Olympia City Council signals policy review on right-of-way vacation  

The Olympia City Council is signaling a future policy discussion on right-of-way vacations after a vote to advance a Garfield Avenue proposal raised questions about sidewalk infrastructure, neighborhood safety and how public land is valued.

In a 6-1 vote on Tuesday, Dec. 9, the city council approved a petition to vacate a portion of the right-of-way and directed staff to prepare a vacation ordinance.   

City Surveyor Adam Dreller presented the request to the council, which would vacate a 10-foot-wide strip of right-of-way along the south side of Garfield Avenue at its intersection with West Bay Drive. The area proposed for vacation is approximately 1,000 square feet. The request is tied to residential development.   

According to Dreller, the right-of-way vacation would support a single-family housing project by allowing better site planning and lot configuration. The property owner plans to develop two, single-family homes on the site.   

Dreller said state law allows cities to require compensation of up to 50% of the appraised value of the land, or up to 100% if the right-of-way has existed for more than 25 years and was acquired using public funds. He said Olympia’s standard practice is to require payment equal to 50% of the appraised value.   

Council members weigh in 

Outgoing Council member Jim Cooper asked many detailed questions about the proposal. He said the council had been “burned” by a previous right-of-way vacation and stressed the importance of understanding a project’s long-term impacts.   

While Cooper said he did not see a conflict in advancing the request, he said vacations driven by private profit should require full compensation.

He emphasized the need for a future policy discussion on right-of-way vacations, and asked the council to explore whether the city could “always get the full improvements and not fee in lieu,” consider affordability, or maximize the number of units on a lot in exchange for financial considerations.  

Council member Clark Gilman supported advancing the request, saying it's an opportunity to add housing to a long-vacant site while maintaining consistency with city practice.   

“For all of our urban infill, missing middle work, and the updates we just offered, I see an opportunity here to create two building lots at what’s been a vacant lot with blackberries grown over the elevated sidewalk there for a long time,” Gilman said.

“Rather than intervening project by project, I think we should consider the policy but honor the current practice for applications already in process.”  

Council member Dani Madrone also pointed to potential benefits tied to development, particularly pedestrian infrastructure. She added that even at 50% of the appraised value, the city gains public benefit because development would likely result in sidewalk construction and maintenance.   

“If that area is never developed, it is on us to figure out how to build that sidewalk,” said Madrone, adding it was an “expensive” undertaking.   

“There is some value that we get for the public by doing this. … Absent this property being developable, we will probably never see a sidewalk there, and now that the cost is going to be borne by whoever develops it."   

Council member Kelly Green said she was willing to move the process forward, but stressed the importance of ensuring a sidewalk is actually constructed as part of the project.  

“I think it feels critical in that area to ensure that whatever happens, that sidewalk definitely happens,” said Green, adding she wanted clarity when fee-in-lieu payments could be allowed instead of construction.   

When asked about sidewalks, Public Works Director Mark Russell said frontage improvements, including sidewalks, would be required as part of any development.

He added that coordination with other departments confirmed there is “enough room there to put the planned roadway section on that particular street.”   

Public hearing  

The city council held a public hearing on the right-of-way vacation proposal.

Longtime neighborhood resident Joel Finch, who said he has lived near the intersection of Sherman Street and Garfield Avenue for 25 years, urged the council to reject the vacation.   

Finch described the block as steep, narrow and unsafe for pedestrians. The area lacks sidewalks and regular maintenance, forcing people to walk in the roadway with limited sightlines while cars frequently speed through the corridor.   

He cited past crashes on Garfield Avenue and warned that giving up public right-of-way could limit future sidewalks or safety improvements.   

Finch also said workers from nearby professional offices already park along the undeveloped lot and could spill into surrounding streets if the project moves forward, worsening traffic conflicts.   

He criticized the proposal to sell the land at half its appraised value, calling it a “sweetheart deal” that benefits private development without addressing long-standing neighborhood safety issues, and suggested Sherman Street should be converted to one-way northbound traffic to reduce risk.   

City Manager Jay Burney said the Dec. 9 vote was a procedural step and does not finalize the right-of-way vacation, but allows the request to return for final consideration at a future meeting.   

He also noted when the ordinance returns, a staff report would address the questions raised during the meeting, including sidewalk requirements, potential policy discussions about right-of-way vacation pricing and other concerns.   

Burney acknowledged the council’s interest in re-evaluating its approach to right-of-way vacations. He added the 50% payment rate for vacations would need a “larger conversation.”