The Thurston County Planning Commission is reviewing the Thurston 2045 code update, a proposal to adjust zoning regulations, housing policies, energy infrastructure and military compatibility standards across the county.
Senior Planer Maya Teeple of Thurston County Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) detailed the proposed changes at the first Thurston County Planning Commission meeting for fiscal year 2025 on Feb. 5.
Teeple explained how CPED developed the proposed amendments in response to state requirements and sectoral concerns in the county.
She also provided an overview of rural growth targets, Grand Mound Urban Growth Area (UGA) density changes, renewable energy infrastructure regulations, military influence zoning and industrial development policies.
One of the proposals in the Thurston 2045 code update is the revision of rural growth targets.
Under current policies, 14% of new housing development occurs in rural areas, but the planning commission previously voted to reduce the figure to 5%.
However, the code draft does not explicitly include this target. Instead, it stated a general goal of reducing rural growth without specifying a numerical limit.
During the public hearing, Teeple acknowledged commissioners' concerns about the absence of a firm target and explained that achieving a strict 5% cap may not be feasible.
Some county officials have suggested that, even with regulatory changes, rural growth is likely to remain between 6% and 7% rather than reach the originally proposed 5% goal.
Teeple explained that the final version of the code update could still be revised based on ongoing discussions and public input.
The Grand Mound UGA is set to undergo significant zoning changes under the proposed code update.
According to Teeple, the plan increases minimum density requirements to four to eight units per acre and sets maximum density limits at 16 to 24 units per acre.
The adjustments mentioned are intended to promote compact development in areas with urban services, established transportation access and potential for future annexation.
Teeple also elaborated that the proposed housing changes are aligned with state mandates for increasing housing supply. The amendment ensures that Grand Mound can still accommodate future population growth.
The update also includes provisions to:
Although the proposed changes are designed to increase housing availability, Teeple noted that infrastructure capacity in Grand Mound remains a concern.
Teeple said higher housing densities will require expanded water, sewer and transportation systems, and the county will need to develop infrastructure plans to accommodate new growth.
The Thurston 2045 code update introduces new regulations for electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, solar energy systems and battery energy storage systems (BESS) under Chapters 20.55A, 20.55B, and 20.55C.
According to Teeple, the updates were developed to support the county’s transition to renewable energy and to be in compliance with state climate goals.
The proposed policies permit EV charging stations in all commercial, industrial and mixed-use zones. This will also allow private charging stations in residential garages.
Public charging stations would also be subjected to clear signage, maintenance and accessibility requirements.
For battery energy storage systems (BESS), the draft introduces two regulatory tiers:
The proposal also includes updated solar energy regulations, allowing rooftop solar installations without special permits.
On the other hand, ground-mounted systems would be subjected to setback and height restrictions.
The updates align with the Thurston Climate Mitigation Plan. The plan sets goals for 45% emissions reduction by 2030, 70% by 2040 and net-zero emissions by 2050.
A new Military Influence Area Overlay (MIAO) is being introduced to prevent conflicts between development and Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM).
Teeple stated the overlay was designed to address potential conflicts between military operations and nearby land uses.
The move secures urban expansion and does not interfere with JBLM training activities.
The overlay includes new notification requirements for property buyers and developers, informing them of potential impacts from military noise, flight patterns and training operations.
Base officials will assess potential conflicts with military operations by reviewing any major zoning amendments and large-scale permit applications within 2 miles of JBLM over a 60-day period.
The proposed restrictions on building heights and light emissions are intended to prevent interference with military aviation.
According to Teeple, the overlay was developed in collaboration with the South Sound Military Community Partnership and follows recommendations from the 2019 Military Influence Area Overlay Report.
The updated zoning policies require rural industrial developments to be clustered rather than spread out across rural areas. This is intended to limit the environmental impact of industrial activity.
Teeple addressed concerns raised by residents about potential large-scale warehouse developments in rural zones.
Teeple stated that some community members believe the proposed language could allow Amazon-style distribution centers to be built in locations lacking the infrastructure to support them.
Teeple clarified that the draft does not explicitly authorize new warehouse construction, but acknowledged some revisions may be needed to clarify the county’s position.
Several commissioners have suggested tightening the language to prevent unintended industrial expansion into rural zones.
The Thurston 2045 code update is still under review. Officials said potential revisions are expected before final adoption.
The following issues may still be adjusted:
A public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, March 19, with additional work sessions in April and May. Officials encourage residents, developers and stakeholders to submit comments before making final decisions.
The full Thurston 2045 code update is available for public review on the official Thurston County page.
3 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Southsoundguy
Central planning, cool.
Tuesday, February 11 Report this
LSeppanen
Comprehensive Planning work is done over many months and as the article illustrates covers widely varied aspects of what local county government does such as how fast the rural area needs to grow versus urban areas and the smaller details like where EV charging stations will be allowed. Given the range of topics and the variety of documents discussed at the Feb 5 Planning Commission meeting it is not surprising that this summary resulted mixing up some of those documents. While the article referred to the Planning Commission discussion as being about the Development Code, that is not the case, the meeting centered on the hearing draft of 10 chapters of the Comprehension Plan.
To better match up to what is happening as the county updates the Comprehensive Plan readers need to substitute the words “Comprehensive Plan” where the article says “code” – except in that Renewable Energy and Electrical Vehicle section. The detail in that section is in the Development Code – new codes for new technologies. The Comprehensive Plan outlines policies that represent the vision for where we live, what shapes the roads are in, how the environment is threatened or repaired, etc. for now to 2045. The Development Code translates vision into detail of what is or is not allowed when residents visit the county’s permit office to make changes to their property.
Two other clarifications.
• The Feb. 5 meeting was not a hearing. It was a discussion between county staff and the Planning Commissioners.
• During the meeting it was decided that the future Planning Commission hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan, Implementation Plan, and Development Code updates would not be in March, the originally tentative timeline. The new date will be set at a future Planning Commission meeting.
To see all the documents, not just the list of Development Code updates, enter "Thurston 2045" in your search engine.
Wednesday, February 12 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
I very much appreciate your reporting on this planning commission meeting. I'm going to hijack the conversation for a minute. This was an extremely important meeting because it focused on whether or not to allow our rural areas to host intermodal transportation hubs (think massive Amazon warehouses, semi-trucks clogging the roads, huge swaths of farmland and forestland being paved over). Our development code allows it presently. Our comprehensive plan does not, despite the fact that the comp plan is supposed to govern the code, not the other way around. By updating the draft comp plan to allow it, a mistake was made recently. I'm hopeful that it will get fixed because the planning commission asked it to get fixed. See this article on the hell that an intermodal transportation hub brings to a rural community and the drain that it has on the tax base, which is the opposite of what the Illinois farming community thought it was going to get when it invited this project to build there: https://newrepublic.com/article/152836/elwood-illinois-pop-2200-become-vital-hub-americas-consumer-economy-its-hell.
The Olympia Airport Master Plan Update is connected to this. As many people may be aware, the comment period ends on Feb. 12 on that plan. That plan would allow a massive increase in air traffic. Go here to comment: https://www.takeaction.network/xactions/40629?ref=2577.
To sign the petition, go here: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/stop-olympia-airport-growth?clear_id=true.
The airport plan arises from the strong push for siting intermodal cargo terminals. The execs at the Port of Olympia want a spot in that market. This would result in an increase in tax revenue to the City of Tumwater (hence, Lisa Parks' desire to remove the Davis Meeker oak, which for Port officials is inconveniently located at the airport) and it would result in a massive increase in the Port's tax revenues.
If you think there's no market for a cargo hub here, just look at the significant efforts a few years ago by NorthPoint to get an intermodal truck and freight terminal built at Rocky Prairie. See https://www.friendsofrockyprairie.org/. The reason the Olympia Airport and our county generally are sought by corporations for such development is that we sit in the perfect spot, from their point of view. We're not far from Portland, Tacoma, and Seattle. We are a straight shot away from them on I-5. There's already a rail line. Some people think sleepy Olympia Airport can't be the target of big business since we already lost passenger air service.
But that was 20 years ago, pre-Amazon. Warehouses are big business now. There is an insatiable appetite for siting distribution centers. If Port Commissioners approve the Airport Master Plan Update, it will allow the airport to expand air traffic on a massive scale to serve this market. This would bring so much noise and ultrafine particles (UFPs) that it would destroy this community's current quality of life.
In 2023, Livability.com ranked Olympia as the third-best place to live in the Western U.S. We can kiss that goodbye if this master plan update gets passed through by commissioners. SeaTac has never made the top ten list of best places to live for a reason. Rather, BestPlaces.net has ranked SeaTac as the #1 Most Stressful City among the 100 largest metro areas in America. Why? Because prolonged exposure to aircraft noise, especially near airports, has been linked to sleep disturbances, increased stress, cardiovascular issues, and reduced cognitive performance in children.
The Olympia airport plan has little to do with convenient commuter plane service. There's not enough market to sustain such a business in isolation, as we discovered 20 years ago. But there is a market for air cargo distribution centers.
If Port Commissioners say no to air traffic expansion at the Olympia Airport, it will help push Washington state to get high-speed rail between Yakima and western WA. While the concept isn’t currently in any official transportation plans, growing airport congestion in Seattle can eventually force more creative solutions like this onto the table. If other airport options closer to Seattle hit roadblocks (i.e., if Olympia Commissioners do the right thing and reject a plan to make us a regional hub), the Yakima plus high-speed rail option could become more attractive. But this takes climate-friendly statewide vision by local leaders like the Port Commission. Whether a majority of our current electeds at the Port of Olympia have this vision remains to be seen.
Wednesday, February 12 Report this