Planning commission advances Thurston 2045 follow-up items, urges early review of health chapter

The Thurston County Planning Commission on Sept. 3 discussed follow-up recommendations for the Thurston 2045 comprehensive-plan update, voted to advise the county to accelerate a rewrite of the plan’s health chapter, and received a recap of a Growth Management Hearings Board decision on an agricultural soils appeal.

Senior planner Maya Tibel briefed the commission on next steps, including a technical appendix that will summarize the planning commission’s 2023 agricultural-soils findings and an implementation timeline that dockets a new agricultural zone overlay for the county’s short-term work program. Tibel told commissioners that the county prevailed on most points in an appeal by FutureWise but that the Growth Management Hearings Board found the county must still consider farmlands of statewide importance; staff plan to address that topic in a new legislative docket within the next one to five years.

Commissioners discussed several specific findings they want included in the final recommendation letter to the Board of County Commissioners. One recurring theme was a preference for incentive-based solutions to steer rural growth while retaining regulatory options if incentive programs fail. "The planning commission favors incentive-based and innovative approaches when feasible while also acknowledging the exigency of employing regulatory tools where necessary to ensure accountability and progress," a commissioner offered; the commission asked staff to include similar language in the transmittal.

Housing shortages and state requirements to plan for housing “at all income levels” drew sustained attention. Several commissioners said the current statutory and market environment makes meeting targets for lower‑income (50% and 30% area median income) housing difficult and that the county needs more public and creative options to reach those lower AMI bands.

On the health chapter, commissioners moved to recommend the county advance a rewrite of the plan’s health chapter sooner than would otherwise be scheduled. The motion passed in a voice vote with one abstention; staff recorded the commission’s direction and will include it in the transmittal to the board.

Tibel summarized the agricultural appeal: the county updated its soils list and related comprehensive-plan criteria; no new lands were added to the county’s agricultural designation after the GIS analysis. The Growth Management Hearings Board rejected most FutureWise arguments but concluded the county still must consider farmlands of statewide importance. Staff said many of the parcels identified as farmlands of statewide importance are unsuitable for commercial agriculture (steep slopes, erosion-prone, too small or lacking water), and that the county intends to fold the work on farmlands of statewide importance into a short-term implementation docket that could explore an ag-zone overlay and protection tools for smaller soil parcels.

Staff also noted compliance timing: the county’s response and technical appendix will feed the compliance materials the county must prepare for the hearings board, with a compliance order due in early 2026 if the adoption schedule proceeds as expected.

Commissioners asked staff to reflect three core themes in the recommendation to the board: public engagement and consensus-building during the plan update, a preference for incentive-based solutions with regulatory backstops, and an accelerated review of the health chapter. Staff said they will prepare the draft transmittal incorporating those findings and deliver the packet to the board in the coming days.