Thurston County planning staff propose code changes to align permit timelines, expand some SEPA exemptions inside UGAs

Thurston County planning staff on Wednesday recommended a package of changes to the development code that would align local permit review timelines with state law, broaden State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) categorical exemptions for housing inside Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) and keep limited exemptions in rural areas.

At issue: state law recently expanded categorical SEPA exemptions for housing to speed housing development. County staff told commissioners the county’s development code had not been updated since 1997 and runs timelines that differ from the state’s Local Project Review Act; the proposed code changes would synchronize the county code with the state statute.

Ashley, a Community Planning and Economic Development staff member, told the board the planning commission recommended adoption of the permit timelines and other clerical updates after public review. For SEPA exemptions, planning commissioners recommended expanding the county’s exemptions inside UGAs to match state allowances — for example increasing the county threshold for exempted multi‑unit housing — while holding to more limited exemptions in rural county. “The planning commission landed on broadening exemptions in the UGA to make permits faster and cost less, but keeping limited exemptions outside the UGA,” Ashley said.

Staff framed the change as consistent with the county’s growth strategy: encouraging denser housing within UGAs while preserving rural character. Commissioners asked about distinctions between single‑family and multifamily thresholds in rural areas; staff noted local constraints such as community water and septic limits make large rural multifamily development uncommon and that planning commissioners had recommended a modest rural exemption increase from four to six units.

The code package also includes updates to permit review timelines required by the Local Project Review Act (SB 5290) and a housekeeping set of clerical edits. Another component the board asked staff to evaluate is whether quasi‑judicial land‑use appeals should remain heard by the Board of County Commissioners or be delegated directly to Superior Court; the planning commission recommended retaining the board as the appeal body based on community feedback that the board is more accessible to residents.

Staff asked commissioners whether to include the full package in a public‑hearing draft. Commissioners indicated they supported moving the whole package to a public hearing, and staff proposed a public hearing on Nov. 18; commissioners said the development code docket can be scheduled separately from the once‑yearly comprehensive plan docket if needed.

No formal action was taken Wednesday. Planning staff said they would return a public‑hearing draft, incorporate commissioner direction and publish materials in time for the November hearing.