Build Up, Not Out
FAQs
By law, the burden of proof is on the developers to justify the need for the swap. It is also their burden to show their proposal will NOT "increase pressures to urbanize rural or natural resource lands." (This requirement is in both the 2022 and 2024 swap laws). And as in all cases with UGA boundary changes and swaps, developers have the burden of proof to show the swap will result in no impact to critical areas. As explained in more detail below, they cannot meet their burden in any of these areas.
UGA Swaps Explained
Do you like trees? Then you should be a big fan of infill housing. That means building up, not out, and putting houses where we’ve already cut down all the trees. “UGA” stands for Urban Growth Area. An Urban Growth Area is like a belt around a city. The belt holds in development so that it doesn’t spill into the rural areas. The purpose of a UGA is to keep urban sprawl from paving over rural lands and creating endless strip malls. A county and city are generally not allowed to expand the city's UGA, or belt, until it has run out of land to accommodate population growth projections for the next 20 years. A UGA swap is an exception to this rule. It's supposed to be used to allow minor adjustments in one situation only: where one area of the UGA is built out and there is no more available land in that part of the UGA, while another part of the UGA is not getting built out and there is plenty of land in that area. In those cases, if all the other swap law criteria are met, the county can move the belt so that it surrounds new, undeveloped land in the part where development used up all the land inside the UGA, as long as the county then takes other land out of the UGA where development has not been happening. In the end of the swap, there can't be more land inside the UGA than there was before the swap. That's how it's supposed to work. However, because the law is new, some county elected officials, some county planning commissioners, and potentially some city or county planning staff appear to be misunderstanding the law and heading toward approving swaps that do not meet legal criteria. The first of these is Bar Holdings. If the Board of County Commissioners approves the Bar Holdings swap, the concern is that they will continue approving swaps that are not legal. This endangers rural and natural resource lands everywhere.
BAR Holdings UGA Swap
BAR Holdings is an LLC owned by two developers: Rob Rice and Mike Brewer. Rob owns Rob Rice Homes, which is Thurston County’s largest local home developer. Mike owns American Pump and Drilling. Their LLC owns 33 acres of forestland on the corner of 93rd and Old Highway 99 (a mile south of the Olympia Airport).
Because the land is outside Tumwater's UGA, nothing can be built on it except 6 houses. So they bought it on the cheap. They are trying to get it into the UGA so they can put a mini-city on it and make a killing. But this would violate the law. It would also degrade groundwater quality and salmon habitat in the nearby Deschutes River and would be inconsistent with the county's Climate Mitigation Plan. Read below for more details.
CLICK ON A BULLET POINT BELOW TO BE TAKEN TO THAT PARAGRAPH.
The proposal will result in a net loss of water protections.
Retired county planner and water resource manager Gordon White states that the development would have a negative impact on well water and river water. Similarly, the county hydrologist's report indicates that BAR Holdings UGA swap would be detrimental to groundwater, river water, and salmon runs. The forestland on which the developers want to build a mini-city has a very high water table and extremely permeable soil. The aquifer most likely flows into the Deschutes River. The river is only 260 feet from the proposed development. Additionally, several important documented springs emerge nearby to feed baseflow in the Deschutes River. Depending on the springs’ capture areas, the flow to these springs has the potential to short-circuit (accelerate) the movement into the river of any contaminants in stormwater, leaks, and spills. Along with contamination risk, there are instream flow impacts. The Deschutes River near these parcels frequently fails to meet Minimum Instream Flows. As with all rivers, adequate streamflows must be maintained for water quality and aquatic habitat. The Deschutes Watershed is classified as “high risk” by Ecology. Yet, stormwater management requirements at the BAR Holdings parcel would possibly further reduce Deschutes River discharges. This would exacerbate the river's already lower-than-required Minimum Instream Flows.
The project would also put development pressure on surrounding rural and natural resource lands, further impacting the river. This is because extending sewer service to the parcel is a de facto encouragement of land development around the parcel. Many developable parcels south of the proposed site are also very close to the river and would be subject to similar water supply limits, stormwater design limitations/costs, leaks/spills and streamflow reductions. The multiple hydrologic liabilities of the proposal suggest that other locations further from the Deschutes River and closer to existing water/wastewater utility service might be superior development alternatives.
Additionally, the swap would result in a net loss in groundwater protections because the parcels that would be swapped out of the urban growth area near Black Lake have far less permeable soil and/or have a deeper water table compared to the BAR Holdings parcels. Specifically, the BAR Holdings parcel is zoned "Critical Aquifer Resource Area-Extreme" while the parcels that would be swapped out are zoned merely "Critical Aquifer Resource Area-Moderate."
The proposal would pave over a wildlife corridor.
BAR Holdings is a wildlife corridor that would connect the Olympic Mountains with the Cascades if wildlife crossings were built over I-5. Watch this video on habitat connectivity by WDFW.
The reason the BAR Holdings parcel is so important is because it is a choke point in a wildlife corridor that is connected to 770 acres of preserved lands, shown on this map in red. The preserved lands represent the largest intact habitat complex within the lower reaches of this rapidly urbanizing river system. The entities owning these preserved parcels are the Capitol Land Trust (307.56 acres), OlyEcosystems (430.48 acres), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (32.05 acres).
Animals rely on movement to survive, in pursuit of food, resources, and seasonal habitat. As Washington's human population grows, the state's natural habitats grow increasingly fragmented. Habitat connectivity is about ensuring animals have the freedom of movement they need to thrive.
The reason the BAR Holdings parcel is so important is because it is a choke point in a wildlife corridor that is connected to 770 acres of preserved lands, shown on this map in red.
Map of deer crossing from Thurston Co. Roads and Transportation Services. Markups by Ronda Larson Kramer. Map creation date unknown, but it was likely prior to 2010. Available at page 7 here: https://weblink.co.thurston.wa.us/publicworksrightofway/DocView.aspx?id=5767621&page=1&searchid=bbf738ab-f786-407a-a5cf-a76a9486e234&cr=1
Google Earth, copyright 2024 Airbus. Markups by Ronda Larson Kramer
Google Earth, copyright 2024 Airbus. Markups by Ronda Larson Kramer.
Google Earth image copyright 2024 Maxar Technologies. Markups by Ronda Larson Kramer.
In the big picture, putting housing far from people's jobs increases vehicle miles traveled, increasing emissions. And cutting down a forest to build a mini-city removes carbon storage capacity and removes the cooling effect of the existing trees. Specifically, the project would violate the following goals of the Thurston Climate Mitigation Plan: T1.1 - Coordinated long term planning - future infill and urban sprawl reduction. Coordinate long-term plans with transit agencies to project where increased density would support more transit corridors. Then change zoning/ density that would support new transit corridors and variety of household incomes. Promote long-term equity and healthy communities by developing incentives such as density bonuses for development where a percentage of the units will be permanently affordable for household incomes. Look for opportunities to meet the Sustainable Thurston land use vision by reducing urban sprawl. T1.2 - Middle-density housing. Reevaluate and change zoning as needed to allow for a range of housing types to promote social economic integration of housing near our region’s urban centers or moderate-density zones. T1.11 - Land use efficiency. Set integrated goals to consider network efficiency and reduce urban sprawl in land use decisions, including how density in certain areas supports transit, increases efficiency of utility service, and other support facilities. Consider vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in identifying locations for large employment facilities.
November 15, 2024, view of BAR Holdings' forest from the eagles' nest platform on the southern border. Photo courtesy of Ray Gleason
The proposal violates the draft climate chapter in the new comprehensive plan.
The county is updating its comprehensive plan. State legislation requires it to create a new chapter on climate. Click here to view the draft climate chapter.
Pages 24 and 25 of the draft chapter would prohibit BAR Holdings:
GOAL 1: ENHANCE COMMUNITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE BY INTEGRATING SUSTAINABLE AND ADAPTIVE PRACTICES INTO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
OBJECTIVE IA: Establish land use patterns that increase the resilience of the built environment, ecosystems, and communities to climate change and further environmental justice outcomes.
POLICIES:
1.A.1 Conduct environmental justice audits prior to creating new zoning designations or rezoning.
------> The 200-plus apartment units far from the urban core and the county's largest employers would requiring the moderate-income residents to use more of their income on commuting. The Buildable Lands Reports says there are plenty of lots closer to town where developers could build these units instead, making commuting less expensive for the residents.
1.A.2 Utilize land use tools to increase resilience to climate hazards and protect vulnerable areas.
------> Paving over a carbon sink (i.e., a forest) to build a mini-city reduces resilience. Paving over a vulnerable critical aquifer recharge area harms groundwater and instream flows of the nearby Deschutes River--a river that Ecology has already said is high risk, and this problem will only get worse as climate change causes reduced rainfall.
1.A.3 Support and maintain stable urban growth areas to reduce development pressure on rural and resource lands.
------> BAR Holdings is the definition of unstable urban growth areas. Not only does it require a change to the UGA in the initial building of the development, but once it is built, it will cause development pressure on surrounding resource lands, enticing future developers to ask for future UGA swaps, creating a dominos effect on the parcels all around it.
1.A.4 Identify and implement strategies to increase the resilience of the shoreline environment to sea level rise and other climate hazards, while also protecting shoreline ecological functions, allowing water-dependent uses, and providing public access.
1.A.5 Update and maintain a critical areas ordinance that incorporates climate change considerations.
l.A.6 Factor climate impacts into the full life-cycle costs of roads, buildings, parks, utilities, and other assets - from their initial siting and design to their ongoing operations and maintenance.
------> Putting a mini-city so far outside the urban core will require the City of Tumwater to extend more road surface, utilities, and other assets farther out, too, compounding the effects of the proposed development on the climate.
BAR Holdings Concept Design--a lot of pavement
February 17, 2023, Olympian article photo from Mike Brewer, with extensive markups by Ronda Larson Kramer.
The proposal could worsen the housing crisis.
The BAR Holdings development is unachievable because it will get tied up in costly court battles. It simply does not qualify for a UGA swap as a matter of law. The county is nevertheless throwing money at it, with staff time and resources that would be better spent helping other housing projects get built. The precious tax dollars and staff time that this doomed project is sucking up is slowing down the housing pipeline.
Adhering to the current Urban Growth Area boundaries does not halt all development; rather, it seeks to ensure that progress occurs in harmony with farmlands and our natural environment.
Best practices exist for developers to minimize harm to watersheds and agricultural lands while pursuing growth and new housing. Keeping growth inside existing UGA boundaries encourages sustainable approaches that can lead to more resilient and livable communities. By supporting current UGA boundaries, we’re investing in the long-term health and prosperity of our county. And focusing county resources on proposals that don't violate the law from the get go will help address the housing crisis.
The proposal would result in the paving over of the Cowlitz Trail.
The developers have named their proposal "Salish Landing" because they are aware that it would destroy a remnant of the Cowlitz Trail, a historical tribal trading route, and they want to whitewash this. The Cowlitz Trail is potentially 9,000 years old. It later became a spur of the Oregon Trail. According to Dave Welch, Oregon Trail historian, there are only a couple other known remnants of the Cowlitz Trail that remain unpaved. Under RCW 36.70A.020(13), land use planning must “identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance”.
Map created by Ronda Larson Kramer using February 11, 1854 survey plat map of Township 17N Range 2W, from the General Land Office Records from the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. (Public domain)
Overlay map showing Cowlitz Trail (yellow line) running through Bar Holdings. Map courtesy of David Welch and Robin Baker.
The parcel was owned by Chief Leschi's executioner.
Who owned this parcel originally? The Nisqually people. Who took the land originally? The very man who kicked the pin from the trap door on the gallows that hung the Nisqually Tribe's Chief Leschi. (Leschi was exonerated in 2004). Leschi's executioner was William H. Mitchell, a 24-year-old sheriff's deputy who in later life callously boasted of sending Leschi to "the happy hunting grounds."
Painting, Nisqually Chief Lesch (1808-1858), created 1904, Public Domain.
William Henry Mitchell, executioner of Chief Leschi, and a founder of the Mitchell, Lewis & Staver Company, dealers in mining and milling machinery, wagons and carriages, Seattle, Washington, USA circa 1900. The company still exists as of 2024, now based in Tacoma, Washington. Source: A Volume of Memoirs and Genealogy of Representative Citizens of the City of Seattle and County of King, Washington, Including Biographies of Many of Those Who Have Passed Away, New York and Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Company. 1903. Plate facing page 256. No photographer credited.
Any UGA Swap should trigger an EIS requirement.
Developers argue that the UGA swap is needed to address the housing crisis. However, this perspective fails to acknowledge that the current UGA boundaries contain sufficient land capacity for housing development. The low price of $400,000 that developers paid for the parcel in 2018 was low precisely because it was outside the UGA and not able to be developed. Developers have no entitlement to a UGA swap that would allow them to profit significantly to the detriment of the Deschutes River and long-term resiliency and livability of our community.
Unchecked development in counties like King and Snohomish has historically led to significant harm, forcing residents to bear the costs of cleanups. Enacting policy that requires an environmental impact statement (EIS) before any UGA swap can occur in Thurston County creates an additional layer of protection, enabling citizens to see the full impacts of a developer's proposal so that they can act as stewards of their environment.
Recently, in a case brought by Futurewise against King County, the Washington Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Growth Management Hearings Board concluding that the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires King County to do an EIS on a non-project land use decision. The Court held that a "no significant impact" decision by the county was unacceptable if it is reasonable to assume there would be an impact from the land use change. The Court stated, "The County must meaningfully engage in the SEPA process when making a threshold determination and must complete a full environmental review where significant environmental impacts are likely to occur . . . ."
An EIS requirement empowers communities to take legal action against bad development proposals, ensuring citizens have the data to protect their watersheds and natural resources when otherwise there would be a lack of transparency.
An EIS requirement serves as a proactive tool for environmental management. Instead of waiting for the harmful effects of irreversible environmental damage, citizens can use the information from the EIS to address potential harms before they become irreversible, preventing costly cleanups. And an EIS requirement targets serious environmental harm. Stopping a UGA swap would be necessary only when there is clear evidence the development would result in environmental harm, which is crucial for preventing the unchecked development that has contributed to current environmental crises in other counties.
This quote is spot on with BAR Holdings: “The Washington Supreme Court’s decision is as important for cities as it is for rural and agricultural areas. It ensures that urban infrastructure remains in urban areas and does not sprawl: exactly the reason the Growth Management Act was passed. Locally, it preserves the 'country' in 'Woodinville wine country' and protects a view of rural lands from nearby urban businesses. Countywide and statewide, it protects cities from migration of businesses to less expensive rural facilities. And it protects farmers in particular from the land speculation that results from that migration. Sprawl, benefitting a few people financially, hurts the rest of us and the environment. I am very grateful to the Supreme Court majority for the wisdom embodied in this decision.” — former Woodinville City Councilmember Susan Boundy-Sanders
The developers' application contains greenwashing.
The developers' application contains false statements and greenwashing (i.e., making an environmentally unfriendly proposal sound environmentally friendly). Here is a fact check of the application.
Pair of Great Horned Owls
TURN SOUND UP. This pair of great-horned owls is living a few hundred feet from the BAR Holdings property. Their hunting grounds would be greatly diminished if the development goes through. In forested and semi-forested areas the owls need open fields, pastures, and forest clearings for hunting. BAR Holdings has abundant forest clearings because the replanted conifers are only 14 years old. This video was shot on 9/6/2024 by Ronda Larson Kramer.
The proposal would result in a net increase in development capacity.
The county hydrologist's report at pages 3-5 analyzes the development capacity of the swap-in and swap-out parcels. As the report demonstrates, the land near Black Lake to be swapped out of the Urban Growth Area is already protected by existing laws from urban development--it is steep slopes, BPA powerline easements, and FEMA floodway. The developers' application admits this. Therefore, removing it from the UGA will do nothing to protect it. All the swap would do is create more land that can be developed inside the UGA. This net increase in development capacity would violate the 2024 UGA swap law.
The UGA is not bursting at the seams as required by the swap laws.
The swap law requires the UGA in that area to be bursting at the seams before a swap can be done. This area of the Tumwater UGA is not bursting. All one needs to do is look at an aerial map to see this. Even the developers admit this in their application, which calls that area "underdeveloped:"
Page 3 of 18 of BAR Holdings Supplemental Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The developers and county commissioners are advocating for this proposal using the "housing crisis" as their main selling point. But the discussion is too narrow if it only includes the rental or purchase prices for housing. Transportation is a large part of many household budgets. (The typical American household spends 12% of their budget on transportation.) When new housing is far from services and schools, the household ends up having two cars. Owning a car is expensive and it is not just gas. It is the initial cost, insurance, licensing, maintenance, tires, etc. When people live near services, schools and transit, they can choose to have no car, or only one car. That is a pretty big deal for a household budget. Locating housing outside of the urban area is also expensive for all of us. We end up paying for the roads, emergency services and school bus transportation. Sprawl eats up land that could be farms. It threatens water resources and bulldozes forests and prairies. Let's be real - sprawl is wasteful and costly.
The proposal would put development pressure on rural lands.
Extending sewer service to the parcel is a de facto encouragement of land development around the parcel. Also, a member of the Tumwater City Council has said that she supports the proposal because it aligns with her goal of extending services to rural residents. This is by definition encouraging urbanization of rural areas. This violates the swap law because that law prohibits a swap that puts development pressure on rural or natural resource lands.
The county needs to build up, not out.
If we are to build housing that allows people to live near services, we need to in-fill the existing urban growth area, not eat up more rural lands. Building up and not out also preserves the ecosystem services and climate mitigation ability of rural lands surrounding our cities. And that is what our county's own Climate Mitigation Plan calls for. Our commissioners need to follow the county's own pre-existing plans and not get sidetracked by false claims that UGA swaps will help solve the housing crisis. Solving the housing crisis means spending money where it will actually get results, not wasting time and resources on applications that don't comply with the law. The county and City of Tumwater will be throwing good money after bad by supporting an application that will be dead in the water due to legal challenges. Also, by law, the tax revenue and economic development goals of Tumwater and Thurston County are secondary to the Growth Management Act’s goals to keep urban growth compact and prevent sprawl. See CPSGMHB North Clover Creek/Collins Community Council, et al v. Pierce County, Case No. 10-3-0003c, FDO at 46 (finding that an expansion of UGA to add 5.2 acres violated the GMA).