Thursday, October 1, 2026
Olympia’s Land Use and Environment Committee is going to consider a proposal to terminate a long-standing development agreement that has governed growth at Briggs Urban Village for more than two decades.
The proposal is scheduled for consideration at the committee’s meeting on Thursday, Dec. 18. According to a staff report, the move would allow additional housing and help revive long-stalled commercial development in the city’s southeast neighborhood.
City staff are recommending to terminate the Briggs Urban Village Development agreement and put the issue before the Olympia City Council for consideration.
Olympia established Urban Village zoning and related development standards in 1995 to encourage mixed-use neighborhoods that integrate residential, commercial and office development.
The Briggs Village Master Plan was adopted in 2003. It establishes the specific layout, design and aesthetic vision for the village. The zoning code (Olympia Municipal Code 18.05) establishes the development standards.
Since the plan’s adoption, significant residential development has occurred. However, the commercial components, including grocery, retail and office use, have not materialized as envisioned, leaving the village’s commercial core mostly vacant for more than 20 years.
To help stimulate development in the commercial core, the applicant wants to terminate the existing development agreement, which currently caps residential units at 810. This would also allow for the potential development of accessory dwelling units associated with single-family homes.
Staff noted that economic conditions have changed significantly since the code was adopted more than two decades ago. This prompted the applicant to seek adjustments to development standards.
“City staff recommends terminating the development agreement to allow additional housing units to support the required commercial development in Briggs Urban Village,” the staff report states. “Instead of a residential unit cap, development standards can be used to determine how many units the urban village can support.”
In September, planning staff presented the proposed amendments, including:
11 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
BobJacobs
I was a city council member when this plan was adopted. Urban Villages were quite the fad all across the country at the time. Our planners were confident that the plan would work. People have moved there because of what the plan promised.
Lessons:
1) beware fads.
2) question planners hard when they project outcomes of major efforts.
3) don't trust promises unless they are in writing and enforceable.
4) cities are sometimes more interested in satisfying developers than residents.
Bob Jacobs
Monday, December 15, 2025 Report this
Tanker1982
Only a generation to acknowledge failure? Really?
Monday, December 15, 2025 Report this
lindseyac
My partner and I recently moved into the Briggs neighborhood and are pretty disappointed to see the proposals for more dense housing, but we of course understand that this plan has been in place for much longer than we’ve lived here.
In Sept (or at any past meetings), has anyone voiced concerns for wildlife? We have coyotes, eagles, killdeer, rabbits, moles (which are not a nuisance!), kestrels, hawks, osprey, deer, and so many more that use these fields/open lots as feeding grounds and safe havens from Henderson Ave and Yelm Hwy.
At the same time, I’m absolutely here for more housing in Thurston Cty, was just curious if there’s any info out there about environmental impact reports in the area!
Monday, December 15, 2025 Report this
mathisje
Another lesson:
No plan survives contact with the enemy. In this case the enemy is reality. Planning is just best-informed guess. It is why you establish benchmarks and timelines. The only seeming failure here is that it took 20 years to adjust a plan that was off course.
Monday, December 15, 2025 Report this
Somney
the Briggs Urban Village was so successful that I had no idea where it was. I kept scratching my head trying to figure out where in town it is located, finally remembered because of the YMCA,
Tuesday, December 16, 2025 Report this
Southsoundguy
Central planning doesn't work.
Tuesday, December 16, 2025 Report this
Mugwump
BobJacobs - "4) cities are sometimes more interested in satisfying developers than residents"
Having worked in data analytics, visualization, and property tax application development/management over more than 20 years for local governments I can attest to the veracity of your observation. It's no wonder that residents' overwhelming sense is that their tax dollars do not benefit them with improved infrastructure and services. All the while developers pocket hefty tax deductions or outright giveaways for creating spaces that do not meet the needs of the community. I've seen it over and over again. In my dotage it's become less an annoyance than an infuriating truth.
The only sure cure is to remove money from politics, once and for all.
Tuesday, December 16, 2025 Report this
HeikeSypeck
I am wondering why commercial development is not happening in that area. I know there is that pizza place and an ice cream parlor (if they're still there...) and I am thinking neighbors are going there and supporting those businesses but what keeps other businesses out? Is it a too high rent price? Is it too many restrictions as to what can go in there? Nobody wants yet another nail studio but there are tons of other options. There is nothing really in the area to compete with it... Tumwater Safeway is miles away, Yelm Hwy/College St. Safeway is miles away. Hops'n'Drops seems always busy, Vic's Pizza seems well frequented. There seems to be demand. I would hope the city makes it attractive to potential businesses to set up shop there or am I delusional? Same question goes for downtown Olympia: why are tons of building rather let sit empty instead of offering it for an attractive (low)rent price? Greed? Restrictions?
Wednesday, December 17, 2025 Report this
36098501
Bob Jacobs and Mugwump –
If the City of Olympia is more interested in satisfying developers than residents, it seems like they have failed miserably. Housing costs in the City have skyrocketed from a lack of supply.
In 2024, the City issued permits for 3 duplexes, 11 multifamily units, 15 townhouses, 9 ADU’s and 29 single family homes.
Even our non-profit developers are struggling to get the economics to work with projects in the City. This after being given free land, using free volunteer labor and subsidized materials.
The City estimates that it is roughly $50,000 in just permitting and impact fees to build a home. This amount doesn’t include the required offsite improvements that also seem to be a financial road block for building housing.
The one obvious incentive is the MFTE property tax exemption for multifamily units built in specific opportunity zones, like in the downtown core, determined by the City. I’m not sure how many of these have been utilized, but less than 15 in the 30 years since the State created this RCW. While controversial, the downtown core has seen a large increase in market rate housing where nearly none existed ( <10%) just 10 years ago. Even with the inventory of new supply, rents still remain high and vacancy low.
The Briggs project didn’t evolve as expected and, after 20 years of waiting, there has never been a critical mass of interest for investment in a grocery store or any other large commercial development. The City, nor the developers, can force people to buy homes, builders to build homes or businesses to choose to locate in Olympia.
Some would have preferred Briggs to remain a commercial landscaping nursery, but there are always difficult tradeoffs to facilitate growth while minimizing sprawl. Sitting empty as the land does today, doesn’t seem to be of benefit to anyone involved.
The City of Olympia chose in the 80’s and 90’s to make growth difficult, and expensive. Olympia is now feeling the lack of diverse housing and the affordability pains from those decisions today.
There are likely unique perspectives, specific experiences or examples that could be shared and understood more broadly. The exploitation of the City, taxpayers and any direct benefits the City provides to builders and developers isn’t obvious to the casual observer.
Wednesday, December 17, 2025 Report this
KarenM
The Briggs Village situation is different in some ways from the rest of the city. There is an overall plan and the commercial property is owned/managed by the successor of the Briggs family that started it.
Those who bought homes at Briggs were sold the image of a village with commercial development in the middle. With the completion of the single and multi family units almost complete, this is an immediately adjacent population to spend money at these businesses. That seems like it should have been a good business opportunity along with passing traffic on Yelm Highway and Henderson. Did the manager of this now-vacant property have a marketing plan to fill this space? The plan to have some commercial space here should be sustained.
Wednesday, December 17, 2025 Report this
36098501
KarenM – I agree. Briggs remains one of Olympia’s most promising commercial districts. It has strong residential density, steady YMCA traffic, a nearby Starbucks, and several established local shops. By most measures, it should attract serious business interest. Yet after 20 years, it hasn’t. Olympia continues to be a tough sell.
The problem isn’t location, it’s confidence. Businesses have choices, and too often, they choose elsewhere. Even long time local businesses are quietly leaving.
Downtown vacancies are very high, likely at historic levels, as offices, restaurants, and retailers confront an increasingly difficult environment. One might expect new investment to shift outward toward Briggs, yet the headwinds extend far beyond downtown. The problem is the City of Olympia itself.
Contrast Olympia’s current business climate with neighboring areas. Hawks Prairie in Lacey and South Tumwater are widely seen as more business friendly. Consider recent examples: the Craft District in Tumwater Valley, Hogum Bay Town Center, Mud Bay’s corporate move to Lacey, and Rotter’s Toyota’s relocation to Tumwater. Business growth is happening, just not in Olympia.
When many on the City Council helped advance Proposition 1, raised the sales tax, and doubled the B&O tax from 0.1 to 0.2 percent, it deepened concerns about doing business here. Each decision signals more risk, not partnership. Rebuilding trust between City leadership and the business community is essential if Olympia hopes to restore confidence and realize its full potential as a diverse community.
This is bigger than simply a Briggs issue, it is about Olympia’s economic future.
Wednesday, December 17, 2025 Report this