County, port and city officials discuss an industrial UGA swap and infrastructure hurdles for Western Port Angeles

County planning staff presented a proposal to reassign roughly 250 acres of industrially designated land at the Clallam Bay correction center to the West Side of Port Angeles, and led a lengthy discussion about the legal criteria, infrastructure needs and public outreach that would accompany any such swap.

Bruce (planning staff) told the joint meeting that the swap idea began with the observation that the Clallam Bay industrial acreage has been largely undeveloped for decades and is divided among multiple parcel owners. He summarized the statutory criteria cited in the meeting — quoted in the presentation as “RCW 36 78 1 10 subsection 8” and related provisions — and emphasized two limiting rules staff interpreted as central: the swap cannot “result in a net increase of total acres, urban growth area acres, or development capacity,” and any swap must meet the other statutory tests (resource land protections, limiting impacts to critical areas, contiguous and logical boundaries, and updated transportation and capital facilities analyses).

Staff said about 13% of the subject land is designated as critical area and recommended reviewing countywide planning policies and annexation and urban services agreements so service providers are not disadvantaged. Multiple commissioners and staff said transportation and capital facilities planning — identifying needed roads, sewer, water and electrical extensions and funding sources — must be done before any boundary change to demonstrate how the revised UGA would be served. Staff recommended preparing staged engineering designs and cost estimates (for example, a 30% design) so funding applications can be competitive and so projects become shovel‑ready.

Panelists discussed likely public opposition from landowners and recommended a methodical outreach process. Staff and commissioners emphasized annexation sequencing and interlocal cost‑sharing agreements as central to protecting municipal interests and avoiding delays. Several participants said jurisdictional disputes or unclear cost‑sharing arrangements could cause the county to lose prospective business opportunities because companies will not wait through protracted uncertainty.

The meeting also reviewed capital tools that could help pay for infrastructure. Port staff described existing Industrial Development District/Corporation tools and tax‑exempt bond allocations, noting a state allocation figure cited in the meeting for 2024 (spoken as $986,000,000) and encouraging county coordination with housing and economic development partners to capture available tranches. The port and county agreed to begin intergovernmental discussions and aim to start a coordinated process in the first half of next year; staff said the county’s update timeline and Commerce involvement affect timing and recommended careful documentation to reduce scrutiny on any off‑cycle comp plan changes.

Where things stand: staff recommend a cautious, stepwise approach — detailed infrastructure analyses, interlocal cost‑sharing discussion, public outreach and preparation of grant‑ready designs — before any change to UGA boundaries would be finalized.