Commissioners hold large public hearing on countywide planning policy updates; UGA land-swap language draws sharp debate

The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners on Jan. 21 held a hybrid public hearing on proposed updates to the countywide planning policies (CWPPs). The hearing drew roughly 60 speakers and centered on two linked issues: revisions intended to implement recent state law changes (including 2022 and 2024 UGA swap provisions) and new tribal‑coordination language intended to strengthen consultation and protection of cultural resources.

What the hearing covered: County planning staff said the CWPP updates respond to changes in state law and to directives to improve tribal coordination. Staff emphasized the hearing addresses countywide policy language — not a specific development proposal — and that any individual project would need its own environmental review and separate public hearings.

Why it matters: Many speakers said the proposed swap language (often referenced in testimony as “UGA swap” or the 2022/2024 swap laws) could permit developers to move lands into an urban growth area (UGA) by swapping other lands out, and they argued the draft CWPP language as written could weaken protections for critical aquifer recharge areas, surface water and habitat. Other speakers — including project proponents and some planning professionals — urged adoption so the county would have a clear framework to consult with cities and consider swaps under the new state laws.

Director of Community Planning and Economic Development Ashley Arrae told the board, “That is not what the public hearing is for today,” when asked whether the hearing concerned a particular proposal; she added the CWPPs establish a regional framework for cooperation and that project‑level review would be separate.

Supporters: Proponents of allowing swaps or of adopting the updates said the policy framework is needed to implement recently passed state law and to create a predictable consultation process with cities. Rob Rice, a land‑use consultant working with project proponents, urged the board to adopt the CWPP updates, saying, “Without that, no swap could happen.” Mike Brewer, who said he represents the Salish Landing proposal, told commissioners he supported the tribal coordination language and said the project team would provide technical studies.

Opponents: Many residents, environmental groups, and tribal members urged the board not to adopt the draft language in its current form. Common concerns were that the draft policy: - Could permit development on land that is critical to groundwater recharge and therefore harm wells and in‑stream flows to the Deschutes River; several speakers said the Barr Holdings/“Salish Landing” parcel adjoins recharge areas and cultural resources. - Lacked explicit requirements to use the best available science, to require full environmental impact statements (EIS) for policy changes of this scope, or to safeguard green belts and critical habitats. - Contained draft subsection d of policy 2.6 (as circulated) that opponents said would allow gradual elimination of green space and open areas within UGAs. Multiple speakers asked the board to remove subsection d.

Environmental and procedural requests: Several speakers cited the September Washington Supreme Court decision about environmental review and asked the board to prepare an EIS rather than issue a determination of nonsignificance. Others asked the board to wait for upcoming state rule‑making at the Department of Commerce (a rule‑making hearing on the swap laws is scheduled for spring) before finalizing local policy.

Process and next steps: Staff told the board that because of required timelines tied to environmental review, the board cannot take final action on the CWPP updates at this meeting; staff said the earliest possible final action would be at the board’s Feb. 4 meeting. Commissioners asked staff to schedule a work session to revisit draft language and to collect additional technical analysis and legal guidance. The hearing record will remain open to written comments already submitted and those received before any next decision.

Public turnout and tone: The hearing included students and long‑time residents as well as planning professionals, tribal representatives and developers. Comments ranged from technical requests about statutory interpretation to emotional appeals about water, treaty rights and the preservation of rural lands. Several speakers urged extended public education and clear, written protections for groundwater and habitat if swaps are to be considered.