Tumwater planning commission reviews land‑use element, hears housing capacity shortfall of lower‑income units

Janet Bowers, Associate Planner for the City of Tumwater, told the Planning Commission on June 24 that the land‑use element of the 2025 comprehensive plan is intended to answer a simple question: “land use is all about space. Do we have enough space for dot dot dot?”

The commission was presented a draft land‑use map and a neighborhood‑level analysis prepared with support from regional planners. Bowers and other staff said environmental constraints such as bedrock, wetlands and floodplains, along with adopted critical‑area protections and sewer/water service boundaries, limit where higher density development can be placed. The chapter and supporting analysis show a shortage of developable capacity for very low‑income housing: staff summarized the estimate as “we have 1.3% only,” representing roughly two dozen units in current capacity counts for households at or below 80% of area median income (AMI).

Why it matters: the Growth Management Act updates from 2023 and related state requirements mean Tumwater must demonstrate sufficient land capacity for housing at a range of incomes. Staff said the commission can respond by changing densities in selected areas, protecting critical areas and open‑space corridors, or both — decisions that will guide subsequent zoning and development‑code revisions.

Commissioners and staff went through the draft map live at the meeting, pointing to specific neighborhoods and proposed medium‑ and high‑density pockets near the town center, Capitol Boulevard and the Barnes/Seventh corridor. Bowers emphasized that the comprehensive plan sets the policy “what” and that zoning ordinances implement the “how,” noting both the comprehensive plan and zoning are adopted by ordinance. She also described the neighborhood chapters as the most accessible place to see what each area’s recommended zoning and likely changes would be.

Staff described an alternatives analysis prepared with regional partners (identified in the presentation as tRPC) that modeled three density scenarios: no change, a modest change, and a larger change. The analysis provides a quantified pathway showing how incremental density adjustments would increase the number of dwelling units available to different AMI bands. Commissioners asked for the analysis and supporting data to be circulated to the commission for more detailed review.

Several commissioners pressed staff on tradeoffs. Commissioner Kirkpatrick said the plan appears to forecast large population growth while forecasting a decrease in jobs, asking whether Tumwater risks becoming a “bedroom community.” Kirkpatrick summarized the concern as a potential outcome “by 2040 to turn Tumwater into a place for people to live” without replacing the jobs those residents would need locally. Staff acknowledged the concern and pointed to a separate economic development effort (the city is recruiting an economic development coordinator) that will examine job‑growth strategies alongside land use.

Other technical and policy points raised at the meeting: - Open space: staff explained that “open space” encompasses public parks, protected critical areas (wetlands/floodplains), and shared private open‑space requirements in developments, and that some stormwater facilities can count toward open‑space requirements. - Wildfire/WUI: the Wildland‑Urban Interface (WUI) map for the area is not yet final; staff said they will adjust planning guidance once the WUI map is available. - Mobile home parks and use‑locking: staff cautioned that designating land for a single, narrowly defined use could risk legal challenges and “takings” concerns if it unduly devalues property by preventing other economically viable uses. - Organic‑material/compost facilities: staff noted permits and siting for those facilities are governed by regional solid‑waste planning at the county level and would be treated as essential public services in the land‑use element when appropriate.

Staff also reminded the commission of near‑term procedural items tied to the plan: interviews for an economic‑development coordinator are scheduled for early July, deputy director interviews are planned for late July, the commission has a tentative July 22 follow‑up meeting on land use, and an August 12 meeting was cancelled. Several commissioners asked staff to prepare comparative maps showing current land use versus the proposed future land‑use map and to provide the TRPC alternatives analysis and its underlying assumptions.

Bowers closed the land‑use presentation by pointing commissioners to the neighborhood sections of the draft plan for concise, place‑based recommendations. She said that the comprehensive plan contains some items that must be completed by December 2025 and that other policies will be prioritized in a multi‑year work plan.

The commission did not adopt the draft plan at the meeting; the item remained a discussion to inform future revisions and public review.