Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Thurston County staff lay out policy choices to limit rural growth in comp plan update
Summary
CPED staff told commissioners that Thurston County will receive about 12% of projected county growth under current trends but can pursue policy tools to reduce rural growth toward a 5% target; staff framed options ranging from administrative fixes to down‑zoning and described coordination with cities and TRPC on capacity analyses.
Ashley (Community Planning and Economic Development director) and Derek Day, community planning manager, presented the first focused briefing on rural land use in the county's comprehensive plan update during the July 23 Board work session, describing projected population and land-use trends and policy choices for limiting rural growth.
Derek said Thurston County is projected to grow roughly 30% over the next 20 years and that current projections allocate about 12% of that growth to the rural county. He said most growth is expected within cities and their urban growth areas; Grand Mound was noted as a UGA with county-managed planning. Derek said the 12% projection is based on historic building trends and the market and that commissioners can change that outcome through policy decisions in the comprehensive plan update.
Staff described policy options and trade-offs. One commonly discussed regional target is moving from an approximately 12% rural allocation toward a “sustainable Thurston” goal of 5% rural growth over the next 20 years. Staff said the region’s cities could accommodate 95% of projected growth (a capacity analysis completed with TRPC), meaning rural capacity remains in place unless the Board elects to change policies. Options range from administrative measures and incentives to reduce rural development to heavier regulatory tools such as down‑zoning or de‑parcelization.
Speakers highlighted additional policy issues: whether to limit uses in rural resource-industrial zones to activities with a natural-resource nexus (timber, agriculture, mining), how to clarify rural character and critical areas regulations, and measures to improve permitting clarity and reduce administrative burdens for residents and applicants. Staff said recent public comment emphasized using climate data for land‑use decisions, protecting wildlife corridors and ensuring zoning supports equitable and healthy outcomes.
Commissioners and staff discussed the political and practical trade-offs. Several commissioners and the county manager emphasized that changing the county's rural capacity would redirect development into UGAs and cities, requiring efficient permitting and coordination to avoid displacing development pressure or increasing housing costs. Commissioners also asked staff to present a range of tools with timelines and administrative implications so the Board can weigh gradual approaches against more direct limits.
Staff said these are “big policy questions” that will reappear throughout the comprehensive plan review process; the land‑use element primarily covers areas outside UGAs (except Grand Mound) and sets the foundation for subsequent chapters on housing, transportation, utilities and critical areas. Staff committed to return with more detailed options and impacts in future briefings.
