Tumwater Council still has questions about development agreement for 200-acre parcel
Tumwater City Council members left no stone unturned Tuesday night, spending two hours questioning city and Port of Olympia staff about a proposed development agreement tied to port-owned land in the city.
The Port of Olympia voted to approve the development agreement terms on Monday, then the City Council was briefed on the situation during a Tuesday work session. The City Council is set to have a public hearing and vote on the development agreement Nov. 30.
Tumwater and the port are working on a development agreement after residents and City Council members raised concerns about Panattoni Development Company, a Southern California-based warehouse developer that is working with the port. A little more than a year ago, the port and Panattoni struck an option agreement that allows the developer to explore development of a 200-acre parcel that is part of the port’s New Market Industrial Campus. The campus is west of Olympia Regional Airport and east of I-5.
Tumwater City Administrator John Doan brought the council up to speed, then council members asked questions. They asked about jobs, a log yard near the site, the future of Kimmie Street and a multi-purpose trail, but the main focus of the meeting was on stormwater.
Port commissioner E.J. Zita, who voted against the agreement, raised concerns at the Monday Port meeting about a stormwater-controlling device known as an underground injection control well. She wanted to alter the development agreement to expressly prohibit the use of such wells, but her motion failed for lack of support.
But that was the first question from the Tumwater council, with Councilman Charlie Schneider asking whether the city would allow them on the site. He didn’t get a direct answer to his question, but he did get Dan Smith, the city’s water resources manager, to deliver an overview on stormwater.
Although a port official on Monday said Panattoni has no plans to use such wells, Smith said the UIC well is a tool the city does allow and that it’s fairly common. Drain fields and dry wells are examples of such wells, he said.
Every development in the city is subject to the city’s comprehensive stormwater design standards and stormwater systems have to go through a process to determine if it’s the appropriate tool, he said.
The New Market Industrial Campus is known for its high groundwater. Property owners in those areas have to maintain five feet of separation between the bottom of the stormwater system and the top of the groundwater layer. The city works with property owners to mitigate stormwater impacts, but if it can’t be mitigated, then they have to go in a different direction.
“There is no degradation of responsibility of any site that gets developed in Tumwater,” said Smith when it comes to stormwater.
He said there are secondary measures that can be applied to UIC wells, such as treating the water first and sending it through an external stormwater pond before releasing it to groundwater.
Other questions and comments:
▪ At full build out, the site, according to the port, could employ as many as 2,600. Councilman Schneider questioned that projection when it’s still not clear what Panattoni intends to do. City Administrator Doan acknowledged that job creation figures are based on assumptions. Panattoni has so far pitched a 450,000-square-foot building for the site.
▪ As part of the development, there is a plan to terminate Kimmie Street to the south and direct truck traffic toward Center Street, and from there, to encourage truck traffic to exit north on Center Street, port Executive Director Sam Gibboney said.
▪ Councilman Michael Althauser asked about the future of a log yard near the 200-acre parcel and who would be responsible for cleaning it up. Gibboney said the port does not intend to renew the lease with the current operator and that it may be leased to Panattoni. She said the current leaseholder is responsible for cleaning up the yard to an acceptable level.
▪ Mayor Pete Kmet requested that the multi-purpose trail to be developed on the site not be done in a piecemeal fashion. He wants Panattoni to develop it and provide a firm commitment about when it would be complete. ”The least they could do is construct the trail,” he said, adding that it’s “important mitigation” for the site.
Councilwoman Joan Cathey expressed frustration, calling the whole thing a “crap shoot.” She said she was puzzled as to why the port and city are spending so much time on this when Panattoni barely seems to be in the picture.
“How can the port be making promises when the developer doesn’t even have a plan?” she asked. “How does this work?”
Gibboney said to ensure performance and compliance, Panattoni is reviewing the development agreement and will be signing a “concurrence agreement” with the port to adhere to its requirements.
Cathey seemed unmoved.
“I feel like we’re destroying our land, so to speak, and we have no guarantee what is going to happen there, but we do have a guarantee that some of it will have to be cut down or mitigated,” she said. “It’s just concerning to me that it’s not tight or true, and I’m feeling very protective of the prairie.”
This story was originally published November 10, 2021 at 5:45 AM.
