The Centralia City Council balked when it came to making a final decision on a proposal to end its warehouse moratorium on Tuesday night.
The council narrowly shot down a motion to move forward with a proposal offered by the Port of Centralia, but those who voted “no” said they would like to continue negotiations.
The Centralia City Council spent the final two hours of the marathon Tuesday night meeting discussing a recent proposal from the Port of Centralia to resolve the ongoing moratorium on warehouses larger than 250,000 square feet in size.
The meeting ended around 11:45 p.m. shortly after three councilors — Tucker Voetberg, Kevin Curtis and Ray Chapman-Wilson — voted in favor of moving forward with the port’s mediation resolution proposal.
Mayor Chris Brewer, Deputy Mayor Kelly Smith Johnston and councilors Jan Nontell and Adriana Garibay voted against moving forward with the proposal.
Still without a decision on a path forward, but not ready to walk away from the negotiating table with the port, the council took a lifeline from Centralia Community Development Director Emil Pierson, who suggested the council discuss next steps with an hour-long workshop session ahead of the July 14 council meeting.
With that, both Brewer and Garibay condemned an earlier interruption from an audience member before Brewer adjourned the meeting.
Discussion on the Port of Centralia’s proposal to end the warehouse moratorium began on a positive note. Council members, including those who would later vote against the proposal, celebrated the cooperation and a seemingly mended relationship with the port.
“I think what the port has done is tremendous,” Smith Johnston said. “You've listened, you've looked for compromises, you've come up with, I think, some really creative options, and you entered into mediation in good faith.”
The proposal also received an endorsement from Pierson, who was part of the mediation process and worked with Port of Centralia Executive Director Amy Graber on the details of the proposal.
“To think about being able to work with somebody that has your back that wants to work with you to better the community is great,” Pierson said. “I feel like the proposal he put together is a great starting point.”
Graber and Pierson opened up the discussion session with a presentation to the council on the proposal, which councilors received Thursday, June 18, and which was detailed in the Saturday, June 20, edition of The Chronicle.
While presenting the key points of the proposal, Pierson added concerns that the city would struggle to transition its current moratorium into a long-term code to prevent large warehouse development and pitched the proposal as a better alternative to allowing unrestricted development, should the code restrictions lapse.
Despite the endorsement from their own staff, some of the councilors renewed previous concerns over traffic mitigation, job quality and general frustration with the unknowns associated with the development. Among other unknowns, the current warehouse developer Logistics Property Company, LLC (LPC) has repeatedly insisted that it does not know what company will occupy the new building or any others currently planned for the future.
Nontell was unconvinced that the proposed infrastructure changes would do enough to mitigate truck traffic. Smith Johnston later raised a similar concern and cited a statistic from a State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Study for the LPC property currently under construction along the northern section of Harrison Avenue.
The study estimates 345 truck movements and 97 passenger trips per day caused by the facility. Smith Johnston added the context that the estimate is likely on the high side and the exact number will likely be unknown until a tenant is found.
Smith Johnston and Brewer, who both shared anecdotes of their own efforts to gauge community sentiment, described the issue as often splitting their constituents. For Smith Johnston, it came down finally to one statement.
“No single person I’ve talked to, whether pro or con, has said, ‘I want that job’ or ‘I hope those come so my kids can have that job,’” Smith Johnston said. “That’s a significant data point for me.”
Public comment ran the gamut on either side of the issue. Supporters of the moratorium, including local real estate agent Levi Althauser and former council member Rebecca Staebler, spoke against the port’s proposal, emphasizing responsible growth.
Others in favor of moving forward with the proposal and LPC development including Deb and Kirk Parnham, former councilor Elizabeth Cameron and Graber herself, who applauded the compromises in the proposal and asked the council to move forward.
“I just implore you to think about the port's development and what we have meant to this community, and that we come forward with this proposal to help try and ease the economic burden, but also work collaboratively with our community,” Graber said.
Not entirely in favor of the proposal, but unwilling to turn the port away, the council called forward Port of Centralia Commissioner Ally Pickard from the audience to ask what the port would need to continue negotiating with the city.
Pickard gave a polite but blunt response, asking the council to be clear on why it was unwilling to agree to the proposal.
She reiterated that the port would not force the city to lift its moratorium and would move on from the issue if the city was unwilling to budge.
“There is just going to be unknown in this process,” Pickard said. “We have to find a finish line at some point, and if council is not OK with those unknowns, then we're going to respect your no. Very simple.”
The council was unable to decide on a path forward and will reconvene on the issue ahead of its July 14 meeting.
For previous reporting by The Chronicle on the port’s proposal to resolve mediation over the Centralia warehouse moratorium, visit https://tinyurl.com/bdfbrfyt.
