Thurston County planners push to adopt city codes by reference for UGAs as commissioners press for stronger tree protections

Thurston County planning staff on May 20 outlined a proposal to adopt Lacey, Tumwater and Olympia zoning and subdivision rules by reference for the county's urban growth areas (UGAs), a move staff said would help the county quickly comply with recent state housing law changes and keep the UGAs aligned with city code updates.

"Adopting by reference'what does that mean? ... we're going to be adopting the city's codes in most cases by simply having a reference to sections within their codes," Maya, a senior planner with county community planning, told the commission. She said the approach would make most joint-code chapters administrative and allow the county to more rapidly align with the cities on housing and use standards.

The proposal drew sustained concern from commissioners and public commentators who warned that adopting city codes wholesale could weaken protections the county now applies for trees and sensitive critical areas. "We are cutting down mature forests and mature trees and then saying we can replace them with a few saplings," said Commissioner Passenger, arguing that restoration cannot replace centuries-old trees in any reasonable time frame.

Public speakers urged the commission to retain county-level protections. "If the exception [for subdivisions] was not in there, then all 16 of those trees would be saved," said Lynn Fitzu, executive director of Restoring Earth Connection, referring to local reporting that 1,244 trees were slated to be removed on a 22-acre Tumwater parcel. Fitzu asked the commission to keep tree protections as county work rather than transfer them to city control.

Staff proposed several limits and carve-outs. Maya said the county would retain certain county-specific provisions, including title 20 carve-outs for less-restrictive-alternative housing and an emergency housing waiver, and would keep county flood and drainage standards rather than adopt city stormwater rules by reference. For shoreline areas, staff said the county would retain its own Shoreline Master Program (SMP) rather than adopting city SMPs after consultation with state Ecology.

Commissioners gave staff several points of guidance without taking a final vote: favor adopting city residential standards by reference while carving out industrial, commercial and agricultural zones; adopt by reference to a specific "as-of" date so cities cannot change county rules without county review; retain county critical-area protections for shorelines; and explore programmatic tools such as tree-banking to incentivize retention of large trees. "If we're going to adopt by reference, we have to adopt by reference as of date," Commissioner Miller said, urging a dated snapshot of any adopted city code.

Staff told the commission they lack consultant resources to rewrite a comprehensive county urban tree ordinance in the short term and asked for concise, issue-by-issue guidance the team can implement within current staffing constraints. Commissioners asked staff to return with a short list of sticking points and recommended carve-outs so that the county's crosswalk documents and formal recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners would reflect the commission's priorities.

The commission did not vote on the code-change approach at the May 20 meeting; staff will report back with a more narrowly defined list of options and possible interim measures to protect trees while the joint-code update proceeds.