Thurston County commissioners separate tribal-coordination updates from contested urban growth-area swap rules

Thurston County commissioners on Wednesday heard a follow-up briefing from county planning staff on proposed updates to the countywide planning policies and agreed to separate tribal coordination updates from a more contested set of provisions addressing urban growth area (UGA) swaps.

CPED staff told the board the briefing had two parts: coordination-policy updates responsive to tribal participation requirements, and a separate package responding to recent state laws on UGA swaps. Ashley Bridal, CPED, said the county issued a “determination of non‑significance” — DNS — for the coordination policies and that the DNS has since been appealed. Bridal warned the board to avoid discussing the merits of that SEPA determination because the appeal could eventually come before the commission. "A DNS is a determination of non‑significance," Bridal said, and the appeal raises whether a mitigated determination or a determination of significance would be required.

The issue matters because if a final decision finds a determination of significance is required, the county would have to complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) addressing alternatives and probable adverse impacts. CPED staff also told the board that two different state laws passed in 2022 and 2024 address UGA swaps and can be read differently; staff said state rulemaking intended to clarify differences is expected in the spring.

Commissioners voiced unanimous support for moving the tribal coordination package forward while pausing substantive action on UGA‑swap provisions until the state rulemaking and additional review by the Urban Growth Management (UGM) subcommittee. Commissioner Caroline Mejia and others recommended returning the tribal coordination item to the Feb. 18 meeting, with a work session or additional materials available beforehand; staff said a full work session before Feb. 18 may not be feasible and that a March meeting could be used if needed. "One option would be to delay the decision on the policy until there's more information available," a county manager aide told the board in the briefing.

Staff summarized the process steps for any future UGA swap application: jurisdiction-led proposals, interlocal agreements (ILAs) to set analysis and cost‑sharing responsibilities, joint planning‑commission review, UGM subcommittee input, and then ultimately Board of County Commissioners action. CPED noted that any individual UGA swap application would require its own environmental review separate from the countywide coordination policy review.

Commissioners emphasized the public interest in the policies — planners noted countywide planning policies have been updated only twice since 1992 — and asked staff to return with clearer guidance after state rulemaking. Staff offered to circulate an e‑brief using materials already prepared for the UGM subcommittee and to invite the Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) to future briefings because TRPC’s role will change under the coordination updates.

The board did not take a formal vote at the work session; rather, direction was given to staff to advance the tribal coordination updates on a near‑term schedule and to hold off on substantive UGA‑swap policy adoption pending rulemaking and additional interjurisdictional review.