Residents sound off on proposed updates to Countywide Planning Policies

Posted

Editor's note: This story has been updated to reflect the correct number of people who spoke during the public hearing.

A public hearing on proposed updates to Countywide Planning Policies for Thurston County gave some members of the public a chance to object to a proposed development off of Old Highway 99. 

Dozens of people appeared before the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on Tuesday, Jan. 21, to voice concerns that the proposed updates could pave the way for Salish Landing, a proposed mixed-use development, to be built in a rural portion of the county. 

The Countywide Planning Policies are a compilation of policies serving as a framework for how the county coordinates with the cities in developing comprehensive plans. These policies are being updated as a requirement of the Growth Management Act to incorporate new state laws. 

Of the 48 people who spoke during the hearing, 39 were against the proposed development and, in effect, against the proposed policy updates. 

Concerns about the development include urban sprawl, the development’s environmental impact, as the property sits on a critical aquifer recharge area, and the land’s cultural significance to the Cowlitz Indian Tribe. 

Hearing is about policy updates, not Salish Landing 

Bar Holdings is applying for a UGA swap to transfer 46 acres of its property along Old Highway 99 to the Tumwater UGA.
Bar Holdings is applying for a UGA swap to transfer 46 acres of its property along Old Highway 99 to the Tumwater UGA.

But before the hearing began, Ashley Arai, the county’s director of community planning and economic development, clarified that the hearing was not about Salish Landing, which the county would still need to review and would have to go through its own public hearings. 

Arai emphasized that the hearing was about updating the Countywide Planning Policies to include new state requirements for tribal coordination and provisions for new urban growth areas (UGA). 

Doug Mah, from the Thurston Chamber of Commerce, who attended the hearing to support the proposed updates, said the proposed updates were “agnostic and blind” to any project proposal. 

Still, representatives from Bar Holdings were in attendance to speak favorably about the proposed updates. 

Proposed policies could benefit Bar Holdings 

Part of the proposed updates deals with how the county would conduct UGA swaps.  

UGAs are boundaries around cities where urban growth is encouraged to separate urban and rural areas. Swapping of UGAs means transferring areas in the unincorporated county to a city UGA in exchange for land within that UGA. 

This portion of the updates is critical to Bar Holdings, as it proposes a UGA swap necessary to formally propose Salish Landing. A UGA swap is necessary as the current zoning of the project site only allows one dwelling unit per 5 acres or just six units for the entire 33-acre development. 

As part of its proposed UGA swap, Bar Holdings wants to remove around 65 acres of land north of Black Lake from the Tumwater UGA and swap it for around 46 acres where Salish Landing is being proposed. 

Swap laws complicate proposed policies 

In exchange for the Salish Landing property, Bar Holdings proposes transferring 65 acres of land north of Black Lake within the Tumwater UGA to the county.
In exchange for the Salish Landing property, Bar Holdings proposes transferring 65 acres of land north of Black Lake within the Tumwater UGA to the …

The primary concern among people who oppose the proposed policy updates is how the county wants to implement UGA swaps, considering that there are two laws dealing with UGA swaps. 

Before a 2022 state law that allowed UGA swaps, adjustments to UGA boundaries were only allowed through the expansion or reduction of UGAs. The law allowed UGA swaps, but only during comprehensive plan “updates,” which cities and counties produce at least every 10 years. 

For Thurston County, which updates its comprehensive plan every five years, its upcoming comprehensive plan is scheduled for adoption in late 2025, so this year qualifies as an “update” year. 

In 2024, a new version of the law allowed UGA swaps to take place during “annual reviews” or annual amendments of comprehensive plans, but with stricter environmental safeguards relating to aquifer recharge areas. 

That distinction between the two versions of the law is important, as the Bar Holdings property sits on a critical aquifer recharge area. Even the county hydrologist, Kevin Hansen, acknowledged in a report the impact of the proposed UGA swap to groundwater. 

“These proposed parcels are entirely designated as Type I (critical aquifer recharge area). Groundwater recharge timing would probably change, depending on the stormwater management technology chosen, possibly negatively impacting streamflow in the adjacent Deschutes River,” the report stated. 

Residents oppose how county wants to implement swaps 

To account for both 2022 and 2024 laws, the current proposed language in the Countywide Planning Policies is that the county would refer to the 2022 law for UGA swaps during the “periodic updates” and the 2024 law for “annual reviews” of the comprehensive plan, to which several people objected to at the public hearing. 

There is confusion as to whether the 2024 law supersedes the 2022 law, as “annual review” could be interpreted to include “periodic updates.”

For residents, such as Elizabeth McNagny, that interpretation should be the case.  

“Annual review is an umbrella term that means any type of change during any year, whether that change is an amendment or an update,” McNagny said during the hearing. 

“At a minimum, the draft policy on swaps creates confusion because it creates two different types of swaps. … That simply doesn't make sense, because it sets up a situation where a developer can simply wait until an update year and argue that only the 2022 law applies,” she added. 

Arai said the county received writings from the Washington Department of Commerce that the 2024 law does not supersede the 2022 law.  

However, according to Arai, the department is still working on the rules for both laws, which would not be adopted until April or May.

Some people suggested during the hearing that the BoCC should wait for the rules before adopting the new Countywide Planning Policies. 

Commissioner Fournier comments 

Before the hearing closed, some of the commissioners commented on the issue. 

Commissioner Wayne Fournier said he looks forward to working with Arai to consider everyone’s comments, but emphasized the difference between policy and the Salish Landing project. 

“Policy is different than development proposal. And if you came in and you were talking about a development proposal, or you know, what was going on in your backyard, that's different than the county-level policy work that's being done,” Fournier said. 

In response, a man from the audience shouted: “Don't try to gaslight us!” 

Fournier also commented earlier on before the hearing that the proposed policy change addresses areas within UGAs that are not suitable for construction. 

Speaking of his time as mayor of Tenino, Fournier said that he always questioned why certain areas are part of the UGA when construction in the area is not viable.  

“There's no chance for development to occur in the place where that UGA is established. I look at some of the other cities, and it's the same way,"  Fournier said.

"This is creating the framework for us to try to work with communities to make sure their UGAs are proper and usable.”

Comments

6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • RondaLarsonKramer

    Excellent article. Thank you. Click here to watch the hearing (public comment starts at 1:57:00): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DApzSeKRl8&list=PLaJjwEHKVN-Tcsq1PbykXcNJP_8FixfZ1&index=2&t=6661s.

    A particularly important moment in the hearing was at the end, when Jim Lazar said Tumwater's UGA is already too big. It was at 3:32:18. He said the buildable lands report indicates that there are 9,000 buildable units in the existing UGA beyond the 20-year forecast of population growth. By law, the UGA is supposed to be no larger than what's needed to accommodate population growth forecasts for the next 20 years. Some may say "Growth has to go somewhere." They are correct--it has to go in the existing UGA. There's no need to change UGA boundaries and remove greenbelts to accommodate growth.

    On another note, just to add context to the gaslighting comment from the audience, Brett Clubbe (who helped save many old growth forests in the Timber Wars in the 1990s), said to Comm. Fournier, "Don't try to gaslight us, Dude. Come on. It's all connected." That was at 3:38:40. What he meant by this was that one cannot view the proposed policies in a vacuum because the relevant provisions that people are objecting to were written by none other than the developers' attorney (Heather Burgess). She wrote them to effectuate future approval of the BAR Holdings/Salish Landing mini-city at Old Hwy 99 and 93rd south of the Olympia Airport. Specifically, she used legal sleight of hand to make it seem like developers don't have to comply with the statute that says UGAs have to contain greenbelts and open spaces. Under her language (which the county commissioners are voting on at their meeting this coming week), UGAs here can gradually eliminate greenbelts and open spaces and become one big parking lot.

    Another thing to know is that planning staff's comments about Commerce should be taken with a grain of salt because Commerce has since changed its position, as County Commissioners will soon find out when the rules get made public.

    The documentation that supports the claims in my comment can be found here: https://www.upnotout.net/draft-swap-policy.

    Friday, January 31 Report this

  • Snevets

    Thank you @RondaLarsonKramer.

    Saturday, February 1 Report this

  • RondaLarsonKramer

    Just a slight correction on number of people who provided public testimony. The county has reported internally that over 50 people provided public testimony, not 38. Over 60 people provided written comments in advance.

    Saturday, February 1 Report this

  • RondaLarsonKramer

    I counted 8 people testifying in favor. Since the county said over 50 people testified, that means only 16% of the people testifying were in favor.

    Saturday, February 1 Report this

  • jwiley

    This is the critical aquifer recharge zone categorization of the "Bar Holdings" land, proposed for paving over for developer's profits. It is a CARA Cat One property. It has glacial outwash, thus is a high recharge for the Deschutes River and surrounding springs and wells. This is taken verbatim from the Thurson County website:

    24.10.010 - Applicability.

    This chapter applies to proposals for new development and alteration and expansion of existing uses listed in Table 24.10-1 that are located in an area defined as a critical aquifer recharge area in this title. These regulations also apply to the one-, five- and ten-year time of travel zones of wellhead protection areas meeting the criteria in this chapter. See the map entitled "wellhead protection areas." These maps shall be on file at the Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department.

    A.

    "Category I, extreme aquifer sensitivity" includes:

    1.

    Those areas which provide very rapid recharge with little protection, contain coarse soil textures and soil materials, and are derived from glacial outwash materials. The predominant soil series and types are those listed as Category I in Table 24.10-4 at the end of this chapter; and

    2.

    Wellhead protection areas as defined by Chapter 24.03 TCC, including their one-, five-, and ten-year time of travel zones.

    3.

    Aquifers in subsurface geologic formations that are extremely vulnerable to contamination, as listed in Table 24.10-3 at the end of this chapter.

    Sunday, February 2 Report this

  • Tamioly

    First off- it's silly the UGA swap has got this far ( helping devlopers skirt regulations and get rich on the tax payers dollar-tax payers pay for the utilies that run out to these urban sprawl developments).

    The Growth Management Act already allows expansion of the UGA (when there is little room left for development within) in a more vetted manner -taking in enviromental and community planning concerns.

    Seems like all the local jurisdictions claim to be behind rehab and protection of the Deshutes. Driving unchecked devlopment down hywy 99 next to the Deshutes will likely lower ordinary high water levels and subject the river to more toxic run off and spill contamination.

    I say the language of this policey should not be vauge to allow loopholes, it should reflect the intent of the law and other regulations.

    Monday, February 3 Report this