Thurston County staff present geologic-hazards gap analysis; public and commissioners ask for clearer code text, citations and review time

Thurston County planning staff presented a gap analysis of the county’s geologically hazardous areas and how proposed critical‑areas ordinance updates would use new Department of Natural Resources mapping and LiDAR-based screening tools to set reporting requirements.

County staff described the analysis as a tool to align code language with the best available science (BAS), noting that climate projections indicate increased landslide risk through wetter, longer-duration storms and that updated mapping improves identification of hazard areas. The presentation emphasized right‑sizing reporting requirements so applicants and reviewers avoid repeated, costly submittals.

The presentation drew largely supportive public comment but also repeated requests for clearer materials. Kristy White thanked staff for the analysis and asked that “only having a few days to review the detailed code is not feasible,” urging staff to post draft code text and provide before-and-after examples so the public can evaluate specific wording. Bonnie Blessing urged the commission to consider habitat-forming processes and long-term coastal bluff dynamics when drafting rules. Loretta Seppanen asked the commission to add habitat-preserving measures into landslide provisions and to incorporate professional requirements (which currently live in a separate general reports section) into the main chapter.

Commissioners pressed staff on how much of the identified increased risk is due to climate-driven changes versus improved mapping. Staff said climate-model literature and local rainfall-duration projections inform the assessment and that both improved mapping and changing climate signals contribute; staff also said they can begin to use 25–30 years of local data to test trends. Staff explained that project applicants will retain credentialed geotechnical engineers for site-level assessments and that Mark Beavers’ water and climate team will review submissions.

Commissioners and commenters recommended additional practical steps: publish example geotechnical packets or sample reports so applicants better match county expectations, embed clearer citations to the literature referenced in the gap analysis, and explicitly consider anthropogenic sources of geologic hazards (surface mines, reservoirs) in the chapter language. Staff agreed to pursue those changes and to post additional materials and schedule updates so both commissioners and the public have time to review proposed code text before finalization.

The commission noted the next CAO work sessions will cover other chapters (frequently flooded areas is scheduled next) and reiterated that posting draft language well before hearings will be important for meaningful public review.