Land Use and Environment Committee Meeting - August 28, 2026
Land Use and Environment Committee Meeting - August 28, 2026
This meeting of the Olympia City Council's Land Use and Environment Committee, chaired by Councilmember Robert Vanderpool, addressed tree protection during the interim period before a new ordinance, land banking strategies for affordable housing, and recommendations for manufactured home community preservation. The committee also discussed and approved the agenda and prior minutes. Note: The transcript indicates the meeting occurred on August 27, 2026, but the provided directive specifies August 28, 2026. This summary uses the date from the directive.
Consent Calendar
- Approved the agenda as proposed (motion by Councilmember Baron, seconded).
- Approved the minutes from the July 23, 2026, meeting (motion and second, unanimous vote with ayes).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Speaker 1 (unidentified): Expressed disappointment that state law prohibits temporary zoning to protect large trees until a new ordinance is in place. They objected to a prior statement that building and tree preservation are incompatible, citing the Spring Creek permit example where only three trees over 40 inches DBH would need saving. They advocated for an experiment to inform ordinance writing and proposed two ideas: (1) accelerate the two-year timeline for the new tree ordinance, or (2) adopt permanent language requiring tree surveys and plans with initial permit applications (similar to Thurston County). They noted that protecting large trees via setbacks can create more affordable, livable housing and that many modern tree codes have separate tracks for development and existing properties. They concluded by stating Olympia does not have two years to wait.
- Charlotte Persons (Northeast Olympia): Highlighted the disproportionate benefits of mature trees for carbon sequestration (noting that despite slower growth, they sequester more carbon than smaller trees), stormwater management, air pollution removal, and urban cooling/heating. She cited a Thurston County tree tour on July 28, 2026, where a subdivision under county code was 12 degrees Fahrenheit cooler in summer and 6 degrees warmer in winter than the city average. She urged the committee to include incentives and regulations in Olympia's tree code to preserve existing trees, looking to models from Tumwater and Thurston County.
Discussion Items
Land Banking Strategies
- Presentation by Ashley Chambers (Housing Director): Chambers defined land banking as acquiring or utilizing land for productive use, emphasizing that Olympia already uses this tool informally but needs a strategic framework. She outlined benefits (preventing loss of strategic properties, removing land cost barriers, reducing development timelines, securing long-term community benefits, and improving partner pipeline readiness). She noted land typically costs 5–15% of a capital stack for housing development. She discussed potential funding sources (HB 1974 district authority, Regional Housing Council opportunity fund, CDBG, housing revenue bonds, MFTE fee-in-lieu, etc.) and presented a phased approach: inventory city-owned land (6–9 months), develop a program framework, and build a partnership pipeline. She asked for committee direction on priorities.
- Councilmember Paul Baron: Emphasized the need for a comprehensive inventory beyond city-owned property, including state, school district, port, and other public lands, as well as abandoned or tax-delinquent properties. He suggested a tiered approach (city-owned first, then others) and noted that land banking serves multiple uses (parks, public buildings, etc.). He raised questions about Olympia's public ownership percentage compared to other cities and the potential for tax revenue generation from developed properties.
- Councilmember Robert Vanderpool: Supported a deliberate, phased approach. He stressed the importance of considering zoning barriers, mixed-income housing, and partnerships with small developers and land trusts. He also suggested exploring commercial space for small businesses in downtown affordable housing projects and mentioned impact fees for housing and public banking as potential funding sources.
- Staff response: Ashley Chambers agreed to a tiered inventory, starting with city-owned properties and expanding to other public lands, with an evaluation of zoning, infrastructure, and suitability. Tim Smith (staff) noted that a cross-departmental collaboration (housing, economic development, planning, engineering) could quickly identify key sites.
- Key Outcomes: The committee directed staff to proceed with a planning-level inventory of city-owned properties and to compile a list of other public lands (state, school district, etc.), with a tiered evaluation. Staff will also develop a strategic framework for property evaluation and partnership models, potentially in tandem with the inventory. No formal vote was taken; direction was expressed through consensus.
Manufactured Home Community Preservation Recommendations
- Presentation by Krista Lenson (Housing Program): Lenson reported that Olympia has about 12 manufactured housing communities with approximately 800 units, a critical source of affordable homeownership for low- and fixed-income households. Challenges include displacement risk when parks close or rents rise (now capped at 5% annual increase under state HB 1217), costly relocation (state assistance covers only partial costs), and infrastructure upgrades (septic to sewer). She outlined four recommendations based on resident engagement and state legislative changes (SB 5198 for right to compete to purchase): (1) Education and outreach (update city website with resources, hold workshops on legal rights and rent stabilization within 3–9 months); (2) Track funding opportunities (e.g., new Commerce infrastructure grant for cooperatives, explore revolving loan fund with Public Works for septic conversions, seek regional funding); (3) Develop a prioritization matrix for targeted interventions based on displacement risk and suitability for cooperative conversion (6–12 months); (4) Increase access to alternative homeownership (starter homes, townhomes, condos) through partnerships like the Black Home Initiative and starter home pilot program.
- Councilmember Paul Baron: Praised the difficulty of the issue and supported education, funding pursuit, and intervention strategies to act quickly when triggering events occur (e.g., sale to investors).
- Councilmember Robert Vanderpool: Strongly supported all recommendations, emphasizing the need to create stability for residents, particularly on fixed incomes. He highlighted the importance of infrastructure grants, the revolving fund for septic/sewer conversions to avoid cost burdens on tenants, and coordination with Lacey (nearby city) for regional funding. He agreed that the education component is vital.
- Key Outcomes: The committee unanimously directed staff to pursue all four recommended actions as resources allow. They suggested the presentation be brought to a regular city council meeting (not a study session) for further action, potentially in October or November 2026, to avoid delay. No formal vote was recorded; direction was expressed through consensus.
Reports and Updates
- Next Meeting: The next Land Use and Environment Committee meeting is scheduled for Friday, September 18, 2026, at 1:00 PM, with a potential shortened agenda to accommodate four items: (1) Code concepts to implement the climate element of the Comprehensive Plan, (2) Home-based business code update recommendation from the Planning Commission, (3) Olympia Municipal Code and engineering design standards for ADUs and middle housing (utility hookup policies), and (4) Tree protection measures discussion. Councilmember Vanderpool noted the unusual 6-0 vote against staff recommendation on the home-based business item and plans to invite Planning Commission Chair Quinn to provide additional clarity.
Key Outcomes
- Agenda and prior meeting minutes approved unanimously.
- Staff directed to proceed with a tiered land inventory and strategic framework for land banking, with an emphasis on affordable housing and other public uses.
- All four staff recommendations for manufactured home community preservation were endorsed for implementation, with the expectation that they will be presented to the full city council for potential funding and policy adoption.
- Committee scheduling for the September 18 meeting was confirmed, with four agenda items pending.
- The committee acknowledged a discrepancy between the transcript date (August 27, 2026) and the directive-provided date (August 28, 2026).
Meeting Transcript
To the uh land use environment committee uh of the Olympia City Council. Today is Thursday, August 27th, 2026. I'm your chair, Robert Vanderpool. Paul, would you like to introduce yourself? All right, can I get approval of the agenda? I I move that we adopt the agenda as proposed. Second, off air. I alright, we have an agenda and we have several public commenters. Starting uh in person if you want to treat it is indeed unfortunate that state law prohibits temporary zoning law, as that would have been a simple solution to how we can protect our biggest trees till there is a new ordinance. I do object to the statement that was made at the last meeting that a look at permits reveals it is just not possible to both build and protect these bigger trees. When I, for example, look at the permit for Spring Creek. I see that in a two-block area that is being developed, there would only be three trees over 40 inches DBH that would have needed to have been saved. I certainly think that some adjustments could have accommodated it. I think one advantage to trying to do something different in the next two years, is doing the experiment that can inform your ordinance writing experience. We feel that protecting the largest trees by keeping bigger setbacks actually creates more affordable and livable housing. Houses built out to small property lines, are simply more expensive and don't help with affordable housing stocks. Whole developments done this way create long-term housing without shade for cooling, pollution removal, or stormwater management against flooding. Two possibilities for consideration. One, speed up the way too long two-year timeline for creation of the new tree ordinance, or two adopt a permanent language such as the county has that requires every new project to do a tree survey and submit a tree plan with the initial permit application. This would in the short term allow CPED to encourage preservation of the big trees, and it will be necessary part of any updated tree ordinance. So it would not be premature or prejudicial to pass it now. Many modern tree codes have two tracks, one for development and one for already developed properties. This allows a lot of flexibility and rulemaking. Right now, our largest trees are on older, already developed properties and will need a way to not like Tomwater, lose them all in a two sh two-year short period in which they've lost almost all of their 10 largest trees. This past weekend I visited Olympia's oldest tree. Well, biggest tree. Not inches, foot. We do not have two years to figure this out. Thank you. So we have a Charlotte Persons. Hi, I'm Charlotte Persons, and I live in Northeast Olympia. I am here today to remind you of the benefits that trees provide us, especially mature trees. You may be most aware of the climate benefits. A major reason why tree protection is part of Olympia's comprehensive plan. As they grow, trees absorb more and more carbon until they're about 40 years old. However, because of their large canopies, mature trees continue to absorb and capture more carbon dioxide than smaller trees. Some people think that all that carbon bunt dioxide just goes back into the air. And it's true, about 70% is transpired, but in the vapor that they give off as well as oxygen. But the rest of it actually is still being sequestered by the tree, the 30% into either the tree its structure itself or into the soil around the tree's roots, which is why mature trees, even though they're not growing as fast, are still absorbing a lot more carbon dioxide than small trees. Similarly, mature trees provide more benefits than small trees in stormwater management. Large tree roots absorb and sequester more surface water. Because they have more leaves, mature trees are more effective at removing from the air the particulate pollution that causes asthma, heart conditions, and cancer. If the trees are planted within 100 feet of the residents, one of the easiest benefits of mature trees to demonstrate is urban cooling in summer and heating in winter. On July 28th, I was able to go on Tomwater's tree tour, a bus ride through different subdivisions to learn the effects of past regulations and of proposed new ones. One of our last stops was Bronington Drive subdivision, built in early 2000 under Thurston County Route codes. Tomwater's urban forester Brian Coughlin told us that this was the coolest area of the city because of 20 years of tree growth. His hind heat index survey of Tomwater showed that in summer this area is 12 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than the city average. In winter, because mature trees protect against wind, Bronington Drive subdivision is six degrees warmer. Because of the benefits of retaining older, more mature trees, I urge you to include an Olympia's tree code, incentives, and regulations that will preserve existing trees in current housing areas and especially in new subdivisions. You can look for ideas in the proposed changes for the Tomwater Tree Code and in Thurston County's residential tree code.
openpublica.com