Thursday, October 1, 2026
The Tumwater City Council voted 4–1 to approve a letter from Mayor Leatta Dahlhoff supporting the continued review of an urban growth area land swap involving Salish Landing, a proposed mixed-use development outside the city’s southeastern boundaries.
The council made the decision following nearly two hours of public comments at a meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 3. The meeting featured 66 people providing oral testimony, with 45 in favor and 21 against the development.
Supporters said the development from Bar Holdings LLC could help address housing needs and bring amenities closer to the south of the county.
Detractors warned it would promote urban sprawl, displace low-income residents near the site, and threaten land that has been classified as a highly sensitive area for replenishing groundwater supplies.
The proposal involves exchanging land in Tumwater’s Urban Growth Area (UGA) by adding the Salish Land project site, a 46-acre property on Old Highway 99 near 93rd Avenue, in exchange for about 65 acres near Black Lake. The proposal also includes a zoning amendment, as the project site is currently limited to one dwelling unit per 5 acres.
The council’s action authorized Dahlhoff to send the letter to Thurston County Board of County Commissioners Chair Tye Menser.
The letter essentially supports the inclusion of the proposed UGA swap and zoning amendment on the county’s 2026–27 docket for comprehensive plan amendments
The letter states supporting inclusion of the proposal does not mean the city is approving the land swap or the development, but only allowing it to proceed for further review.
The letter noted the project would have to be studied through the State Environmental Policy Act, which would allow the community to better understand the benefits and impact of the project.
“The mayor and city council recognize amendments such as this are complex and require comprehensive public analysis to allow both decision makers and the community to understand all the potential consequences before a final decision is made,” the letter states.
Several council members acknowledged concerns raised by critics of the project, but said moving the proposal forward would allow for environmental review. They also expressed trust in city staffers to evaluate the project.
Council member Angela Jefferson focused on the benefits of the project, citing job creation and additional tax revenues, while also touching on city growth.
“Voting 'no' will not stop growth, because people like me will continue coming to Tumwater, because Tumwater is a great place to live and retire,” Jefferson said.
“They're moving into our urban growth area right there, and it's going to continue from rural to urban, so it's just a matter of time.”
Council member Joan Cathey was the lone vote against the letter. She said public support has been influenced by promises of a YMCA facility, which she said is not guaranteed, and questioned whether the development would provide affordable housing.
Cathey was also concerned about the number of trees that would have to be cut down for the project and how soon the area gets public bus access.
She was also skeptical of the process.
“I know people say, ‘Well this isn't the final thing. It's not going to happen for a long time or it's just a look at it and decide.’ — I don't trust it,” Cathey said.
Only five council members voted on the letter, as Eileen Swarthout and Kelly Von Holtz were absent.
Before the council approved the letter, Tumwater Community Development Director Brad Medrud outlined what would happen next if the city sent the letter.
The board of commissioners is expected to decide in early spring whether the proposal remains on the official comprehensive plan docket.
Medrud said state lawmakers may also finalize changes to UGA swap rules during the same period. Medrud said the Washington Legislature adopted two different sets of criteria for UGA swaps in 2022 and 2024, creating uncertainty about which standards apply.
If the proposal stays on the docket, Medrud said Tumwater and Thurston County would begin drafting an interlocal agreement to define each jurisdiction’s responsibilities for reviewing the amendment and any future development, including annexation, revenue sharing and public engagement. Tumwater would also seek a development agreement with Bar Holdings.
Medrud said the developer would also have to fund an environmental impact statement analyzing potential effects on transportation, utilities and environmental resources.
Once the environmental impact statement has been completed, the city and county planning commissions would hold joint meetings to discuss amendments to the joint plan, before passing their recommendations to the city council for approval.
The Urban Growth Management Subarea Committee of the Thurston Regional Planning Council would then review the proposed boundary changes before passing its recommendations to county commissioners, who would ultimately decide whether to approve the UGA swap and zoning amendment.
11 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
RondaLarsonKramer
The reader should be aware that every person at the council meeting commenting in favor of the development was someone who would receive a short term gain from the development (builders, realtors, their spouses and employees, and friends of the developers). Everyone commenting against would suffer a long term loss (nearby residents, Tumwater taxpayers, those advocating for affordable housing, for natural resource lands and for water resources).
Short term gains won out over long term gains.
This way of doing land use planning reminds me of the study that differentiated children by their self-regulation abilities—the child who eats the cookie when you leave the room, versus the child who has the ability to abstain from eating the cookie because you promised to bring back five cookies if they waited.
Thankfully, the law doesn’t allow this particular type of sprawl. So the city can vote in favor, but that doesn’t mean the developer will win in the end.
Thursday, February 5 Report this
Bobwubbena
Have you noted that RhondaLarsonKramer and her colleague are strategically providing input. Ask the question, --why???? In this case the tribes want to permit an enterprise that benefits them---not the environment.
Yes "he who benefits shape the message". Keep this in mind every time Rhonda speaks---too much like our current Washington DC events.
Double talk by White "man (women)" So sad!!!
Thursday, February 5 Report this
BobJacobs
Thank goodness for Joan Cathey.
This proposal has so many flaws.
Councilmember Jefferson seems to believe the proponents' assertion that the proposal would result in more population growth and that this would result in more tax revenues.
Tumwater already has more than enough land available for 20 years of projected population growth. Adding more land will not change the amount of development. See the Tumwater official Buildable Lands Report or check with planning staff.
Yes, more development means more taxes, but it means even more expenses, resulting in a net negative impact on local budgets. This fact is well known among planners and public finance professionals, but the big lie that growth pays its own way or even produces net financial benefits continues to be effectively sold by those who benefit -- builders and related industries.
The general public will need to be active in opposing this proposal as it proceeds to the county.
Bob Jacobs
Friday, February 6 Report this
Southsoundguy
Fake, enforced growth to support a ponzi. Nobody is asking for this, but the embedded growth obligations require it.
Friday, February 6 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
I meant to include in my previous comment a link to a webpage that lays out in non-legalese why BAR Holdings/Salish Landing does not legally qualify for a UGA swap. It is not even a close call: https://www.upnotout.net/uga-swap-law
Friday, February 6 Report this
Yeti1981
Here’s the part that keeps getting deliberately blurred. The Tumwater City Council did not approve a development. They approved a letter supporting continued review. That’s it. Allowing a proposal onto the docket so it can go through SEPA, an EIS, interlocal negotiations, and multiple planning commission reviews is not “rubber-stamping sprawl.” It’s basic governance.
The comments claiming this was driven by “short-term gains” from builders ignore the public record. Forty-five people spoke in favor because people in south county actually want housing, services, and amenities closer to where they live. The idea that only developers benefit while residents somehow lose by having jobs, tax base, infrastructure planning, and environmental review is not serious analysis. It’s a talking point.
The “Tumwater already has 20 years of land” argument gets recycled constantly, and it misunderstands how buildable lands reports work in practice. Paper capacity is not the same thing as deliverable housing. Constraints, market feasibility, infrastructure timing, and zoning realities all matter. Pretending otherwise is how jurisdictions end up with shortages while congratulating themselves for meeting theoretical targets.
As for water, trees, transit, and displacement. Those are exactly the issues SEPA and an EIS are designed to evaluate. Blocking review doesn’t protect groundwater. It just guarantees decisions are made with less information instead of more.
And the claim that this “isn’t even legally eligible” for a UGA swap? That’s not a settled conclusion. Even city staff acknowledged the state created uncertainty by adopting two different UGA swap standards in 2022 and 2024. That question is precisely why further review is appropriate.
What’s really happening here is simple. Some commenters oppose growth anywhere, under any circumstances, regardless of process or evidence. They opposed it before this proposal. They’ll oppose it after. And they’re hoping people won’t notice the difference between reviewing a proposal and approving one.
Tumwater didn’t “fall for anything.” They chose transparency, due diligence, and public process. That’s what responsible cities do.
Tuesday, February 10 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@Yeti1981, I was in the room. All of the speakers in favor were individuals connected to the construction, real estate, or development industries. (They had logos on their clothing and/or said they are married to someone who does or are friends with someone who does). That doesn’t invalidate their perspective — but it does provide context.
Local land use planning is not the same as approving a permit for a single project. It sets long-term growth patterns that affect infrastructure costs, transportation, water resources, and fiscal sustainability for decades. Deciding whether to modify an urban growth area boundary should never be based on whether someone stands to benefit monetarily from short-term construction activity.
Regarding the substance of the letter, the Council didn’t approve the development — agreed.
But they also didn’t take a neutral position. Their letter explicitly states they “support” keeping the Bar Holdings amendment on the docket. Given that the County requested letters of support during docket screening, that’s more than procedural housekeeping. It’s a policy signal.
And SEPA review doesn’t resolve the separate GMA question of whether expansion is necessary at all.
Regarding the 20% excess capacity issue, you keep saying the Buildable Lands Report is “not realistic” and is merely a paper assumption. The author of the BLR, the Thurston Regional Planning Council, states that it evaluates development trends — in other words, what is actually occurring on the ground over time. See: https://www.trpc.org/164/Buildable-Lands
If you believe TRPC’s data or methodology is flawed, the appropriate step is to identify specifically which assumption or dataset is incorrect and cite evidence. Otherwise, dismissing the BLR disregards the statutory framework the Growth Management Act requires jurisdictions to use when evaluating UGA boundary changes.
The BLR isn’t optional. It is, by law, the foundation for determining whether additional urban capacity is needed. Planning decisions should be grounded in that data — not in unsupported assertions that the data is “not realistic.”
Regarding the fact that BAR Holdings doesn't comply with the swap statute, you mention the city's statement that there is confusion as to whether the 2022 law applies or the 2024 law applies. Whether or not there is settled law on which statute applies isn't relevant. BAR Holdings doesn't meet either set of criteria. Senator Jessica Bateman is currently trying to amend the law with SB 6016 in a way that would reduce the statutory barriers for BAR Holdings.
Regarding the claim that I “oppose growth anywhere”: I’ve never taken that position. You and I have both agreed that we need housing growth in the right places. For example, you’ve encouraged building up, not out, to reduce car dependence and focus density where infrastructure already exists. I agree with that approach. See Comments to https://www.thejoltnews.com/stories/tumwaterpoised-tohurt-its-budget-and-make-housing-less-affordable,28025?
I support infill and urban-centered housing — not sprawling outward into rural lands. The best place for growth is where we already planned for it: in walkable, infrastructure-rich areas.
That’s not opposing growth. It’s adhering to the Growth Management Act’s core principle: urban growth should occur in urban areas. Please join me in working toward that end.
Wednesday, February 11 Report this
Yeti1981
@RondaLarsonKramer I was also at the meeting. And yes, a ton of building industry and building industry adjacent folks were there. Here's the thing though. These aren't so-called big evil developers like the impression you give. They are local builders, bankers, community members, and neighbors all in support of are biggest need right now, and that is more housing supply. There were even neighbors of the potential project in support of it because of the resources it will bring. So, let's not mislead on the actual support for this project and let's not create a fake narrative around the intent of these people. That is dishonest and not conducive to the actual conversation.
Wednesday, February 11 Report this
Yeti1981
@RondaLarsonKramer, I also want to respond directly to a few of the points you’re raising, because this deserves a serious policy discussion, not caricatures about “cookies” or short-term greed.
First, the framing that everyone in favor was chasing “short term gain” while everyone opposed would suffer “long term loss” is not a fair representation of reality. Yes, builders, lenders, Realtors, and people in housing showed up. They should. Housing supply is literally their field of expertise. But they’re also residents, taxpayers, parents, and retirees who live here. When local builders speak about housing shortage, infrastructure timing, or feasibility, that is not self-interest alone. It is professional knowledge rooted in lived experience in this market.
Second, the idea that supporting docket review equals abandoning long-term planning is simply not accurate. The council did not approve a subdivision. They did not rezone the property. They supported allowing a proposal to be analyzed under SEPA, potentially through a full EIS, interlocal agreements, and joint planning commission review. That is not impulsive governance. That is literally how the Growth Management Act is designed to function when amendments are proposed.
On the Buildable Lands Report. I’m very familiar with it. Yes, the BLR evaluates capacity and trends. But statutory “capacity” does not automatically translate into deliverable housing at price points people can afford. Capacity can exist on paper while parcels are constrained by critical areas, ownership fragmentation, infrastructure lag, market infeasibility, or zoning realities that do not pencil. We have seen this play out across Washington repeatedly. Meeting a 20-year theoretical capacity target does not guarantee actual production keeps up with demand.
If the position is that the existing UGA has enough real, buildable, market-viable land to meet projected housing need at all income levels, then the burden is to show not just acreage totals, but absorption rates, infrastructure funding alignment, and actual development feasibility. That is a more complex conversation than simply citing the existence of a BLR.
On the legal question. You’re asserting the project fails under both the 2022 and 2024 swap criteria. That is your legal interpretation. It is not yet adjudicated fact. If there is ambiguity between two statutory frameworks, that is exactly the type of issue that warrants review, not preemptive dismissal. If the proposal truly does not meet statutory criteria, the county commissioners or the Growth Management Hearings Board will say so. That’s how the system works.
On growth philosophy. You say you support “infill and urban-centered housing.” So do I. The question is whether the existing urban footprint is actually producing housing at the scale and diversity we need. If it is not, and if south county residents are already functionally urban in their travel patterns and service needs, then the conversation becomes more nuanced than “urban good, edge bad.” The Growth Management Act allows for UGA swaps for a reason. It contemplates boundary refinement when circumstances warrant.
What concerns me most is the repeated implication that anyone connected to housing cannot participate in good faith because they “benefit.” Every stakeholder benefits from the outcomes they advocate for. Environmental advocates benefit from preservation outcomes. Transit advocates benefit from transit investments. Affordable housing nonprofits benefit from funding streams. That doesn’t invalidate their perspective. It means we evaluate arguments on their merits.
If this proposal is fiscally unsustainable, demonstrate it with pro forma infrastructure modeling.
If it threatens groundwater recharge, demonstrate it with hydrogeologic analysis.
If it fails statutory swap criteria, demonstrate it through the actual elements of the law.
But dismissing 45 speakers as self-interested cookie-eaters oversimplifies a serious housing and planning challenge our region is grappling with.
The core question is not “growth or no growth.” It is how to responsibly manage inevitable growth while addressing housing affordability, infrastructure capacity, and environmental protection at the same time.
That conversation is stronger when we debate facts and frameworks, not motives.
Wednesday, February 11 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@Yeti1981, it is important for an elected official to rely on data in decision-making. Please trust the data: TRPC's Buildable Lands Report.
FYI, Senator Bateman's BAR Holdings bill (SB 6016) died today, at least until next year when the process will presumably begin again.
Instead of trying to poke holes in urban growth area boundaries, wouldn't it be better if we all put our energies into helping Tumwater have a town center? For example, Rep. Parshley and Rep. Doglio are both co-sponsoring HB 1742. It seeks to help communities redevelop distressed urban properties, including the Tumwater brewery location.
That's something to celebrate. I'm so grateful for Lisa and Beth's leadership on that bill. And I'm grateful for Senator Bateman's middle housing bill previously.
Wednesday, February 18 Report this
Yeti1981
@RondLarsonKramer I do trust data. The question is how we interpret it.
The Buildable Lands Report measures theoretical capacity under current zoning assumptions. It does not measure whether those sites are financially feasible, infrastructure-ready, or likely to deliver housing at the scale and diversity our region actually needs. Capacity on paper and production in the real market are not the same thing. If they were, we would not be having persistent affordability and supply conversations across jurisdictions that technically meet their 20-year targets.
The GMA requires use of the BLR, yes. It does not require us to treat it as proof that no boundary refinement could ever be appropriate. The legislature created a UGA swap mechanism for a reason. Whether a specific proposal qualifies is exactly what the review process is designed to evaluate.
As for focusing energy on redevelopment and town centers, I agree that urban revitalization is important. But that is not mutually exclusive with examining whether our current urban footprint is functionally delivering housing in the locations and forms people are demanding. We can pursue infill and still evaluate whether adjustments are warranted.
This isn’t about poking holes in boundaries for its own sake. It’s about acknowledging that meeting statutory capacity thresholds does not automatically mean we are meeting real housing needs. That distinction matters if we’re serious about both planning integrity and affordability.
Monday, February 23 Report this