Thurston County planning commission launches rewrite of Critical Areas Ordinance

Thurston County Planning Commission members on Wednesday began a formal scoping process to repeal and replace the county's Critical Areas Ordinance (Title 24), a set of development regulations that govern wetlands, aquifer recharge, habitat conservation, flood-prone areas and geologic hazards.

County staff told commissioners the rewrite is driven by new state requirements and recent scientific guidance and is expected to affect permitting for most development applications in the county. "This is actually a...pretty big deal," a staff member said, noting the county's last major CAO update was in 2012 and that roughly 70% of permit applications touch critical areas.

Why it matters: The CAO governs when and how property owners must obtain environmental reviews and mitigation for development near sensitive natural features. Staff said outdated maps and code language have produced frequent delays and costly consultant reports for applicants; updating the code and maps is intended to streamline review, align local standards with Department of Ecology, DNR and other state guidance, and clarify permit procedures.

Staff overview and scope

Presenters told the commission the CAO update will start from state-mandated requirements and the "best available science" and is scoped to Title 24 (the CAO). The five categories the CAO regulates are wetlands, frequently flooded areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas and critical aquifer recharge areas. Staff said the project will not change the comprehensive plan (policy document) but will update the development code that implements those policies.

County staff described workstreams that include: - Updating maps and reference data to reflect new state mapping (for example newer DNR landslide data and Ecology wetland guidance). - Revising report and permit requirements so the information staff asks for aligns with current agency guidance. - Considering additional administrative tools (for example, administrative reasonable-use pathways) to reduce the number of full hearing-examiner cases where appropriate. - Coordinating with state agencies, tribes and neighboring jurisdictions, and sequencing needed joint work for urban growth areas (UGAs).

Permitting, time and cost implications

Staff outlined how CAO rules apply during development permitting. The standard front-end environmental check is the county's Critical Areas Review Permit (CARP). Staff said the current CARP fee is $696 and typical review times are a minimum of about three months; CARP completeness and the 65-day state review timeline still apply. Reasonable Use Exceptions (RUEs), which allow property owners limited use where critical areas constraints exist, carry larger fees (staff cited a baseline review cost close to $5,000) and frequently take six months to multiple years depending on complexity and applicant responsiveness. Staff said permit backlogs are driven by the large volume of CARPs: two planning technicians handle most of that workload.

Staff also described the county's approach to buffers: code currently sets a maximum wetland buffer of 300 feet while the administrative process triggers a preliminary biologist review within 400 feet of mapped wetlands; final buffers are established through a field delineation.

Public comment and stakeholder perspectives

Two members of the public spoke to the commission during the meeting. Bonnie Blessing, a resident who said she lives in Alpine Hills, thanked staff "for the CAO and that you're addressing wetlands" and urged the commission to consider that man-made ditches and roadside features can provide habitat for species such as Oregon spotted frogs. "Those ditches can...hold water and hold Oregon spotted frogs in the summer," she said.

Jessica Grubb, who identified herself as a long-time Thurston County resident, real estate broker and a planning commissioner for the city of Olympia (address given as 7733 Curbagh Road NE, Olympia), described repeated difficulties with how county staff interpret the CAO. From "personal and professional perspectives," she said, the county's implementation has required property owners to spend "thousands of dollars" on biological and geological reports and in some cases has halted or delayed projects while staff and consultants debated interpretations. Grubb urged balancing "environmental stewardship with the urgent need for housing" and said that inconsistent mapping and enforcement has led some buyers to choose property outside Thurston County.

Commission discussion and next steps

Commissioners and staff discussed priorities for the next meetings: staffing and workload constraints, how to sequence topic-focused work sessions (wetlands, habitat, permitting, floodplain, geologic hazards), and whether to develop different CAO provisions for UGAs in coordination with cities. Staff said they will prepare a draft schedule of topic-focused meetings for the commission and continue early outreach to state agencies, tribes and major local stakeholders such as Puget Sound Energy.

Staff also proposed a practical demonstration for commissioners: a 20- to 30-minute permit-counter exercise to show how an applicant learns whether a CARP is required and what reports might be needed.

There were no formal votes or final actions taken during the work session. Staff said the update will be iterative: the commission will receive agency guidance and example code from other counties, provide priorities and direction, and staff will return with draft code for additional review and public hearings.

What to expect next

Staff said they will return with a draft schedule of topic sessions and that the project webpage (thurstoncriticalareas.org) will be updated with resources and opportunities for public comment. The county emphasized the process will be coordinated with state agencies (Department of Ecology, Department of Commerce, DNR, WDFW) and the shoreline master program where jurisdictions overlap.

Ending

Commissioners asked staff to prioritize items that require more time or have larger changes in recent science; staff said wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat areas are likely to require the most attention. The commission set tentative dates for continuing CAO scoping and requested staff follow up with a schedule and examples for commission review.