Thursday, October 1, 2026
A proposed mixed-use development on the West Bay waterfront in Olympia cleared a regulatory hurdle when a hearing examiner approved the project.
Hearing Examiner Mark Scheibmeir authorized the project’s Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Conditional Use Permit in a July 22 decision that comes with a number of caveats.
The project calls for five buildings with residential and commercial uses, a waterfront trail, public access areas and a major shoreline restoration effort.
The five buildings will be up to five stories tall and include 478 residential units with roughly 22,000 square feet of commercial space on a previously contaminated site.
The project also includes frontage improvements along West Bay Drive, an esplanade and expanded waterfront trail corridor, paths leading to a newly created beach, a kayak put-in and other public amenities.
The applicant West Bay Development, LLC, is also proposing a major shoreline restoration project and revegetation of shoreline areas.
The decision calls for the project to substantially follow an approved site plan, including clearly showing public amenities, an expanded Vegetation Conservation Area (VCA), and the waterfront trail’s fire-access requirements.
The project must also comply with a development agreement in 2021, modifications to incorporate all shoreline restoration work and full waterfront trail into Phase 1, as well as revising conceptual images to reflect the approved design.
Scheibmeir stated that the approval is based on the conceptual restoration approach outlined within shoreline restoration design reports.
The project aims to remove about 200 creosote-treated pilings, concrete debris and other material from the areas below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM).
An existing steep rock revetment needs to be cut back, and the developer is going to place gravel, sand and beach materials to create a new intertidal beach extending about 100 to 150 feet seaward of the existing shoreline.
Once debris has been removed, existing shoreline revetment is going to be cut back 18 feet landward.
A newly created upland would be incorporated into a VCA, expanding it from a required 30-foot width to an expected width of 42 to 48 feet.
The restored shoreline would include native trees, shrubs and ground cover, as well as large woody debris, perch police and bird houses.
Scheibmeir concluded the project, as conditioned, meets the City of Olympia's “no net loss” requirement for shoreline ecological functions.
The decision states removing the creosote pilings and debris, creating a new gravel intertidal beach, restoring vegetation above and below the OHWM, protecting the restored areas, and using dark sky-compliant lighting would result in a “significant functional lift” to shoreline functions and processes.
The project is also going to cause some temporary environmental impacts. The construction of the new beach calls for a large amount of fill on existing shellfish beds, resulting in some shellfish mortality.
According to the hearing exmainer's decision, the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife would monitor the work to minimize those impacts. The site’s shellfish populations are expected to recover quickly.
West Bay Development is required to provide permanent public access to the waterfront, with the trail dedicated as public right-of-way, and maintained in perpetuity and with appropriate signage.
The project also must permanently protect the VCA through a conservation easement, dedication to a conservation organization or land trust, or another mechanism acceptable to city staff.
Environmental conditions require the project to provide adequate soil to support large native trees and establish a dense native plant community.
The restoration plans must include at least 24 inches of soil amendment in the VCA and planting designed to achieve 80 percent coverage within three years.
The project also must provide bird-friendly glass or window treatments on all exterior-facing windows. Glass balconies and railings must meet the same safety standards.
The shoreline restoration may use only nonstructural, or “soft” stabilization methods. The permit does not authorize new bulkheads, seawalls, groins or other hard-armoring structures.
Before construction begins, the developer must obtain required permits and approvals from outside agencies, including the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, Washington State Department of Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Certain upland work also requires approval from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
The project remains subject to state cleanup rules under an existing Model Toxics Control Act order. The developer must complete required cleanup work before in-water or site development can proceed, unless covered by a Department of Ecology approved interim action plan.
The approval also includes extensive fire-access requirements. Portions of the waterfront trail that serve as emergency access routes must be at least 22 feet wide.
The central drive aisle must be capable of supporting fire engines and ladder trucks, and the developer must provide turning-movement exhibits showing emergency vehicles can navigate the site.
The project is approved for buildings up to 65 feet in height under the city’s height bonus provisions.
Scheibmeir also added a condition addressing concerns about the neighboring Reliable Steel property.
The decision describes the adjoining property as containing large, multistory industrial buildings that are in poor repair and may be contaminated. Scheibmeir expressed concern that the buildings could pose a danger to people who enter the property.
The developer must install a suitable fence, vegetative buffer, or other mechanism to prevent easy access from the project site onto the Reliable Steel property. Signs warning the public not to enter the property must be installed along the project’s southern boundary.
The Shoreline Conditional Use Permit applies to about 2,426 square feet of Building 2, which is within 100 feet of the current OHWM.
The project must also comply with city requirements covering flood protection, sea-level rise, critical areas, landscaping, parking, transportation, stormwater and design review.
30 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Schnauzer
Nice, but the TAXES will be Hugh. Hope with the sea level always changing they won’t wash out especially with all the weight. Nice but no thanks.
Thursday, July 30 Report this
chrispc2u
And zero consideration on how this will affect the traffic on that road not designed for that many cars. Where’s the city council’s plan for THAT??
Thursday, July 30 Report this
Boatyarddog
Both comments are totally valid concerns. This area is Known to be heavily Polluted and surrounding properties are dangerous and HOT Pollution zones. So many Negative effects And DNR or DOE isn't asking for a FULL EIS, because if they did that it would be a big NO! Damn Hearing Examiner is Getting PAID OFF for Projects! COMPLETELY a WRONG PLAN.
Thursday, July 30 Report this
VDRAKE2
When City Council signed off on the massive development proposed along West Bay Drive, did anyone actually drive the corridor during peak hours? I live 6 blocks from this proposed sight. Everyone I know have asked over and over for freakin SIDEWALKS! And did anyone hear us?
Right now, West Bay Drive is a two-lane road servicing a funky, beloved shoreline area with an active marina and Annie's true Oly local character. Installing a nearly 500-unit apartment complex alongside commercial space on this site is ludicrous.
Traffic on West Bay Drive is already bumper-to-bumper at certain times of the day. Adding hundreds of new apartments and commercial visitors will completely paralyze this spit of land. Are we expected to turn West Bay Drive into a four-lane highway just to accommodate one overambitious project? Where will everyone park—on the gravel fields they plan to fill and pave over? Beyond the traffic nightmare, the environmental demands are staggering. They plan to dump tons of fill, re-vegetate, and create artificial shoreline access for hundreds of people right on a sensitive waterfront, Olympia has fought to protect. Has anyone provided a real bottom-line cost for what it will take to maintain and redevelop this entire southern boundary facing the harbor? The night sky, you'll never see it. The sewage? Where's that goin?
This project will take years of disruption, noise, and traffic gridlock. On a road already compromised with potholes,chunks failing on asphalt Ed road that gets attention sporadically. Giant trucks will now take over.
We voted these city officials into office to represent us, yet this decision feels completely disconnected from the reality of living in Northwest Olympia. It is time for the city to stop pushing massive density onto sensitive two-lane shorelines and start listening to the neighborhood. The entire idea will destroy this area for a large population for 15-20 years. Way to. Go Olympia City Council.
Thursday, July 30 Report this
gypsydjango
This is the beginning.....here comes San Diego. Wonder who the 478 units will be afforded by. I'll miss that open and peaceful area.
Thursday, July 30 Report this
AliceV
I can just imagine the chaos involved. The ridiculous traffic, the damage to the shoreline, the effect on wildlife, the unaffordable apartments. What a package.
Thursday, July 30 Report this
Callie
There is less crime in mixed-income neighborhoods. we can build for that. No plan for a few affordable units in the mix? Where will the barista who works that commercial space be living? And the housecleaner. And the home-care aid? Miles away and come by car and park . . . where?
Friday, July 31 Report this
Olyrkrgrrl
A project that should never have gotten off the drawing board. Shoving humungous buildings onto fill on a toxic-polluted shoreline, with toxic buildings next door, no roads to support residents, or shoppers, and parking? The buidings will have to extend 100 feet out into the water?? !! That is quite a footprint in the water. The view permanently marred by the visible evidence of the toxic legacy of this city council, who has never met a building project that they won't allow, in spite of campaigning on environmental and social concerns.
Friday, July 31 Report this
sunshine39
I want to know who on the council voted for this.
I wonder if they got sucked in by all the environmental improvements being made to this area that the city has otherwise appeared to ignore--all the polution left from previous industrial activities.
Friday, July 31 Report this
sunshine39
And thank you Lorilyn for this detailed report.
Friday, July 31 Report this
Chris_R
I drive West Bay Drive 2-3 times per week, and the last time I was there (5pm on Monday) I was doing 33mph (30 limit) and nobody in front of me or behind me as far as I could see. Then I saw a car behind me, and wouldn't you know it they caught up and were tailgating. Your 50mph personal speedway days will hopefully come to an end soon. This development is a fantastic opportunity for the Olympia waterfront, and all the NIMBY's can stuff it. As far as bumper-to-bumper traffic, that is an absurd statement and demonstrates the entitlement of those who use this as their shortcut.
Friday, July 31 Report this
PatMer
The approval of this project seems unreal! 478 apartments along a narrow road which already has congesting traffic of cars going to and from work, every weekday. I know because I've driven there a lot, and I live nearby. I certainly won't be going back to West Bay Park with the 478 apartments and all the construction and pre-construction to build it. What did the approval say about mitigating that huge amount of traffic? Is this real?
Friday, July 31 Report this
Porter
Great article. Lots of info to chew on.
Friday, July 31 Report this
JW
It's about time they approve something that isn't more tax-sucking slum housing.
Friday, July 31 Report this
Southsoundguy
So fascinating. On the one hand, this reveals the lunacy of the shoreline laws and ridiculous environmental requirements. On the other hand, it shows the stupidity of developers who want to plop something in an area not well-suited for it, and where no one is asking for it, just because they can so they can rip financing out of the land and saddle the city with infrastructure it won't be able to support long-term through taxes.
Friday, July 31 Report this
salishseatrees76
This is awesome to see! It is past time that the city clean up derelict industrial areas and move into a new era. Redeveloping the port should be next and hopefully new development along the parkway after the estuary is restored.
Friday, July 31 Report this
Mugwump
Dontae Payne, Position 1, term ends December 31 2027
Yên Huynh, Position 2, term ends December 31 2027
Dani Madrone, Position 3, term ends December 2027
Clark Gilman, Position 4, term ends December 2029
Kelli Green, Position 5, term ends December 2029
Robert Vanderpool, Position 6, term ends December 2029
Paul Berendt, Position 7, term ends December 2029
Do they represent the interests of Olympia or do they represent the interests of developers? Do they manage the resources entrusted to them well or do they fritter away those resources while the basic needs of the city (sidewalks, roads, public safety) go unmet? I think we all know the answers to those questions. We deserve better leadership. Vote them out.
Friday, July 31 Report this
Olycitizen123
I am so happy this project is taking off! I live in the area and drive on Westbay drive every single day. There’s never any cars, so there shouldn’t be any concern about traffic.
Currently undeveloped Westbay yards is the ugly spot on this road. I’m so happy they are doing something about it! Can’t wait!
Friday, July 31 Report this
EBretschneider
I visited Rushton Point recently. It was lovely. I hope to be able to enjoy a similar setting on West Bay. It needs to be cleaned up sooner than later.
Friday, July 31 Report this
Duffish
Duffish
It is inconceivable that the City issued a DNS and did not require a full blown EIS for this project.
-The environmental improvements listed are nothing but window dressing. What will the improvements improve? Without the EIS, nobody knows
-Intertidal areas contain very rich ecosystems, much more than just shellfish. What are the systems there to protect? Nobody knows.
-Cleanup pilings, etc is commendable, but what standards will be met set forth by environmental agencies? Nobody knows, the public has no review of the project; period.
-What will be the impacts of the infrastructure on the city (and, yes, the public, we pay taxes).
How will a project of this nature impact the ongoing Deschutes Estuary Restoration project? Budd Inlet and the mouth of the Deschutes are intimately connected. Is not that so?
This is the most obvious type of project which should have gone through the EIS process. Even if a project meets zoning requirements, the EIS should supplement that process.
Saturday, August 1 Report this
wolfmanner
What ? No low income apartments.
Saturday, August 1 Report this
johnvaneenwyk
We should be more sympathetic with this project. The Mistake-On-The-Lake has been too lonely for too long, sitting there fully exposed like some antediluvian relic. Why not give it some company, like a Mistake-On-The-Inlet? Not only would the two be able to see each other, but the West Bay Yards insanity might make the Mistake-On-The-Lake feel better in comparison. Then the City Council could erect another moronic edifice to keep the gargantuan atrocity on Fourth Avenue company.
Then they could commission a nice sign thanking the Steh-Chass (Squaxin) Tribe for taking such good care of the land until we came aong.
Saturday, August 1 Report this
BettyVerdammt
Our new neighbors from Collier County, Florida would like Olympia to be a little more "Socially Liberal, but fiscally conservative." Retirees will have a nice walk from these new units to city hall.
Saturday, August 1 Report this
Scooter
...and no mention of traffic mitigation....it will be a freaking mess....and like many streets on the west side they can always add tiny round abouts, speed bumps, etc....and, if not mistaken, traffic impacts are based on study done 6 years ago....
Saturday, August 1 Report this
KimDobson
No one has mention the huge 8 year property tax break under the MFTE these developers are getting .The city is not loosing money they just shift the developers unpaid taxes to Olympia's existing tax base .The total exact dollar amount for the tax shift charged to existing taxpayers specifically for the West Bay Yards 478-unit apartment project under an 8-year Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) is not publicly specified or finalized in official city or county assessment records. Program Details and Tax Shift Context Exemption Type: 8-year property tax exemption covering the value of new residential building improvements (excluding land and commercial spaces). Assessment Authority: The Thurston County Assessor calculates specific exemption values once construction is complete and values are placed on the rolls.Tax Shift Mechanism: Under City of Olympia policy, uncollected tax revenue resulting from MFTE exemptions is absorbed through the local property tax levy capacity, effectively shifting the unbilled amounts to non-exempt local taxpayers . The Reverse Robin Hood effect .The only one on the council consistently refuses to vote for the MFTE exemptions is Clark Gilman .
Saturday, August 1 Report this
wolfmanner
So still no answer on how many apartments will be low income.
Monday, August 3 Report this
Boatyarddog
Chris_R. NIMBEES? HAA Just because you drive this route a couple times a week at less than Peak Hrs hardly makes your comment worthwhile. While unde eloped, Once Developed, there IS going to be a large Traffic issue. As Well, Olympia Ecosystems has Law suits PENDING. That area needs a full EIS
Filling in Tidelands, is against STATE law and WILL affect the Dechutes Sediment Distribution. They are planning to extend the shoreline out 50, 60 feet filling with gravel, sand and " beach material". The Water is A Hot Zone and people will be encouraged to wade or swim in that Dioxon laden sludge zone. I can just see the Law suits piling up.. The Hearing examiners should be investigated for bribery and Mental illness in my opinion.
Monday, August 3 Report this
Boatyarddog
My mistake. An existing steep rock revetment needs to be cut back, and the developer is going to place gravel, sand and beach materials to create a new intertidal beach extending about 100 to 150 feet seaward of the existing shoreline.
Once debris has been removed, existing shoreline revetment is going to be cut back 18 feet landward. This is DEFINITELY going to affect the Sediment Distribution of The Estuary Project. LAW SUITS !
Monday, August 3 Report this
Yeti1981
Reading through these comments, at some point we need to call this what it is: NIMBYism.
Traffic, shoreline impacts, contamination, sea-level rise, stormwater, habitat, public access and infrastructure have not been ignored. They have been studied and reviewed through years of permitting, environmental review, public hearings and appeals. Yet the same questions keep getting raised as though nobody ever considered them because some people simply do not like the answers. Meanwhile, this is a previously contaminated industrial site that will be cleaned up and restored, approximately 200 creosote-treated pilings and other debris will be removed, the shoreline will be improved, permanent public waterfront access will be created, and 478 homes will be added to a community that desperately needs housing.
And yes, the area will change. There will be buildings where there aren't buildings today. There will be more people and more cars. That is what accommodating growth looks like. We cannot demand more housing while insisting that nothing around us ever change. The affordable housing argument doesn't change that either. Housing is a ladder. We need housing below 80% AMI, but we also need housing above it. People who can afford these homes don't disappear if we refuse to build them. They compete for the existing housing stock and increase pressure further down the ladder.
Public participation matters. So does environmental review. But public participation cannot mean an endless veto over projects that meet the requirements simply because someone doesn't want their neighborhood, traffic or view to change. At some point, the process has to mean something. We cannot say we have a housing crisis and then continue finding reasons not to build housing that meets our adopted requirements.
If we are serious about housing affordability, we have to build the entire ladder.
Monday, September 14 Report this
Boatyarddog
Yeti1981, this commenter statement is completely untrue.!
(Meanwhile, this is a previously contaminated industrial site that will be cleaned up and restored. This comment is an actual lie.) There is NO RESTORATION planned, only superficial Remediation.
RESTORATION requires a completed List of repairs and actions that this project comes no where near.
Tuesday, September 22 Report this