, 

Keith Stahley, Director 

Community Planning and Development Department 

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: CityCouncil 

Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:59 AM 

To: 'fred finn' 

Cc: Councilmembers; Steve Hall; Keith Stahley 

Subject: FW: Comments of the Baywood Condominium on Need for West Bay Drive Vegetation 


Mary Nolan 

Executive Secretary 

CITY OF OLYMPIA 

PO Box 1967 


(360) 753-8244 

Please note that all correspondence is subject to public review. 

From: fred finn [mailto:fwfinn@gmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:09 AM 

To: Shoreline Update; Cari Hornbein; CityCouncil 

Subject: Comments of the Baywood Condominium on Need for West Bay Drive Vegatation Managment 

Plan for inclusion in West Bay Park Master Plan 

Please replace the previous email that was sent in error earlier. Please see attached. 

Fred Finn



Subject: FW: For your information 

Date: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:30:33 AM 

Attachments: Council Comp Plan Letter.docx 

For the record: 

From: Steve Friddle 

Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:26 AM 


Cc: Cari Hornbein 

Subject: FW: For your information 

FYI 

From: Connie Lorenz [mailto:oda@tss.net] 

Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:23 PM 

To: Keith Stahley; Steve Friddle 

Subject: For your information 

FYI: 

This is a copy of the letter the ODA sent to council, Steve Hall & Jay Burney. 

Have a great long weekend! 

Connie

Mayor Stephen Buxbaum August 29, 2012 

Mayor Pro-Tem Nathaniel Jones 

Council Member Jim Cooper 

Council Member Karen Rogers 

Council Member Steve Langer 

Council Member Jeannine Roe 

Council Member Julie Hankins 

Dear Mayor and Council Members, 

We are writing to express our views on the revisions of the Comprehensive Plan, The Downtown 

Plan, The Shoreline Master Plan and the neighborhood sub planning process. 

This letter may seem unusual, as it is a request the City Council to slow up the approval of individual 

pieces of these major city-planning documents so they all can be all approved at the same time. 

Moving forward with the Comprehensive Plan revisions without the Downtown Plan or the SMP will 

result in a flawed document. 

We are ready to be an active partner to work on these issues. 

We have seven issues for you to consider: 

1. The Comprehensive Plan should not be approved ahead of these other vital planning 

documents. 

2. The Comprehensive Plan contains 23 references to protected viewpoints. Specific 

definitions and expectations must be developed and shared with the community. 

3. We must consider the effects of rezoning properties to non-conforming use status. 

Commercial property financing requires periodic review of the property. Continued 

financing may be in jeopardy. Change of use or reconstruction may be prohibited. 

4. We must insist the proposed SMP set backs submitted to the Department of Ecology meet 

their guidelines for ultimate approval. 

5. The SMP regulations are an integral part of the Comprehensive and Downtown Plans. We 

need to include this information in our outreach to the community. 

6. Policies and procedures for neighborhood sub planning and the Downtown Plan need to be 

developed to present a complete package to citizens. Our community deserves a complete 

set of planning documents to guide our future. We need a clear understanding of code 

requirements and expectations. We are looking forward to working with the Land Use 

Committee, City Council and staff. We want to be a partner with the City to create clear 

vision for Olympia. 

7. The 100-foot and 200-foot proposed SMP setbacks would place a large number of downtown 

properties into a non-conforming status. This includes the recently completed Percival 

Landing and future improvements to this huge community asset. The Farmers Market, Port 

of Olympia and numerous commercial and residential properties are negatively affected by 

this extreme proposal. Downtown will be drastically changed by this proposal. 

We look forward to moving this important process along to a fruitful completion. 

Board of Directors 

Olympia Downtown Association



Subject: FW: Draft SEIS on CPU 

Date: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 4:39:02 PM 

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


Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 2:45 PM 

To: Amy Buckler; David Nemens; Steve Friddle 

Cc: Cari Hornbein 

Subject: RE: Draft SEIS on CPU 

Looks we've got some confusion. These comments from Jerry were directed to Steve as the SEPAofficial 

for Imagine Olympia update and not related to Trillium or the annual update in general. Thus 

they have only an obscure relationship to this year's amendments. Thus they should go into the draft 

SEIS comment record for Imagine Oly. 




To: David Nemens; Steve Friddle 

Cc: Cari Hornbein; Todd Stamm 


When I read Jerry's letter, I don't get the impression that his comments/questions have much directly to 

do with the 2012 Docket (Trillium). I think long-rangers need to respond. 

Amy 


From: David Nemens 


To: Steve Friddle 

Cc: Amy Buckler; Cari Hornbein 


Steve -- 

It appears to me that, underlying many of Commissioner Parker's questions (in this email, and in the 

shorter one you also forwarded to me) is some confusion between the annual comprehensive plan 

amendment docket (of which the privately-initiated Trillium proposal is one part), and the ongoing 

comprehensive plan update process ("Imagine Olympia"). As such, I don't think they should be 

addressed in the Trillium staff report. I would be glad to say a few words about them as part of my PC 

presentation -- or you may wish to do this. I also would be glad to answer his questions by email, 

though again my knowledge of the Imagine Olympia process is limited. (For example, Commissioner 

Parker refers several times to a Draft SEIS issued for Imagine Olympia, AKA the Comp Plan Update or 

CPU. Is this correct?) 

If I do respond to Commissioner Parker's questions, would you like me to copy all of the other 

Commissioners? 

-- David 


From: Steve Friddle 

Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:15 AM 

To: Amy Buckler; David Nemens; Cari Hornbein

Cc: 'Jerome Parker' 

Subject: FW: Draft SEIS on CPU 

Some more great questions to address. They appear to be applicable to both the 2012 Docket and the 

Imagine Olympia work. 


From: Jerome Parker [mailto:jerome.parker@comcast.net] 

Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 4:25 PM 

To: Steve Friddle 

Subject: Draft SEIS on CPU 

Steve - 

In a effort to better understand the source and, to some degree, the substance of changes proposed to 

the Comprehensive Plan, I am reviewing a good portion of what I understand to be background 

documents. This includes the draft SEIS on the Comprehensive Plan Update. 

First, I find programmatic environmental impact statements extremely challenging. It can be quite 

difficult to define the specific action to be evaluated and even more difficult to project the potential 

impacts of the plan with sufficient specificity to project or evaluate impacts. 

Consequently, nothing that follows should be read as a criticism or as a suggestion for change. Rather, 

these comments are directed to a better understanding of the CPU process. 

The most basic question is how the identification of topics (also referred to as "proposals") relates to the 

proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan. The draft SEIS states that the proposals listed in the 

scoping document were identified by "the City". I assume this means staff. 

Were the topics meant to reflect public comments made and the various public meetings on the CPU by 

the City? 

I believe the discussion of the "Urban Agriculture" proposal states this while at least two others might 

also reflect public comments, i.e. the "street connectivity" proposal and the "urban corridor" 

comments that were made as part of a proposal regarding "Special Area Plans". 

Are the "proposals" in the SEIS intended to cover all proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan? 

Project based environmental impact statements in their final form summarize comments from the public 

on specific topics. They then provide a comment from the responsible agency on how it responded to 

these comments. 

In the case of the Comprehensive Plan, extensive comments have been submitted on the two drafts of 

the Plan. I suspect that the number of comments on the SEIS are quite limited. True? 

Will the City be providing a response to the basic concerns identified in public comments on the draft 

CPU? 

When will a final SEIS be drafted - after the Planning Commission 

recommends a CPU to the Council or after the Council adopts a CPU? 

It would seem of little value if it were to be prepared after the CPU has been adopted by the Council. 

(See page 6 of the SEIS for a description of the common eis format for addressing public comment. 

Having read all comments submitted on the April draft CPU, I see a relatively few basic themes, even if 

some have a wealth of comments on a particular theme. Therefore, it would seem feasible to provide a 

comment/response document, even if it is not part of the final SEIS.) 

Sincerely 

Jerry Parker

Westbrook Park letter to the Olympia Planning Commission 


clo Imagine Olympia 

PO Box 1967 

Olympia WA 98501 

RE: Comments on the July draft of the Olympia Comprehensive Plan 

Dear members of the Olympia Planning Commission: 

We need your help. 

July 25,2012 

We live in a unique, older neighborhood. It is called Westbrook Park and it is located just south of 

the Ken Lake subdivision, in the southwest corner of the City. Our 61 homes are on relatively 

large lots with many older trees. We have forested areas, a stream (Westbrook Creek), and 

wetlands that drain to Percival Creek. 

Probably the biggest reason we are so unique is that our homes are on a dead end street (Park 

Drive). As a result of this, our neighborhood is very quiet and private. Also, because of the lack 

of traffic, our residents are able to walk, bike, and skateboard on the street (there are no 

sidewalks). . 

Another unusual aspect of our neighborhood is that residents here know each other, are 

connected via e-mail and other means, and look out for each other. We have a sense of 

community and peacefulness that is rare in Olympia - or any city. They just don't build them like 

ours anymore. 

For several years, our neighborhood has been engaged in discussions with the City regarding 80 

acres of undeveloped land on the hill just above us to the west. We have been involved because 

the development of this property can adversely affect virtually every aspect of our neighborhood. 

This property was annexed to the City many years ago without any information or analysis of the 

physical nature of the property or how its development might affect surrounding areas. It was just 

a line on a map that swung west to include land that everyone now agrees should have been left 

in the County. City planners and officials have admitted to us many times in recent years that 

they wished it had never been annexed. 

The reason is that the property has steep, rocky terrain with shallow soils and poorly understood 

groundwater movement. This property is situated directly above both our neighborhood and part 

of the Ken Lake (Lakemoor) neighborhood. Development of this land would have a number of 

significant impacts on Westbrook creek and its wetlands, Ken Lake, and the quality of life in our 

neighborhoods. 

For years, the property was comprised of several 5 to 20 acre lots that were zoned 4 units per 

acre. These lots were bought a few years back by a Seattle land-holding company that planned 

to get preliminary approval for a 300+ lot subdivision that they could sell to a large home builder. 

Fortunately, that proposal was shot down for lack of an acceptable stormwater system plan. 

Since then, other subsequent proposals by the developer have fallen by the wayside for similar 

reasons. 

In the fall of 2010, the City downzoned the property in an emergency action. They adopted the 

same "low-density" zoning that was developed for the Green Cove basin - not because the City 

thought this zoning made sense for the property, but because it was the only existing zoning that 

could begin to address the many challenges associated with building on the steep, rocky ground 

of this location. 

1

Westbrook Park letter to the Olympia Planning Commission July 25, 2012 

At the same time, knowing that the zoning was not sufficient to address all of the issues, the 

Council directed the Planning Department to begin work on a "Ken Lake Basin" study that would 

evaluate (at a minimum) the geography, geology, hydrology and traffic issues associated with 

developing this property. This study was supposed to be done with input from the affected 

neighborhoods and was to result in recommendations for changes to the zoning and other 

policies and regulations that would ensure that development of this property would be done in an 

appropriate manner that would protect the natural and existing built environments. 

Unfortunately, the City has failed to address any of these issues. They have not engaged us in 

any discussions of the proposed study; nor have adequate measures to ensure proper 

development of the area been taken. 

The long promised study, first authorized by the Council in Nov 2010, has never been drafted. 

Apparently, the only issues that have been addressed at all thus far have been surface and 

groundwater issues in a draft document. We have been told about this draft document, but we 

have not yet been allowed to see it, despite repeated requests by us to do so. 

Further, the planning department currently is not recommending any specific zoning changes, 

even though they readily admit that the existing zoning is not appropriate for the site. To the 

contrary (in fact,) they are proposing language referring to "extreme clustering" that would allow 

for very high density (apartments) on this site. 

Finally, the specific changes to the Comprehensive Plan that the City does propose do not 

adequately address density, stormwater, lot size, traffic and other issues that our neighborhood 

has been raising with the City for 7 years now. 

The City has proposed two changes that are helpful, but others that are counterproductive. 

First, the proposed changes that we consider helpful and that we support are: 

1. A new policy calling for regulations for hillside development (In addition to current 

landslide hazard regulations). This is a positive change and may address some of our 

concerns about large-scale earth movement associated with development on the 

property above us. 

2. Re-designation of the light industrial area at Kaiser and Highway 101 to a 

designation of 'general commercial' use (to protect the aquifer). This does not 

directly affect our neighborhood, but seems a prudent step to take. 

The proposed changes that we have serious concerns about and do not support are: 

1. A policy providing for development clustering in environmentally-sensitive lowdensity 

areas. This is not a positive change, in that it could allow apartment buildings 

with a total of up to 300 units to be built on the property above us. Rather than have 

single family residences on large lots - the very type of development that would protect 

the natural environment, blend with the surrounding existing built environment, and 

provide a transition to the undeveloped County land to the west - this provision would 

locate the densest form of development right on the City boundary. 

2. A text amendment to specifiy that a Kaiser Road connection to Park Drive is not to 

be a substitute for another planned connection of Kaiser Road to Black Lake 

Boulevard just south of Park Drive. This change is meant to ensure that Park Drive is 

2

Westbrook Park letter to the Olympia Planning Commission July 25,2012 

not the only connection between Kaiser Road, the property above us and Black Lake 

Blvd. 

However, we do not believe that connecting Park Drive to any new development and 

Kaiser Road makes sense, ESPECIALLY if there is going to be another connection to 

Black Lake Blvd just 100 yards south of Park Drive. Previous traffic studies have 

identified Park Drive as a steep, winding road with no sidewalks and unsuitable for a 

connecting road. In previous comments to the City on a previous proposal (Kaiser 

Heights) we have detailed our concerns about connecting Park Drive (see attached 

memo to the City). 

3. Worst of all, the Comp Plan contains a change in the policy regarding connecting 

existing streets to new developments, 

In the previous plan, the burden was on the City to hold discussions with the affected 

neighborhood and evaluate whether the benefits of a street connection outweighed the 

adverse impacts of a connection to an existing neighborhood. The new language in the 

Comp Plan assumes the street connection is a good idea and places the burden on 

those who are opposed to such a connection to demonstrate that such a 

connection is unwarranted. This obviously has significant implications for whether 

Park Drive is ever connected to a development on the property above our neighborhood. 

This makes such decisions even more adversarial and "political" than they have been in 

the past. 

What we would like to see in the Comprehensive Plan: 

1. Change the language regarding street connections back to the previous or similar 

language. This would ensure that a fair and complete evaluation of the relevant issues 

would be completed prior to irreversibly connecting an existing neighborhood to a new 

busy street. 

2. Change the deSignation of Park Drive from a connecting street to one that provides 

vehicle access only to Westbrook Park and provides for bike and pedestrian 

access to lands west of our neighborhood. (We also support the installation of 

removable bollards to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles.) If Kaiser Road 

and the property above us are required to connect to Black Lake Boulevard via a new 

road constructed south of our neighborhood, then there is no need to make Park Drive 

a through street. 

3. Remove the language that allows for extreme clustering in environmentally 

sensitive areas. Frequently, lower density is needed to protect the natural and existing 

built environment from the adverse impacts of new development. Allowing extreme 

clustering would mean apartments adjacent to our neighborhood and on the edge of the 

City next to forested lands in the County. This is not good planning. 

4. A proposal to develop a new zoning for the land above our subdivision. This 

should be done after the Ken Lake Basin Study is completed and should be intended to 

ensure that the density and type of development on this land is appropriate for the 

physical, natural and existing build environments. 

Further, we would ask that you consider holding a special public hearing focused on the Ken 

Lake basin. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you in some detail the 

concerns that we have raised and our ideas for how to improve the Comprehensive Plan. 

3

Attachment to Westbrook Park Neighborhood Letter to Planning Commission -7-25-12 

November 5, 2007 

TO: Kraig Challem, City of Olympia 

Susan Messegee, City of Olympia 

FROM: Andy McMillan, Westbrook Park Neighborhood 

RE: Kaiser Heights & Use of Park Drive for Vehicle Access 

In light of our ongoing discussion about the potential use of Park Drive for vehicle access to 

Kaiser Heights, I would to submit the following comments for your consideration: 

Westbrook Park is a quiet established neighborhood. It is a real neighborhood where people 

walk their dogs, kids bike and skateboard and drivers and pedestrians talk to each other along the 

street. Heck, for better or worse, kids play in the street. Most drivers in our neighborhood know 

this and since they are part of the neighborhood, they moderate their speed accordingly. Even 

so, occasionally we have a teenage driver or visitors who drive too fast - in those cases we can 

go to the driver or their parents and let them know about the risks they are posing to others. We 

can do this because we know each other and because we have a dead end street - one can track 

down the errant driver because they only have a few homes to go to. 

With a vehicle connection to Kaiser Heights we will have hundreds of new drivers using Park 

Drive who are not part of our neighborhood, and who will view Park Drive as simply a shortcut 

to get to Black Lake. If they drive too fast, one cannot track them down-- they will disappear up 

the hill into the hundreds of new homes. There will be no accountability. People will have to 

stop walking along the road, and kids will not be able to bike and skateboard safely. It will 

change our neighborhood for the worse. 

Make no mistake, residents of Kaiser Heights will use Park Drive. It is going to be a logical 

"short cut" for all of the residents in the north end ofthe development who want to access Black 

Lake Boulevard and points east. Whether it saves them 30 seconds or less, many residents of 

Kaiser Heights would use Park Drive because it would be perceived to be a more "direct" route. 

(Think about how many pedestrians will create a new path in the grass to avoid a 90 degree 

sidewalk turn. It saves them one second oftime at most, but enough will do it to create a new 

muddy path.) It's human nature. 

Of the 294 homes in Kaiser Heights, 186 are proposed for the northern phase. It is reasonable to 

expect that nearly all of these would use Park Drive to access Black Lake Blvd. (Delivery 

vehicles would use Park Drive to access these homes as well.) This would increase traffic on 

Park Drive four- to five-fold. This kind of traffic increase would completely change the 

character of our neighborhood. We would experience more noise and pollution and it would be 

much less safe and enjoyable to use Park Drive as pedestrians, bikers, skateboarders, etc.

Once the neighborhood is changed, we cannot ever go back. Something special will have been 

lost. Our neighborhood is unique. No more are being built like this. People lament the loss of 

real neighborhoods and the feelings of belonging that come with that. Westbrook Park is like 

that and it should be a priority to preserve it. To sacrifice this for dubious, minor "increased 

traffic efficiency" runs counter to progressive planning principles. 

Below, we address the nine factors that the Comprehensive Plan indicates should be evaluated to 

help the City determine if the merits outweigh the demerits of the whole package, and whether 

the connection would be in the best interests of both the community at large and the 

neighborhood 

(1) Neighborhood development plans - I don't believe there are any neighborhood 

developments plans. 

(2) Pedestrian safety - Given the widespread use of Park Drive by neighborhood residents, we 

believe that increasing the.traffic by 4X to 5X will significantly decrease pedestrian safety. 

Adults use Park Drive for exercise (walking and biking) or to get to the bus stop at Black Lake 

Blvd. Many residents walk their dogs, and kids use Park Drive for biking, skateboarding, 

sledding in the winter and playing games. We are all able to do this because traffic is very light 

and 90+% of the traffic is by residents who know about these uses and generally are very 

considerate. 

(3 ) Availability or feasibility of sidewalks - While it might be possible to build a sidewalk on 

one side of Park Drive, it would either reduce road width or have significant impacts on people's 

front yards (including the removal of numerous trees) and the wetland buffer. In addition, a 

sidewalk would only partially mitigate the safety impacts from the increased traffic, because the 

road is windy and steep, and cars tend to drive much faster down the hill, even during very 

slippery conditions (wet leaves, black ice, etc.). (To-wit: notice the number of trees along the 

wetland buffer beside Park Drive that have been scarred by automobiles going off the road.) 

Thus, walking on a sidewalk on the downslope side of Park Drive would still pose some risk. 

(4) Width of roadway - We do not believe road width is a problem, unless sidewalks are 

installed. However, Park Drive is in pretty rough shape in places and increased traffic 

will increase degradation of the road. 

(5) Topography and environmental constraints - Park Drive is steep in its upper half, 

which contributes to speeding by downhill drivers. Park Drive is bounded by an 

important Category II forested wetland for over two hundred yards. There is virtually 

no buffer between the road and the wetland. More significantly, all of the stormwater 

runoff from Park Drive drains directly into either the forested wetland mentioned above 

or a smaller Category II wetland higher up. Increasing the traffic on Park Drive will 

significantly increase the pollutants (heavy metals, hydrocarbons, etc.) that drain into 

these wetlands. These pollutants, in turn, will have a significant adverse impact on the 

biota that inhabit these wetlands (amphibians in particular). We do not see any way to 

provide adequate treatment of the stormwater prior to discharge into the wetlands.


Amy Tousley, Chair 

c/o Amy Buckler 



PO Box 1967 

Olympia, WA 98507-1967 

Dear Chair Tousley: 

City of Olympia I Capital of Washington State 

P,O. Box 1967, Olympia, WA 98507-1967 

SUBJECT: Utility Advisory Committee (UAC) Comments Regarding April 2012 

Draft of the Comprehensive Plan "Imagine Olympia" 

The UAC continues to have a keen interest in the development of the Comprehensive Plan. 

This plan sets the overall vision and framework for Olympia's future, and the UAC wants to 

ensure that it is consistent with and supportive of the master plans developed for City 

utilities and adopted by Council. 

In 2011 and early 2012, the Utility Advisory Committee (UAC) had two work plan items 

associated with the Comprehensive Plan update. UAC members provided input to the 

Olympia Planning Commission (OPC) on the scope of work for the Comprehensive Plan and 

also on key policy issues in a letter to the OPC dated November 7.2011. 

At our AprilS, 2012 meeting, we had a chance to review the April Draft Comprehensive 

Plan and provide staff with comments. We would like to provide you with a summary of 

those comments to consider as part of your public review process over the next few 

months. We have the Comprehensive Plan on our agenda again for September this year, 

and will look forward to providing you comments again as the draft plan evolves. 

We were generally very pleased with the April draft; several elements of the plan came 

directly from discussions held by the UAC, including: 

• The City's vision of sustainability is clarified and included throughout the document 

as an overarching theme. New goals and policies regarding sustainability in City 

decision-making are included. 

• New goals and policies encouraging green infrastructure, renewable energy and low 

impact development are included. 

• New goals and policies relating to climate change, urban forestry and tree canopy 

protection are included. 

• A new chapter on Public Participation and Partners emphasizes citizen engagement 

and participation, with a variety of new goals and policies. 

MAYOR: Stephen H. Buxbaum MAYOR PRO TEM: Nathaniel Jones CITY MANAGER: Steven R, Hall 

COUNCILMEMBERS: Jim Cooper, Julie Hankins, Steve Langer, Jeannine Roe, Karen Rogers

ublic comments received between July 27 - the City of Olympia

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?