The Thurston County Planning Commission reviewed the public‑hearing draft of the Thurston 2045 comprehensive plan and discussed next steps, including a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) the county expects to publish for 45 days of public comment. Maya Teepel, Senior Planner for Thurston County Community Planning, presented the packet and told commissioners, “with your last packet that went out last week, you've received your public hearing draft of the Thurston 2045 comprehensive plan.”

The draft packet includes a clean public‑hearing draft, a code package of proposed development code amendments, map packets, and an implementation appendix. Teepel said the county’s education and outreach team reworked much of the plan text to be easier to read — a process staff called “plain talking” — and that the readability edits were applied to the narrative sections, not the policy language.

The meeting focused heavily on Chapter 2 (land use) and the question of whether the draft — or existing county code — permits large distribution warehouses and other non‑resource industrial uses on rural resource lands. Three residents who spoke during public comment warned commissioners that the draft and underlying development regulations risk allowing large online‑fulfillment centers outside urban growth areas. Rhonda Larson Kramer said development rules “permit Amazon warehouses outside UGAs,” and added, “Amazon warehouses are not a natural resource industry.” Linda Fritz and Loretta Sevinen made similar objections, urging commissioners to remove draft language they said would introduce urban‑scale industrial uses into areas meant for agriculture, forestry and mining.

County staff and several commissioners said the current code already allows certain industrial uses outside UGAs under the Rural Resource Industrial (RRI) designation if strict locational criteria and performance standards are met. Andy Defovis, interim community planning manager, and other staff explained staff drafted some Chapter 2 language to reflect those existing code provisions and to add a clustering requirement for non‑resource industrial uses. Staff said some implementation actions in the draft would require future code amendments or docket items to tighten standards. Commissioners and members of the public asked specifically about Thurston County Code 20.229 and whether an applicant could be required to demonstrate no suitable UGA land is available before siting non‑resource industrial uses in rural areas.

Commissioners debated how prescriptive policy language in the comp plan should be. Several commissioners argued for stronger, more directive words such as “protect” or “require” rather than softer terms such as “encourage,” and asked staff to ensure policy intent translates into enforceable code changes where appropriate. Commissioner comments also ranged to specific regulatory tools: some suggested square‑footage caps for non‑resource industrial buildings in rural areas, others urged separating resource‑support industries (like timber or ag supply) from high‑intensity uses such as large distribution warehouses and data centers.

Teepel outlined the immediate schedule: staff expect to publish the draft SEIS for a 45‑day comment period next week, and the Planning Commission set time for continued review at the Feb. 19 meeting and again on March 5. Staff proposed two tentative public‑hearing dates for the Planning Commission — March 19 (a weekday evening) or March 22 (a Saturday) — and asked commissioners whether to hold a single omnibus hearing or split hearings by chapter or topic to allow focused public comment. Commissioners discussed splitting hearings, staggering chapter hearings, and holding one weekend and one weekday hearing to broaden public participation.

Commissioners formed a small, informal subcommittee to help refine wording and prioritized a short list of policy areas that will receive early attention from staff and the commission; among those priorities are Chapter 2 (rural industrial policy), Chapter 4 (housing), and Chapter 9 (environmental and habitat policies). Teepel told commissioners staff will bring a proposed public‑hearing schedule and outreach plan to the next meeting.

Why it matters: the comprehensive plan sets Thurston County’s long‑range land‑use policy and informs future zoning and code amendments. Residents and several commissioners said they were concerned that current code provisions and draft language together could enable large warehouses and other high‑intensity industrial uses in rural areas, and they asked staff to return with clearer policy direction or docket items to change the code.

The commission did not take any final votes on policy changes at the Feb. 5 meeting. The draft SEIS will open a formal comment period, and the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners will receive additional public hearings before final adoption.