Planning commissioners advance Thurston 2045 draft: add equity mapping, tighten farm‑land protections and defer some development‑code size limits

The Thurston County Planning Commission continued its multi‑session review of the Thurston 2045 comprehensive plan draft, approving several language changes and identifying follow‑up work for staff while deferring other code‑level decisions to future development‑regulation work.

Maya Tepel, senior planner, led the session’s review of staff responses to public comments and described edits already made to the land‑use and natural‑resources chapters. Tepel said staff added clarifying language around a target of reducing rural growth toward a 5% rural share, updated crosswalks showing comment responses, and incorporated technical suggestions from state agencies where they aligned with county policy.

Key outcomes and staff directions

- Farm‑ and forest‑land protections: Commissioners objected to staff language that used stronger phrasing ("does not interfere") and that broadened the policy beyond residential uses. After discussion the commission agreed to revise Policy A1‑6(k) to read in part that development and operation of uses near designated long‑term agriculture, forestry, mineral and other natural resource lands should “minimize potential conflicts, encourage the conservation and reduce unnecessary conversion of farm and forest land” and that mechanisms such as clustering and buffering should be scaled and located to maintain rural character.

- Equity and climate tools: Commissioners endorsed adding a separate policy calling for use of the county’s new equity mapping tool and available climate‑vulnerability modeling when assessing land‑use changes. Staff will draft specific policy language and a short definition of the types of equity and climate data intended for review.

- Urban Growth Area (UGA) revision language: Staff proposed compromise language clarifying that future comprehensive plan or joint plan updates may revise UGA boundaries under RCW 36.70A.130 or other applicable law, and that any revision would require supporting documentation and legislative review. Commissioners generally supported the compromise.

- Mineral‑lands and resource‑designation amendments: Commissioners agreed to simplify the draft by referencing the applicable WAC (natural‑resource designation procedures) rather than restating the WAC language in full, while retaining the WAC’s intent that designation changes be based on specific criteria and that the county maintain sufficient acreage of agricultural land to support long‑term economic viability.

- Rural resource industrial (RRI) size limits: Commissioners discussed options (flat building footprint caps, percentage of lot/building footprint tied to existing 60% hard‑surface coverage, or doing nothing now) and did not reach agreement. They deferred specific size‑limit decisions to the upcoming development‑regulation and code rewrite work, noting that RRI use lists were already narrowed to natural‑resource‑based industries.

Other items summarized by staff

Tepel summarized additional, noncontroversial edits posted in response to public comment: updates to aquaculture narrative to better align with the shoreline master program, minor forestry policy additions consistent with state law, clarifications tied to WSDOT comments in the transportation and capital facilities chapters, and a glossary definition of “regenerative agriculture” added to the draft.

Commissioner concerns and follow up

Commissioners pressed staff for links or references to new state guidance and data cited in public comments (for example, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat corridor materials and TRPC basin condition modeling). Commissioners asked staff to provide: (1) specific draft language for the new equity/climate policy, (2) examples or precedent ordinances for building‑size limits in rural industrial zones, and (3) a clearer, less permissive definition of “capital facility” for the capital improvement program discussion. Staff agreed to return to those topics in subsequent sessions.

Process notes

Tepel and staff noted procedural constraints: some review items depend on state rulemaking (Department of Commerce rulemaking on UGA swap guidance and updated WACs) and joint planning with cities; staff said rulemaking timelines affect when certain county policy changes can be finalized. Commissioners expressed preference for leaving detailed development‑code size limits to the code rewrite process rather than embedding them in the comprehensive plan.

Next steps

The commission scheduled work on chapter 9 (environment/natural resources) for the next meeting and planned to revisit housing and the draft development regulations at future sessions. Staff aims to bring a recommendation to the commission in August in time to meet statutory timelines for board consideration later in the year.