Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Tumwater planning commission recommends council approve 2025 capital‑facilities comprehensive‑plan amendment

Tumwater Planning Commission · October 31, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Tumwater Planning Commission on Tuesday voted to recommend that the City Council approve Ordinance O2025‑009, a comprehensive‑plan amendment that updates the city’s six‑year capital facilities plan for 2026–2031.

The Tumwater Planning Commission on Tuesday voted to recommend that the City Council approve Ordinance O2025‑009, a comprehensive‑plan amendment that updates the city’s six‑year capital facilities plan for 2026–2031.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved the recommendation and Commissioner Nelson seconded; the motion passed by voice vote with no recorded opposition. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the council for its consideration.

Planning staff told commissioners the amendment updates the capital facilities element and was reviewed for internal consistency with the comprehensive plan and countywide planning policies. Staff said the Department of Commerce review was submitted Sept. 11, 2025, and that the 60‑day review window runs through Nov. 10, 2025. Staff also reported that the SEPA checklist was prepared Sept. 11, 2025, a Determination of Nonsignificance was issued Sept. 26 and the SEPA comment period closed Oct. 10 with no comments received.

The staff analysis presented to the commission concluded the proposed updates conform to the Growth Management Act and applicable Thurston Countywide planning policies and that required review steps have been completed or initiated.

No public testimony was offered in person or online during the hearing, according to staff. Staff also reported written comments received prior to the meeting from Olympia Master Builders, state geological reviewers and WSDOT; the comments were provided to the city attorney and included in the packet.

The commission’s action was procedural: it forwarded a recommendation to the City Council rather than adopting changes itself. The council will receive the commission’s recommendation at a future meeting date to be set by city staff.