Council approves Phase 1 of Turner Farm PUD after extended debate over water rights and amenities

Washington City Council on June 25 approved a partial zone change for the Turner Farm development at 1075 East Telegraph Street, moving forward with the first phase while withholding approval for a southern portion that contains an active spring and associated surface water rights.

The motion, made by Councilman Balson and seconded by Councilman Coates, approved Pod 1 and Pods 2A and 2B subject to conditions that include adherence to the setback diagram in staff reports, completion of required amenities for each pod at 33% before later-stage building permits may be pulled, and full buildout of Bullock Drive (curb, gutter and sidewalk, excluding some landscaping south of Bullock). The council clarified that the vote did not vest densities or approvals for the unapproved portions south of Bullock.

Community Development Director Drew Ellerman summarized the plan and told the council staff found the proposal meets zoning standards for the parcels under consideration and that the planning commission had recommended approval with conditions. Ellerman noted pod layouts, building types and parking: "Pod 1 will be a built-to-rent product of 135 units" and parking meets the standards for the proposed uses.

Applicant representative Matt (identified in the meeting as the developer’s representative) addressed council questions on water and timing. On potential sale of the Turners’ surface water rights, he said the owners “have met with the Washington Water Conservancy District” and that "we're heading toward conversations with the city" but that exact timing depends on market and entitlement progress. Mayor noted, "I think as a city, we would be a willing buyer at fair market price," signaling openness to negotiate but not tying the land-use approval to an immediate water transfer.

Council members pressed for firm conditions on road improvements and amenities. Councilman Ivy asked that Bullock Street be completed to full width at the time of the approved phases; public works staff indicated the developer intends to construct the frontage improvements and the signal for the WinCo intersection will be timed with store opening. On amenities, the planning commission suggested more conservative thresholds; council agreed that Phase 1 must meet amenity requirements and that staff should work with the applicant to identify amenity locations in Pod 2 that will serve residents if later pods are delayed. Several council members said they preferred the city’s historical practice of requiring ~33% of amenity work before issuing the bulk of building permits.

The council also debated whether the city could require a contractual commitment about water rights as a condition of future approvals. City Attorney Thad Sigler advised that while the city cannot unilaterally seize water rights, it can require an agreement tied to approvals that sets terms, timing and price for a future transfer or option. After extended discussion, the council included a condition that future submittals for 2C or any development south of Bullock must include a contract that lays out dates, terms and details for any transfer or plan for water rights; the motion explicitly stated no density allocations for south-of-Bullock areas were approved tonight.

Outcome and next steps: The ordinance to amend the PUD was approved for Pods 1, 2A and 2B as stated in staff notes, with the council directing staff to prepare a cleaned-up exhibit that omits future-phase density illustrations and to work with the applicant on a water-rights agreement and on-road/amenity conditions. The applicant indicated they would return with a broader conceptual master plan within approximately 4–6 weeks, and council members requested the developer and staff continue negotiations on water terms before future phases are considered.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified from the council transcript and include Drew Ellerman (Community Development Director) and Matt (applicant representative). The council vote was recorded as an approval of the motion as amended and clarified by the council.