Planning Commission urges retaining BOCC role in appeals, votes to add findings to recommendation

The Thurston County Planning Commission voted unanimously May 21 to ask staff to include findings in its recommendation opposing a Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) removal from the county land‑use appeals process and to prepare two versions of the pending permit review code package — one with appeals removed and one with appeals retained.

The vote followed a staff presentation by Anna Rodriguez of Thurston County Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) who told the commission, “For the public and for the record, this is a board directed item.” Rodriguez said the BOCC had requested removal of itself from the appeals process so commissioners could discuss land‑use proposals with applicants and the public without creating ex parte contact that could require recusal in later quasi‑judicial appeals.

Commissioners pressed staff on the policy tradeoffs. Commissioner Eric Casino said during debate, “I still have lots of concerns about this because I think much like we've heard from the public today that having a political solution to problems is very important,” and argued removing the BOCC would remove a public, elected venue for resolving land‑use disputes. Other commissioners raised related objections: that removing the BOCC could increase the cost and complexity of appeals for residents, narrow the range of considerations available in CEPA appeals, and reduce accountability in the permitting process.

The commission moved to add findings and sharpen its recommendation to the BOCC reflecting those concerns. The motion passed unanimously. Staff told the commission it will transmit the planning commission’s recommendation, and — as directed — prepare two versions of the draft permit‑review code package for the BOCC: one that removes the BOCC from the appeals process (the board‑directed draft) and one that retains the BOCC in the appeals chain.

During discussion staff and commissioners reviewed the item’s origin: it began as a Board‑directed docket item and was discussed over multiple cycles as staff and commissioners examined recurring appeal patterns and the county’s prior legal exposure. Senior planners said the change was proposed to reduce the risk of ex parte communications that led, in prior cases, to litigation. Commissioners said their role was to provide a recommendation to the BOCC and that the BOCC retains the authority to adopt, modify or reject staff or commission language.

Next steps: staff will include the planning commission’s findings and recommendation in the packet to the BOCC, and will submit both package versions with staff analysis. The commission will track the BOCC’s consideration; no BOCC action was recorded at the May 21 meeting.