[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6079548,"mediaKeyId","2955495-10703ddf1b84e08b1e6ba4eab0543a2e","parentId",2955495,"title","Lacey planning commission reviews 30 rezone requests; staff recommends 14 for 2025 docketing","audioSeconds",7421,"startMs",3261000,"endMs",10682000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2955495-10703ddf1b84e08b1e6ba4eab0543a2e&start=3261&end=10682","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2955495-10703ddf1b84e08b1e6ba4eab0543a2e/thumbnail_3261000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6079548/Lacey/Thurston-County/Washington/Lacey-planning-commission-reviews-30-rezone-requests-staff-recommends-14-for-2025-docketing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6079548-c594292aadc2c937a3a2e783a3f27107/orig.mp4?Expires=1775440624&Signature=SKI758KadZA4mjFF-qqOnRW6~yv4Upq2Xj12nUrTohxBT0V8nkLboLlgTNCH4YppSqsycKHFYaogcFhhKLr~YkPeGukfZ8AzHQuHddTsHxrH3U0hs0z-UtjzQCaBQu8NYbXyZ0JlBq9wC-9TMKmc5P1jRThALSOVXTmS9tKc9kVixN5OhqDbewXUoV35JZ6GHavNxX1PziTr9Qz2ARAsF6THR0oDBRI4c21lb~RgxYx~KNKVQfnGLFBnrSu~ovd9d2FOgBZTXsmzhTe4OevaEuKMCy4BlgYd9i4T5qN6FKJbPBE-YfhogDOrf3QI7VExvktxMtOXZKwte0Lwry9j4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Lacey, WA","date","2025-04-11T01:54:20.86Z","article","Lacey — City planning staff on April 9 told the Planning Commission they received 30 unique rezone areas during the 2025 comprehensive‑plan amendment submittal period and have used a scoring rubric to prioritize which requests the city can reasonably review during this update cycle.

Senior planner Sean Shepherd said the submissions were consolidated where multiple filings addressed the same area, leaving 30 unique locations. “We had 30 unique areas identified,” Shepherd told the commission. Staff said they applied a simplified rubric that graded items on consistency with the comprehensive plan, adjacency, infrastructure and other factors; the rubric placed 14 locations in a top band that staff said made them strong candidates for docketing in 2025.

Why it matters: The comprehensive‑plan docket determines which map and zoning changes the city will study and, potentially, recommend to the City Council. Docketing is a capacity issue: staff and commission time is required to analyze environmental impacts, engage neighbors and hold hearings. Shepherd told commissioners the top group were often “cleanup” changes — for example, city‑owned sites whose existing uses do not match their mapped designations — while other items will require deeper review.

Examples and details

- Alder Street rezone request: During the public comment period, David Toyer of Toyer Strategic Advisors and property owner Victor Versys spoke in favor of a rezone request for 1302 Alder Street. Toyer said the site “never should have been zoned open space institutional to begin with” and asked the commission to reconsider the parcel’s scoring so it could move through the comprehensive‑plan update this year. The owner told the commission he had been pursuing a rezone for years and said, “we're very interested in getting it done finally.”

- Pacific Avenue pocket: Staff described a six‑parcel low‑density residential pocket east of Carpenter Road and near Dakota Apartments; an applicant askedStaff to move those parcels to a nearby mixed‑use central business district zone (CBD5) to allow higher density consistent with nearby development. Planning staff recommended treating the tied parcels as a group to avoid creating small islands of inconsistent zoning.

- Historic‑neighborhood and commercial cleanups: Several items that scored highly in staff’s rubric were administrative cleanups and consolidations, such as making mapped designations reflect built conditions along certain corridors and removing redundant zone labels. Shepherd said those “no‑brainers” are easier to advance because they align with existing development and city priorities.

Capacity and next steps

Staff repeatedly emphasized capacity constraints. Shepherd noted that historically the city handles about one to two standalone rezone docket items per year, and the commission and council must have time to review complex proposals. He told commissioners the scoring bands are intended to separate items that could be taken forward quickly from those that will need extended analysis.

Commissioner reactions and process questions

Commissioners and the public sought clarification on timing, notification and impacts for property owners. Shepherd and other staff said they would contact property owners when a site is formally advanced for docketing and that carrying a property on the inventory does not itself change what a landowner may do until a formal rezoning process occurs. Commissioners urged staff to return with a firm prioritized list for the commission’s next meeting and to maintain outreach so applicants know whether their request will be addressed in 2025 or deferred to a later cycle.

Ending

Staff said they will refine the priority list, circulate the updated map and follow up with commissioners and owners; the commission asked staff to return with the refined docket at the next meeting so members can confirm which rezones will be advanced for the 2025 comprehensive‑plan update.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission - April 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","City planners told the commission that 30 unique rezone proposals were submitted as part of the 2025 comprehensive‑plan amendment process. Using a scoring rubric, staff identified 14 locations as strong candidates for docketing this year and recommended additional review or later cycles for others.","taxTitle","Lacey, Thurston County, Washington","taxId",4615,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6079553,"Lacey staff brief planning commission: reclaimed water set aside for water-rights mitigation; no new capital projects recommended",1756,979000,2735000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2955495-10703ddf1b84e08b1e6ba4eab0543a2e&start=979&end=2735","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2955495-10703ddf1b84e08b1e6ba4eab0543a2e/thumbnail_979000.jpg","/articles/6079553/Lacey/Thurston-County/Washington/Lacey-staff-brief-planning-commission-reclaimed-water-set-aside-for-water-rights-mitigation-no-new-capital-projects-recommended","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6079553-0157b3ec9721eb2d72d2eabe59f004c3/orig.mp4?Expires=1775440623&Signature=XeMo8~scaZCtvMy8GkpX2fgEIN08rI-pZ7F8wnyIvEJVxyumUup~G~FOzqIalKYjfAOncdupQxqFQQlS2NWmzgtWsX1NFOMre76IvzH6WFQi8u1jsUKlgR2Qd1HDEyWuyCyhuvbFsCOLa74D1mKHTOY5oqRGw~E3anRMVVg5iySE4dvlusjn4C3hD5jZgwwRP-9pNmY8upPtlDmP-1sLRdx~c6euWiXZSfDheo0-kJ9P-fQpuhOpbwZyvJOjR4bw613kChBr03ZTAcuiqVnKTl8ipNH6k7WrwSi5Dx~VeZKI9wPErUJTiQFsAgw6JU~1taM9PCMCiqHr6g1LlxPspg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lacey — City of Lacey public works staff and consultants told the Planning Commission on April 9 that most of the city’s reclaimed water is already committed to groundwater recharge required under water‑rights mitigation, and that the city is not recommending new capital investments now to expand reclaimed‑water delivery for irrigation or industrial customers.

The briefing, presented by Gagan Brar of Public Works and consulting engineers from Kurlo/Carlow Engineers, summarized existing facilities and the city’s current allotment from the regional reclaimed‑water system. “The city of Lacey’s allotment is 0.68 MGD,” the presentation said, referring to the city’s current share of reclaimed water from the regional plant. Staff described the Woodland Creek Groundwater Recharge Facility — a long‑running infiltration site the city operates jointly with Olympia — as the primary use for that allotment.

Why it matters: Lacey must meet mitigation conditions tied to the Department of Ecology’s approvals for groundwater pumping. Staff said the reclaimed flows Lacey receives are being used to replace groundwater the city pumps so that surface streams and other users are not harmed. Because those mitigation obligations grow as the city’s water use increases, staff said there is little unused reclaimed water available now to supply irrigation or industrial customers without larger regional changes.

Details from the briefing and staff Q&A

- Current allotment and near‑term outlook: Staff said the city’s current allotment is about 0.68 million gallons per day (MGD). After projecting growth, staff estimated Lacey’s allotment could reach about 1.6 MGD by 2040 and that mitigation needs may be roughly 0.9–1.2 MGD by that date, leaving limited margin for other uses.

- Use today: The majority of the city’s reclaimed water allotment is used at the Woodland Creek Groundwater Recharge Facility to meet water‑rights mitigation requirements; smaller volumes go to Hawkes Prairie ponds for disposal, staff said.

- Capital and financial recommendation: Consultants and staff recommended no additional near‑term capital projects for reclaimed water distribution in Lacey. The presentation said, in effect, that because most available reclaimed supply is required for mitigation and because building distribution, surge storage and pumping for new customers would be costly, the city should not add an irrigation distribution capital program now. Instead staff recommended encouraging the regional plant that produces reclaimed water to expand production capacity so more reclaimed water could become available in the future.

- Possible future demand: Staff estimated hypothetical irrigation demand could be on the order of 1.4–2.5 MGD if reclaimed production and distribution capacity were increased, but that would require “significant infrastructure” including pumps and storage and would be expensive.

Public questions and staff responses

During public comment and the commission Q&A, residents pressed staff on rates, drought claims and alternatives. A resident who identified himself as a ratepayer challenged drought‑based rate increases and questioned whether reclaimed water was the most effective use of funds; the resident said his water bill was “a hundred and $20 a month.” Public Works Director Scott Edgar replied that the utility sets rates to cover system costs and compliance obligations, and explained the regional hydrogeologic modeling and mitigation work required by the Department of Ecology to secure additional groundwater rights. “We don’t run for profit, we just cover our costs,” Edgar said. In response to questions about reusing reclaimed water for industrial users, staff said the current allotment is committed to mitigation and cannot be redirected without additional reclaimed production.

What the briefing did not change

Staff said no formal action was required from the Planning Commission; the reclaimed‑water plan will be attached to a future wastewater comprehensive‑plan update and considered for adoption later. The immediate staff recommendation was procedural — to document the city’s reclaimed‑water strategy now and to advocate for more regional production capacity, not to authorize city capital spending.

Next steps

Staff said the reclaimed water plan will be incorporated as an appendix to the wastewater comprehensive plan and updated if the regional plant’s production capacity grows or if the allotment/migration of mitigation obligations changes. If the city identifies available reclaimed supply later, staff said the city would revisit capital and financial planning to consider distribution, storage and customer programs.

Ending

Commissioners thanked staff for the briefing and requested continued information about potential future opportunities if the regional plant expands production. Staff also encouraged public engagement and said they would post the presentation materials online.","City staff and consultants told the Planning Commission that Lacey’s reclaimed water allotment is currently committed to groundwater recharge required by state water-right mitigation rules, leaving minimal supply for irrigation or industrial reuse and no recommended city capital expenses now.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lacey planning commission reviews 30 rezone requests; staff recommends 14 for 2025 docketing

Lacey staff brief planning commission: reclaimed water set aside for water-rights mitigation; no new capital projects recommended