AL

TE

RN

AT

IVE

S F

OR

T

HE

B

UR

LIN

GT

ON

NO

RT

HE

RN

M

AS

TE

R

PL

AN

STU

DEN

T R

ESEA

RC

H P

AP

iB--

-IfH

mC

M..TilV .

~5

o

fiK

5:

>fe o IX

i

O Kj

**

I *—

-•

-*V

.-*-

fl. • r£

:

to

T—

*"*^

' ••

•»-'

• ••

'• •'

lr^.

.;•.*.

-

*>-

. •

..

.V

^M

BT*1''

'

- '

^asS

S?-

t:.,.-

. -*

*i*~

£">

't. '

. ''"'

'i

**'

I' .A

'-

••'•

•H

•

:•

,-

?

W ' .

,.';,-*

• • l:

• • "

• ;-•-

'»

&1'

, •

•»

••

- .:

.. .

..t,.«

i'."i

•''»

»•

.. •

•• •

•••iv

rc

n. '•

. ••

•: .

••••

JP:-

-**

.-••

': .'

• .

.•. •

.,; V:""

a'l-

::

" •

"•''•.

'• •''•

.-.. . {

*•*

••

••• ••

•• •

-**

sjs

9

.„,.,.-!

•

• -

• •

. '

' : j?f&

**~

-'•

: .

..

;•

-. "/"

.' /:

' '

!«p«

»<:il

•••• :

• • ^a

s*"8*

_.»

. ••

• ..:'

• to^*

*1. •..

..,"

m^'

•

' •'

••'•

.• •'.

•'•-•

! rj^i_

'. .

:•• '

•'.-

-'• '.-

.

^a

1 '

%.

•..

-•

-_>

'•

^'

'...•

• •;

$.-:

' : ^ -.

... .

. s

. .

-W..

-I

: ? & i-3

' t?

j'

. ..

w

.•'

••'•

tj

't"1

. "to

"H.

% V ) .f •.. $ In }-v-

-j -^j

o to t-a SB fa

INTRODUCTION

The Washington State Environmental Policy Act requires that

the Burlington Northern Environmental Impact Statement'* consider-

ation of alternatives to the proposed industrial park. Ideally,

the generation of alternatives should be an ongoing process -, (of

formulation and assessment), initiated early in the development

of the industrial park concept. The optimal function of this pro-

cess is, however, foiled by the private/public .dichotomy, of dec-

ision making structures. Whereas the Thurston County Planning

Agency is now required to perform an after-the-fact appraisal of

possible alternatives, the industrial park concept proably dev-

eloped long ago, before the actual purchase of the site.

Our task is thus complicated by the very nature of SEPA's

directive. We have chosen to consider the broadest possible view

of alternatives, including both the EIS requirement which allows

that certain options have already been foreclosed, as well as the

wider range of conceptual alternatives open to the planning agency.

Presumably the BN development proposal should represent an evolution

of decision-making which has given adquate consideration to this

whole conceptual range. Yet it is now up to the planning agency

to insure that the public interest has been well represented in

this process, which has taken place entirely in the private sector.

Three aspects of "alternatives to the proposed action" will

be considered: Alternative sites, alternative uses, and alternative

designs*

ALTERNATIVE SITES

The EIS requirement for consideration of alternative sites

is specifically limited under SEPA. "In those instances where

the proposal is for a private project on a specific site, the

alternatives considered shall be limited to the "no action" al-

ternative plus> other reasonable alternative means of achieving

the objective of the proposal on the same site or other sites

owned or controlled by the same proponent. This limitation shall

not apply when the .project proponent is applying for a rezone or

contract rQzone." >3ince the site of the proposed industrial park

is nov/ zoned for industrial use under Thurston County's Interim

Zoning Plan, 3>J is required to evaluate only other sites already

in their ownership. Although SEPA sets no clear geographic bound-

arias of consideration upon a national company, a reasonable ex-

pec-cation would be to consider all 3N holdings in the state of

Washington.

In specifically assessing these sites, BN should be expect-

ed to discuss the positive and negative impacts associated with

development on each site. Particular note should be made of the

level of impact in each of the "problem" areas of the Thurston

County site, such as proximity to a valuable wildlife refuge (Nis-

qually Delta) and potential drainage problems. Consistency of

data taken and format presentation will be necessary to allow com-

parison and evaluation of these sites.

The objectives of the Thurston County planning agency reach

beyond the goals of private industry. Thus the planning agency

will certainly want to more thoroughly explore the alternative lo-

cations available for industry in Thurston County. The Interim

Zoning Ordinance is, in fact, nov/ being questioned. Our attention

will now focus upon the locational requirements for industry and

upon the community interest in industrial siting.

The locational factors considered by industry include:

-Access (Interstate-1:), Budd Inlet possible deep water

-Transportation facilities v.r::;._Liv.ray)

-Market demand for industry (?)

-Availability of utilities and water (yes.

-Geologic suitability (excellent foundation material,questionable drainage)

-Ownership of tract (mostly BN)

Each of these requirements is met upon the Thurston County site,

with the exception of the market demand; BN has not demonstrated

that the demand exists to fill an industrial park of the size pro-

posed. In reviewing BN's plan, it is apparent that the overriding

consideration determining location of the "park" was the ownership

by 3N. While initially the potential for a deep water port prob-

ably at-racted BN to the site, the environmental costs of such a

facility and the availability of nearby ports now seem to outweigh

this option. Thus BN is st.uck v/i^h the site and must try to make

good thsir financial investment in the property.

Community interests demand consideration of some additional

factors;-.'/hat are the impacts of the development and who will be

affected?

-Is the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan for orderly

development consistent with the proposal?

The considerations show the proposal to be less favorable

than the initial assessment. The surrounding community has raisod-

a bitter battle over the impacts to their neighborhood. The pol-

icy of the Comprehensive Plan, in fact, advocates preservation of

the rural county fringes and concentration of industrial/commercial

development in closer to the urban core. The proximity of this site

to Uisqually Delta demands special concern for this policy. Further-more, industrial development is a questionable use of scenic qual-

ities of the shore front.

We recommend:

-Moving the industry further south to reduce impacts to

rural fringes, preserve valuable natural shoreline, andconcentrate development nearer io ths urban core.

'>j.y:n7jj_a, i'u.u'var.er; ::o cai: aivar.ta ' d' market nn:i port .

facilities (use of already developed Budd Inlet).

-Encourage the "industrial park" concept as it is consistentwith the goal of reducing the scatter of industrial impacts,

In our opinion, some industry would be desirable in Thurston

County to provide a tax base for this comsuaity with primary em-

ployment in government. However, the size of the industrial dev-

elopment must be determined by the market demand for industrial

sites. It may be desirable to shift the location of the development

as we previously suggested. Above all, the spectacular scenic

value of the shoreline and the valuable surrounding beaches must be

preserved, regardless of what use is chosen for the site.

ALTERNATIVE USES

A wide range of uses of the site should be considered, both

in ter:ns of feasibility to 3N and benefit to the community. A

conceptual scheme has been devised, with potential positive and

negative aspects of each use. Neither the uses nor the impacts

are meant to be all-inclusive, but rather to serve as a framework

for consideration. In reality, it is possible that a combination

of uses rather than one singular use, may be most advantageous.

US

1-No accion

POSITIVE

CONSIDERATIONS

•preserve ecology

-preserve shorelinevalues

-maintain open spacefor future uses

-since 31; hasn't begundevelopment, no abandon-ment impacts would occur

NEGATIVE

CONSIDERATIONS

-no contributionto local economy(tax base)

-not feasible toBN

2-Recreational use-

Parkland

3-TimBer harvest

-preserve open space forcoramunity and future

•increase public accessto valuable shoreland

-consistent with Compre-hensive Plan to protectrural fringes

-feasible to BN ?

-jobs, revenues to localeconomy

-if selective cutting;preserve wildlife andecology

-feasibility ofaquiring land

-no contributionto local economy

-feasible to BN ?

-if clearcut; lossof wildlife hab-itat, scenic val-ues, water quality

-noise to localresidents

-air pollution ifslash burned

on

4-Low densityresidential1 unit//f-5 acres

-attractive site-drainage can accomodatelow density

-need for increasedpublic services-increased seepagealong clay con-tact on shore clifffrom irrigation ?

5-High densityresidential

I6units/acre

-shorefront values -destroy aestheticvaluesof site ?

-market demand forhousing ?

-need for increasedpublic services ?

-increased wateron clay contact ?instability oncliff

•g center•provide neededgoods and services ?-increased jobs andtaxes

-market demand ?

-traffic/noiseimpacts

-increased publicservices ?

- drainage problemsassociated withpaving

7-Industrial park -jobs

-taxes

-stable foundation

-level ground

-access to 1-5 andrailways

-impacts dependon size of parkand type of in-dustry

-drainage problem-loss of valuableshoreline values

-noise/traffic

-market demand forindustrial site ?

We recommend that the planning commission consider the entirer a n e ",V,1 "I fl 0 O/l C -3 Til

-Overall cornnunj-ty costs/benefits

-Particular environmental values of site and surrounding areas

ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS

Our consideration of alternative uses led us to the conclusion

that some amount of industry would be desirable, perhaps coupled

with other uses. Our alternative designs, thus, are concerned pri-

marily with the size of an industrial development and with- minimiz-

ing the inevitable impacts on the site and surrounding area. (Please

refer to.maps for general plan of each alternative, with summary of

impacts).

The first proposal conies from Burlington Northern. In this plan

the industrial area would equal or exceed the present area which is

zoned for industrial use. A deep water port has been proposed in

addition, which would create massive disturbance to shoreline values

and to a productive wildlife area. The surrounding area could be

zoned for high density redidential or commercial use. This proposal

creates the highest level of adverse impacts and contradicts the pol-

icy of Thurston County Comprehensive Plan. It will be fought bitterly

by local citizens.

Our second map represents the desires of the Citizens in the

surrounding neighborhood. Low density residential development is

recommended for the entire region of the site, with the exception

of a very small pocket of industry. While likely to create fewer

impacts on the site, this plan is unfeasible for BI\ and unrealistic

in not considering the county's need for a stable tax base. Further-

more, v/e are concerned that residential development could be equally

unplanned, creating undesirable "rural scatter". Since industry is

needed, v/e recommended bringing it into the county on a planned

basis, matched to the local demand for industrial siting.

Well planned development is the basis of our final plan. The

third general scheme is a. composit-of the planner's ideas and our

own. Industrial development is concentrated near the south end of

the site, expanding south onto adjacent property. The aim is to

cluster development in an area which is already disturbed, and to

-vhat st:ace the market now demands.' Should further ex-

ing VfOuici 08 excendea aorthv/ara in an or-.ily progrsssioa, T.'-.is con-

cept of "phasing" a particular advantage of this plan. In addition

to the phasing of the site, we recommend preservation of the shore-

line for recreational use. This could be accomplished by acquiring

the land or by special taxation incentives. A long range goal

would be to eventually acquire property or easements along the shore

to connect the site with a neighboring state park.

In offering suggestions for alternative designs, vie realize

that the impacts of development will vary greatly according to what

type of industry locates there. The following recommendations, there-

fore, are general considerations which apply to the industrial park

concept. Specific industries will require particular adjustments to

minimize impact.

1-Eliminate deep water port, since impacts are too great to

be compensated by benefits; consider alternate transportation:

of cargo such as railway from Budd Inlet.

2~Demand protection of thick vegetative edge surrounding site.

Development should not be concentrated around borders.

3-3eguire organized phasing of industrial development to elim-I

'inato unnecessary impacts to area.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PLANS

T hurst on County Comprehensive Plan, prepared by Thurston Regional

Planning Department, June, 1975Shoreline Master Program for _the_T fours ton Region, 'prepared. by

Thurston Regional Planning Dept., 1975

Thurston Region Employment and Population Forecast, 197

REGULATIONS AND ACTS

State Environment Policy Act, 1971 » and Guidelines 197£>» Thurston

County SEP A Guidelines

von County Planning Commission- Pete Swenson

Brian .Mar- University of Washington (on industrial siting)

f msz^m• BN PLAN

^NEAR 1^5

OPPOSITION

NS

aus