Thurston County Planning Commission reviews 2026–27 docket, moves to remove four preliminary items

The Thurston County Planning Commission spent a substantial portion of its Jan. 7 meeting reviewing the county’s 2026–27 docket process and recommending priorities to the Board of County Commissioners.

Andrew Bon, community development manager, and Associate Planner Anna Rodriguez described the docket process, explaining there are two main dockets — comprehensive plan and development code — and that the board opens a formal 20-day public comment period after an initial work session. Rodriguez said the county will use a priority framing (high, medium, low) to bundle work and align staff resourcing; high-priority items include legally required updates such as the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and the Shoreline Master Program.

Commissioners discussed multiple proposed docket items and asked staff to emphasize housing outcomes in code updates. "If there is an interest in the planning commission highlighting that they really want housing to be a focus of the Title 20 and Title 18 work, we can make it explicit," a staff presenter said, noting the county will include the commission's priorities in the package to the board.

The commission also reviewed four applicant-initiated projects on the preliminary docket — the Scott land-use rezone near Black River (rezoning 54 acres from 1:20 to 1:5), proposed fireworks and 'no-shooting' code changes (sheriff enforcement code changes), and a proposed natural landmark program creating small conservation easements administered by the county. Commissioners moved to remove all four preliminary items from the upcoming docket; the voice vote carried with one nay.

Other docket items discussed included an expanded Nisqually watershed planning project (proposed to be watershed-scale rather than a narrower sub-area plan), "working lands" conservation and possible changes to transfer/purchase-of-development-rights programs, climate program and policy updates, a Grand Mound rezone request (applicant-initiated), capital improvements program timing, joint plans and joint codes updates with cities (including a potential approach to adopt certain city codes by reference with exceptions), and a multi-year overhaul of Title 20 (rural zoning code) and Title 18 (rural subdivision code).

Commissioners flagged some points for follow-up: whether adopting city codes by reference could reduce county-level public review, how joint code changes would interact with pending annexation studies (notably Lacey’s work), and the resources required to implement the large Title 20/Title 18 work. Commissioners favored prioritizing watershed-scale Nisqually planning and keeping a clear focus on housing outcomes in the development-code updates.

Formal actions recorded: the commission moved to remove four preliminary docket items (the motion carried, recorded voice vote with one dissent), and earlier in the meeting the commission approved the meeting agenda and appointed an interim chair after suspending the rule that would normally delay reorganization until a fuller body.

Why it matters: Docket designations determine what the county will formally be allowed to work on and when; items added to the official docket enter a defined public comment and board review process. Prioritization affects staff resource allocation and which code/policy changes (such as Title 20 updates or CAO integration) proceed quickly enough to inform current development and conservation goals.

Next steps: Staff will package the Planning Commission’s feedback for the Board of County Commissioners and start the formal public comment period; the commission will continue to receive work sessions and scoping briefings on the high- and medium-priority docket items.