Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff proposes adopting city UGA zoning by reference to reduce code lag
Summary
CPED staff told the Planning Commission that county UGA development codes have not kept pace with city updates and proposed adopting city UGA zoning "by reference" with targeted county exceptions to speed compliance and reduce administrative burden.
CPED staff presented an overview of planned joint-plan and development-code updates for Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater and floated a procedural change: adopting city UGA zoning codes "by reference" so city code amendments would automatically apply in county UGAs. The change is intended to align county practice with city standards and speed compliance with new state housing and subdivision laws.
Why it matters: staff told commissioners the county’s UGA codes “haven’t really been updated since 1996,” creating inconsistencies with city development rules and leaving county planners to interpret decades-old provisions. Staff estimated the county is "about 2 to 3 years behind" current state housing law implementations for UGAs, a lag that complicates permitting and coordination.
What staff proposed: a by-reference approach where city code updates would be reflected automatically in county UGA titles while retaining narrowly tailored county exceptions for issues such as existing agricultural uses, wireless and battery-storage provisions, or other discrete items staff recommends holding onto. Staff said the county would remain the permitting authority until annexation; adoption by reference would be procedural rather than a policy reversal, they said.
Commission concerns and technical constraints: commissioners pressed staff on how the 5% rural growth target was modeled and whether the land capacity analysis used existing or proposed zoning; staff replied the analysis used zoning in place at the time and that county critical-areas rules—written for rural settings—can make it difficult to meet urban density minimums. Several commissioners asked about use-specific gaps between city and county codes: retail marijuana, LRA protections, wireless codes, and battery-energy-storage provisions. Staff said exceptions could be retained where justified.
Public notice and equity questions: some commissioners and a public commenter warned that adopting city codes by reference could make UGA residents feel disenfranchised if notice and outreach are not coordinated. Staff said cities used web and social outreach for recent comprehensive-plan updates and that the county could amplify notices through its channels, while acknowledging mailed notice would be costly.
Next steps: staff will return in March with a deeper scope and legal review (including coordination with city legal counsel), aim to produce a summer draft, and hold joint public hearings in the fall with a goal of Board review by September for an October–November decision window.
