Thursday, October 1, 2026
Some Olympia residents could support reducing the minimum grocery store size in Briggs Village to 9,200 square feet, but only if it's backed by a signed tenant commitment.
The condition was repeatedly expressed during public comment at the Olympia Land Use and Environment Committee meeting on Thursday, Dec. 18.
Committee members, Chair Dani Madrone, Jim Cooper and Robert Vanderpool voted to advance termination of a 20-year-old development agreement tied to the project.
Many residents raised concerns that proposed changes could weaken requirements for neighborhood-serving commercial space, particularly a grocery store, that many said was central to the village’s original vision.
Brian Faller urged the committee to make two minor changes to the proposed urban village code amendments. He urged the city to clearly state that required commercial space must be calculated based on the entire Briggs Village acreage, including open space and critical areas, to prevent future reinterpretations that could reduce commercial obligations.
Faller and others want to restore the 12,000-square-foot store minimum, but only allow flexibility to 9,200 square feet if the developer secures a committed grocery tenant.
Briggs Village resident Chris Wickham said walkable commercial services were a major reason people moved to the area.
"Many of us move to Briggs for exactly that reason — to have a commercial district that was within walking distance of our homes," Wickham said.
He noted existing businesses in Briggs Village are thriving and criticized the developer for not making a serious effort to develop the commercial zone.
While Wickham said he would accept a smaller grocery store if necessary, he urged the city to retain clear requirements if the development agreement is rescinded.
Andrew Peterson, who has lived in Briggs Village for more than a decade, urged the committee to protect the original community vision by preventing further reductions in the developer’s obligations.
He supported a compromise that would maintain the 12,000-square-foot grocery store minimum, while allowing flexibility for a committed tenant.
Peterson also criticized efforts to exclude certain areas from commercial space calculations, warning such changes would erode the walkable, mixed-use character that drew residents to Briggs Village.
“If you let Mr. Gordie Gill (developer) continue to whittle away at the Briggs and general urban village plan, there will soon be nothing left,” Peterson said.
“The City of Olympia has no duty to reduce these obligations or maximize its profits, especially in such a way that would harm the people that live here.”
Several speakers said the proposed changes raised broader questions about trust between the city, residents and local businesses that relied on the original plan.
Meegan Cronk, owner of Humble Cow Ice Cream in Briggs Village, said people made major life and financial decisions based on the city-approved plan.
“We bought our homes and opened our business according to that plan,” Cronk said. “Olympia needs to stick with our plan and establish trust with the people whose lives depend on it.”
Jim Lazar reminded the committee that he was involved in the earliest discussions on the formation of the community.
He told the committee that the retail component, including a grocery store, was a core condition of the Briggs Village deal. The developer received different standards on density, parking and streets.
Lazar said residents moved to Briggs expecting walkable access to daily services, and that obligation should not be set aside for profitability concerns.
“Maybe it is not profitable for the developer, but that’s the price for the concessions and benefits he received,” said Lazar, who has contributed a number of Reader Opinions to The JOLT.
He urged the committee to adopt the neighborhood-backed recommendation to retain the 12,000-square-foot grocery store minimum, while allowing flexibility only if a smaller tenant is secured.
“Let’s make sure the grocery store is built … it’s part of the deal. When you make a deal for a development, you need to be prepared to honor that commitment,” Lazar concluded.
The committee unanimously voted to recommend terminating the Briggs Urban Village development agreement and forwarding the matter to the full Olympia City Council.
Senior Planner Jackson Ewing said the 2003 agreement, negotiated with the Briggs family, now conflicts with current housing and climate goals. The agreement caps residential development at 810 units.
Ewing said terminating the Briggs Village development agreement would allow increased housing density needed to support long-promised commercial uses, including a grocery store.
He noted Briggs already has infrastructure in place, including sewer, water, transit access and bike lanes. This would make a better location for added housing than undeveloped areas of the city that lack those services.
Keeping the development agreement in place would continue to limit residential growth in the village, including restrictions on accessory dwelling units.
He added that terminating the agreement and adopting the updated code would allow future changes through master plan amendments, subject to city council approval.
Briggs Village is a 137-acre, mixed-use development along Henderson Boulevard that has been planned since the late 1990s. It was envisioned as a walkable urban village with housing, retail and a grocery store.
Developers told the Olympia Planning Commission in January that changing market conditions, including struggling retail and excess office space, and stronger returns from housing, have made the original commercial requirements difficult to meet.
The developers are seeking amendments to Olympia Municipal Code 18.05 to advance the Briggs Village development, which includes changes to increase residential density, allow taller mixed-use buildings, and reduce the minimum grocery store size to move the project forward.
10 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
TheVirtualOne
This is a perfect example of why government should stay out of the planning process. There are so many reasons why businesses fail, and this demonstrates the huge disconnect between reality and the idealistic views of government planning and policies. The government’s failure to understand how businesses function and what makes them successful is why nobody is interested in operating a grocery store in Briggs Village. The zoning laws, code restrictions, meddling and lack of business knowledge and experience within the city are illustrated in this failure. Get rid of all these useless people and processes attempting to control unrealistic expectations. They have done nothing but destroy the city and make developers run for the hills.
Friday, December 19, 2025 Report this
Quadlok
If business can't produce results that every actual human involved wants, that is the fault of the business. Subordinating the interests of people and government to the pursuit of profit is precisely why we're having record flooding, the highest healthcare costs in the world, and are preparing to launch another war to protect ExxonMobil's profit margin.
Friday, December 19, 2025 Report this
Skywarrior-Pilot
The Grocery Business has been consolidating for over a decade, and that process has accelerated due to price, at Costco, on-line shopping convenience and the increase in single person households.
The wait for commercial development at Briggs looks like a long one to me... Businesses live and die, based on profit
I chose my home based on its proximity to existing commercial activity and transit availability. Is the neighborhood (N. Carlyon) neat and orderly like Briggs? No, it's a mess of overlapping jurisdictions, lack of storm sewers, lousy pavement and exhibits the worst of government coordination and endures sloppy municipal services. That said, it's walkable, and convenient.
Perhaps it's time to get real, merge city services, and put the overhead savings into existing infrastructure and gain "affordable" living.
Friday, December 19, 2025 Report this
KarenM
Do we want this to become just one big housing area with no services or retail? (Except what is already there.)
This area has a great mix of housing types including senior housing, apartments, townhouses, and single family. This location looks like it has a good surrounding population of potential customers plus Henderson and Yelm Highway traffic. I don't think the expectation is a large super store. Perhaps the Coop could move there. Or another SPUDs. These are stores that do seem to be making it despite the big stores.
This whole area is walkable already because sidewalks were install when it was built. Now it just needs some commercial. More housing units are okay, but this should not become purely housing-only.
The city is not newly imposing this on the owner. The development was originally proposed to include commercial and that shouldn't change.
Saturday, December 20, 2025 Report this
Skywarrior-Pilot
Karen, I agree with many of your points, but it can't happen if the planned businesses don't pencil due to changed business conditions.
This area could be the municipal gem of the Pacific Northwest. Instead, it's three cities on separate paths, united only by the TRPC and the plethora of the sub-governments such as the Port, LOTT, IT etc. Further, how many school districts do we need? Affordability begins with government.
The scar of the abandoned brewery, reminds me of Bethlehem, PA. Absolute decay and squalor, at one of the three terminus points of the Oregon Trail.
Saturday, December 20, 2025 Report this
HappyOlympian
Anything planned in the 1990s completely archaic now and even more so once something finally in place. Small scale retail/restaurant an incredibly difficult business model, and complex Olympia regulations not helping; hoping to create a neighborhood-friendly commercial zone kind of a la-la idea. Considering how long it takes to put some thing together and build, if someone willing to do anything there I say let 'em have a go.
Saturday, December 20, 2025 Report this
BobJacobs
The developer knew the development conditions attached to the Briggs Urban Village when he bought it. Business conditions have changed, he has lost money on the deal, and now he wants us to bail him out. How many of us have had to sell stocks at a loss under similar circumstances? He can do the same.
I can't fathom the city council's willingness to help this guy out. He hasn't even honored requirements for existing development, like installing street name signs and striping the streets (see the area around the restaurant/ice cream/dentist building).
The city's record of dealing with developers is abysmal.
Bob Jacobs
Saturday, December 20, 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, is walkable and has several established local shops. By most measures, it should attract serious business interest. Yet after 20 years, it hasn’t. I was wrong 20 years ago when I thought the plan would work. I didn't foresee the City of Olympia becoming such a tough sell.
The City Council can want it. The developer wanted it. The Briggs residents can want it. The surrounding area even needs it. We can continue to hope for it. The problem is that the government, or the developer, can't demand, or force, a business to invest there.
As patiently as we have all waited the past 20 years, and walked past vacant land dreaming of a grocery store or other commercial amenity, it just might be another 20 years. Or, it might be never. I've seen every effort to make it work, and the developers would have been far better off if the plan had worked. It hasn't.
So when business people, representing both big and small businesses, have to make hard decisions to survive, they will pivot to something that is needed and will create value immediately. This isn't uncommon. It is the everyday reality of those responsible for businesses - not to mention economics 101.
The problem isn’t location, it’s confidence. Businesses have choices, and too often in recent years, they choose somewhere other than Olympia. Even long time local businesses have quietly left the community.
Downtown vacancies are very high, likely at historically bad levels, as offices, restaurants, and retailers confront an increasingly difficult environment in which to do their business. One might expect new investment to then shift outward toward Briggs, yet the headwinds extend 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 and businesses choose to go there. Consider recent examples: the Craft District in Tumwater Valley, Hogum Bay Town Center and Rotter’s Toyota’s relocation to Tumwater. Harbor Wholesale chose Lacey. Harley Davidson chose Lacey. Lemongrass left downtown and chose both Lacey and 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 ever restore confidence in the business community and realize its full potential as a diverse community.
This is bigger than simply a Briggs issue, it is about Olympia’s economic future.
See my comments in regards to businesses in Olympia in a previous JOLT article.
https://www.thejoltnews.com/stories/olympia-city-council-to-vote-on-01-public-safety-tax,26979?
Saturday, December 20, 2025 Report this
Skywarrior-Pilot
36098501, your comments were a direct hit! We could fly Wing!
Olympia see's itself as a "City State," rather than the poorly managed municipal government it is. The only cure, a Priorities of Government, program based budget. That will deliver a balanced budget, without ratcheting up taxes and utility fees constantly.
Let's start improving "Affordability" with reduced municipal spending levels, and development that adds value to the tax base.
Saturday, December 20, 2025 Report this
36098501
This is a long one, but it shares a perspective not heard in community discussions.
For some time, I’ve been reflecting on Olympia’s City Council structure, and it has become increasingly clear that our current “At-Large” system no longer matches the City we’ve become. Too often, Olympia civic tension is framed as left versus right or progressive versus conservative. That framing misses the deeper issue. Olympia faces a structural problem of priority asymmetry.
Even within a broadly progressive community, priorities vary sharply. Our current system doesn’t just under represent political minorities; it also fails to reflect the diverse priorities within the majority. As a result, entire sectors of the community, particularly those in business, innovation, and development, often find themselves without a meaningful voice in shaping public policy.
In theory, open dialogue would bridge that gap. In practice, many residents feel that public forums have become unsafe spaces for dissenting views. There are many examples of individuals being followed, doxed, or targeted after participating in Council or community meetings that have created a chilling effect on civic engagement. On platforms like Reddit and Facebook, lists have been circulated in a coordinated effort to boycott local businesses or community members who speak out. This has substantially increased a sense of personal risk. Many people now weigh the personal cost of honesty against the public value of participation and too often, silence prevails. This atmosphere, more than ideology, constrains Olympia’s ability to address problems collaboratively.
Just to prove that point, it is why I'm 36098501.
When voices are silenced, blind spots form. Well intentioned policies can miss key realities and produce unintended consequences that could have been avoided if a broader range of perspectives were actively included. This narrowing of input is not a moral failing of the good people involved, it is a structural one, reinforced by how the Council seats are filled.
Because all seven seats are elected “At Large,” a single cohesive voting bloc can effectively control the entire Council. When vacancies arise, replacements are appointed by sitting members, conferring a valuable incumbency advantage to their next election and further perpetuating the same closed networks of influence. Over time, this framework limits innovation, discourages dissent, and weakens the democratic vitality of civic life in Olympia.
It is time for Olympia to adopt a Hybrid council model, one that combines District based and “At-Large” representation. For example, three or four seats could be elected by District, while the remaining positions, including the Mayor, remain city wide. Many growing cities have adopted similar models to balance local accountability while maintaining a strong cohesive citywide vision.
District representation would give every neighborhood, from the downtown core to the healthcare corridors and suburban edges, a direct and accountable voice on the Council. It would also encourage new candidates to run as campaign costs and complexity are substantially reduced, deepen neighborhood relationships as they come together to choose their local representation, and strengthen accountability by clearly linking a Council Member to a more defined constituency.
Just as importantly, it would enrich diversity of perspective and improve responsiveness which are qualities Olympia will need to navigate the complexity of its future with fairness, equity and confidence.
A balanced structure, with three or four citywide seats maintaining a broader, unifying focus, would ensure big picture planning remains intact while still elevating currently voiceless Districts. This approach promotes collaboration rather than division, pairing local knowledge with shared purpose.
Olympia’s economic base is directly tied to state government spending and state tax funded jobs and income. These dollars then flows through to City tax revenue. This can cultivate a false sense of economic security that obscures the daily realities faced by local employers, entrepreneurs, developers and nonprofits. These are the very groups that sustain community culture and resilience. Without representing their voices, Olympia risks becoming less adaptive and less economically balanced.
A Hybrid council structure would help correct that imbalance, creating a government that listens more closely, responds more swiftly, and represents the full spectrum of Olympia’s people and priorities.
Sunday, December 21, 2025 Report this