[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6534829,"mediaKeyId","3469932-3678db2b4a0a799da09aa8b1b2ddb2e3","parentId",3469932,"title","Commission ties commute trip reduction, remote‑work supports and EV permitting to permit‑review updates","audioSeconds",5351,"startMs",1602000,"endMs",6953000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3469932-3678db2b4a0a799da09aa8b1b2ddb2e3&start=1602&end=6953","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3469932-3678db2b4a0a799da09aa8b1b2ddb2e3/thumbnail_1602000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6534829/Thurston-County/Washington/Commission-ties-commute-trip-reduction-remotework-supports-and-EV-permitting-to-permitreview-updates","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6534829-77bc9d4f60624f59db07f0ead662f2a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1776608284&Signature=OfofAZNRFiXsThf9PS6-9wtPSH8UdWaT66gTvku4fWRC5DqenA~YDtg5r5dLGtIKIq9zPAk95fhIx6rYaKl53EkGG1cT5e2uklQhC6aXSjpYV8owDnqacBt56JMevkxKKVH1bFPgDmTIp01nnVqw4JKrr50RkC-Fb3fiPHxYgjvLwni6obDCtQPWocbChS8uRfTAZ1qftnyGPlaTBrDvhidc2nsQV0c2-~RBr8j8RuLgCt4Cu5b1JNHOljNdVeg95-O-drrmw7NB8pOfqXxNwlftuiWb1u12U1h3SqXD2SW~Qw2ZIel2ci8OjBLLyut6Xz1SNDGRfZ4GLN6AS4p1Zg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Thurston County Washington","date","2025-05-21T00:00:00Z","article","Thurston County planning commissioners on May 21 asked staff to weave several transportation and electrification items into the permit review and climate implementation actions: reference the regional Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program for county employee and employer strategies, include remote‑work infrastructure support as part of low‑carbon transportation efforts, and add a discrete implementation item encouraging simplified residential EV charging permitting.

Rebecca Harvey and other staff proposed linking an action calling for county agencies to increase teleworking and staggered workdays to the regional CTR program administered through TRPC and the county’s updated local CTR plan. Commissioners agreed and directed staff to add language that connects county commitments to the regional CTR program, to monitor progress toward CTR targets at County worksites, and to develop an internal county CTR policy for employees.

The commission discussed the phrasing for remote work. Commissioners preferred the term “remote work” over “telework” and asked staff to include remote‑work infrastructure support (broadly defined to include broadband access, employer incentives and other supports) in the implementation language so that promoting option adoption is paired with concrete infrastructure measures.

On electric vehicles, staff noted existing state requirements for EV‑ready and EV‑capable buildings and suggested that the county add an implementation bullet to create “a simple and consistent residential charging station permitting process to reduce costs and time to development.” Commissioners approved adding a permitting‑streamlining action and asked staff to capture it in IPCL 19 for follow up.

The commission also approved an educational campaign action to promote efficient driving practices and low‑carbon vehicle choices. Staff suggested referencing the existing “Don’t Wait to Inflate” tire‑inflation campaign as an example to include within county outreach.

Next steps: staff will revise the implementation actions to reference the regional CTR program, insert the remote‑work infrastructure language, add the residential EV permitting streamlining bullet to IPCL 19, and schedule follow‑up code language drafting for future meetings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","May 21, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Planning commissioners asked staff to tie county climate actions to the regional Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program, add remote‑work infrastructure support to implementation language, and to include residential EV permitting streamlining in implementation actions.","taxTitle","Thurston County, Washington","taxId",4614,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6534833,"Commission endorses adding solar actions to implementation plan; narrows solar‑ready mandate with carve‑outs",1031,3340000,4371000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3469932-3678db2b4a0a799da09aa8b1b2ddb2e3&start=3340&end=4371","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3469932-3678db2b4a0a799da09aa8b1b2ddb2e3/thumbnail_3340000.jpg","/articles/6534833/Thurston-County/Washington/Commission-endorses-adding-solar-actions-to-implementation-plan-narrows-solarready-mandate-with-carveouts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6534833-14ba99a57ff6926f06bd5c8d34fd44ae/orig.mp4?Expires=1776608284&Signature=AhXxO4Oab1CGit3Ns98iaW7YafjssHEdlIUHH9eOYuntrST0XlMoH~IGRdoZh6i0-ssFxwtlSGecCoj9rpAUCB2bpf1K5nTohQkQUAgTY7RMwQ86t6MbMUqf1AZSTAIdTBexVmFAVCKCvuFAF9TkiF5CYjM~KxZ9zylthkoGAqy1VmwfZjjYloHDHDxp~J0B7u771qYgk3FQfGp5TRU3fYXQIoImIwFT1BM8OTrncfhZncTJIw1YXof14IFspm-eMRU7TJpPQ0Tq82nzrziJSSGplutv7fZ4m6aWYjvvb-CoXYEykcfLEA0B0DpvJDOelQG39-vE1m0X5sPTJGewlw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Thurston County planning commissioners on May 21 agreed to add several Thurston Climate Mitigation Plan (TCMP) solar actions into the county’s comprehensive plan implementation chapter and to pursue more aggressive county steps to encourage solar deployment.

Staff recommended replicating existing comprehensive plan policies into implementation actions so the county’s climate and land‑use documents would align. Commissioners supported copying policy CL1.D.2 (install solar photovoltaics on available and feasible county properties) into the implementation plan and conducting a targeted integration of TCMP actions rather than wholesale appendices.

On SolSmart, staff and Rebecca Harvey proposed an implementation action to pursue a higher SolSmart designation beyond the county’s current standing. Commissioners endorsed replacing the existing implementation language with a broader item that would pursue higher SolSmart designation and implement SolSmart elements such as codifying that accessory‑use solar PV is allowed by right, streamlining permitting for ground‑mounted and non‑residential systems, posting community metrics for solar and storage, and expanding community partnerships to promote solar development. Commissioners also asked staff to include incentives language (for example, waiving or reducing fees) to encourage renewable energy installations in development proposals.

The commission debated a TCMP action that would “require solar‑ready construction for all building types.” Planners and commissioners agreed the county should not impose blanket requirements that would raise costs for small, affordability‑oriented housing. The commission directed staff to keep the implementation language to “require solar‑ready construction for all building types, as appropriate” and to include specific examples of reasonable exceptions. Commissioners and staff agreed on example exceptions that would be clarified during subsequent code drafting: accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and small agricultural structures not served by electrified service. Commissioners also asked staff to address small outbuildings, non‑electrified structures and similar low‑service buildings in development code language rather than in the high‑level plan.

On community solar and ownership models, commissioners accepted staff edits to CL1.D.3 to read “facilitate the development of community‑owned and community‑driven renewable energy generation projects” and asked staff to add that language to the implementation actions. Commissioners discussed but did not require public‑private partnership language in the policy; staff will add a broader SolSmart implementation item to capture partnerships, ownership models and incentives.

Next steps: staff will revise the implementation chapter to (1) replicate CL1.D.2 into an implementation action, (2) replace the existing IP language with a SolSmart‑oriented action that includes development incentives and partnerships, (3) add community‑owned and community‑driven language for renewable energy to the implementation actions, and (4) record the solar‑ready requirement with the agreed “as appropriate” language and example carve‑outs for further development in the regulatory code.","The commission agreed May 21 to add Thurston Climate Mitigation Plan solar actions into the comprehensive plan implementation chapter, pursue higher SolSmart designation, and to require solar‑ready construction only 'as appropriate' with explicit examples of exceptions such as ADUs and small non‑electrified agricultural structures.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6534838,"Commission signals support for narrower rural SEPA exemption, asks staff for options",890,2015000,2905000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3469932-3678db2b4a0a799da09aa8b1b2ddb2e3&start=2015&end=2905","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3469932-3678db2b4a0a799da09aa8b1b2ddb2e3/thumbnail_2015000.jpg","/articles/6534838/Thurston-County/Washington/Commission-signals-support-for-narrower-rural-SEPA-exemption-asks-staff-for-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6534838-19b24e743ae43d72c6ad8c39a4f92194/orig.mp4?Expires=1776608284&Signature=gX~bBGc7oEJMBx-LK8T6a2WzRJydJgcCUh9z0ojIbDQX-btepJhLqxvrnkuMJZGgxewNyfOqPSeQ~07J6Q-qKM0oDXDyINTtVHKSZ~qmuWnyOgaUaGdsOIQRla85nJxxaNMgIqL7N43BsaFVxodHfBpw5RyXRGFtgc3ii9IVcKxkYGBVnanNSoUGBU9rGvjtHi6sJ3qBPk1SI8AvgvEVN8ceqR6RcGYzWtBDqDgDheJEFU1lI2TK0Tv59JNSpEOwvXmqjx588sTSWcGrO-dgsgNok-CXjCM2SVd422xAstdiYtyIh8mMf3jp1hQ4wIWHZpSHHJ3RBNqI5cfN9~xpuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Thurston County staff proposed raising categorical SEPA exemption thresholds to speed infill and housing development, and planning commissioners on May 21 signaled support for a moderated approach that targets growth inside urban growth areas and retains tighter limits for most rural lands.

Anna Rodriguez and other county planners described proposed changes to SEPA categorical exemptions (state law updates passed in 2023 were cited). Staff noted current county exemption levels have not been substantially updated since the 1990s and said increasing exemptions in urban growth areas (UGAs) would better align county practice with neighboring jurisdictions and state infill policy. Staff discussed draft figures in which urban exemptions could be increased substantially (examples discussed in the meeting included raising UGA thresholds to the 20–30 dwelling‑unit range and raising multifamily thresholds); outside UGAs staff said draft language would raise single‑family exemptions from the current level of four units to a larger threshold (staff discussed a 20‑unit figure as one possible option).

Commissioners expressed differing views. Several commissioners said higher exemptions should be focused in UGAs where services exist and where new housing is intended; others worried that raising thresholds for unincorporated rural areas could generate sprawl and environmental impacts. Commissioner Kevin Pesterger and others emphasized the need for services (sewer, water, transportation) and suggested clustered development as a mechanism to reduce rural footprint.

After discussion commissioners conducted a straw poll on a compromise: lower the proposed rural threshold to a modest number (several commissioners favored 8 units) while allowing a separate carve‑out for clustered housing that could permit larger projects (a clustered carve‑out of up to 20 units was discussed). The chair summarized the result as a majority temperature check in favor of an “8 with a clustered up to 20” compromise and asked staff to return with specific draft code options at the June 4 meeting.

Staff cautioned that the exemption changes do not remove other development standards: projects would still be required to meet underlying zoning, critical areas regulations, stormwater and septic rules, public‑notice requirements created by state law for the infill exemptions, and other permitting requirements. Staff also noted certain categories remain ineligible for exemptions per state law (for example, projects requiring air or water discharge permits or those that include whole or partial land‑clearing in certain sensitive habitats).

Next steps: staff will prepare draft code language and options that reflect the commission’s direction and present them for further consideration on June 4. No final code changes were adopted at the May 21 meeting.","Commissioners debated proposed increases to SEPA categorical exemptions for infill and rural cluster housing and signaled support in a straw poll for a compromise: lower rural threshold and a carve‑out allowing larger clustered developments.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6534843,"Planning Commission urges retaining BOCC role in appeals, votes to add findings to recommendation",213,1162000,1375000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3469932-3678db2b4a0a799da09aa8b1b2ddb2e3&start=1162&end=1375","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3469932-3678db2b4a0a799da09aa8b1b2ddb2e3/thumbnail_1162000.jpg","/articles/6534843/Thurston-County/Washington/Planning-Commission-urges-retaining-BOCC-role-in-appeals-votes-to-add-findings-to-recommendation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6534843-d3a7dbf639edcb9484d402059cbf719d/orig.mp4?Expires=1776608284&Signature=J-akc1AffTSOojO7inEP67bk7sWE-yOQ~0oRThVcuOn~YRY-trnD5sfH9h4La2Q8t1BiSiNZox590c6FIPjyhvKnL7CV3N9v-I9GBuxeKkJjrTBaPeGZIfR~Zbs~YnmVM7LLz5AHN0yMKAVdauPyb92uBnYm1FIOAbf2TsqLeX6UcD3J1lKf4XWHQ4F~KsJdSKPUR~zuu~Es0-mlEuNh3DH2G1YsAhpOhhNjlJXlRkeySwwC5zojTl2z9V7GTR5VgFXcir2MzEFiG0KxM7j9HWzAVS2VD4-1J32dW36POnnGrYomx7ysn90ppCwLjjB1ACnZZ3-iKiC7Vh4KzVM3yg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Thurston County Planning Commission voted unanimously May 21 to ask staff to include findings in its recommendation opposing a Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) removal from the county land‑use appeals process and to prepare two versions of the pending permit review code package — one with appeals removed and one with appeals retained.

The vote followed a staff presentation by Anna Rodriguez of Thurston County Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) who told the commission, “For the public and for the record, this is a board directed item.” Rodriguez said the BOCC had requested removal of itself from the appeals process so commissioners could discuss land‑use proposals with applicants and the public without creating ex parte contact that could require recusal in later quasi‑judicial appeals.

Commissioners pressed staff on the policy tradeoffs. Commissioner Eric Casino said during debate, “I still have lots of concerns about this because I think much like we've heard from the public today that having a political solution to problems is very important,” and argued removing the BOCC would remove a public, elected venue for resolving land‑use disputes. Other commissioners raised related objections: that removing the BOCC could increase the cost and complexity of appeals for residents, narrow the range of considerations available in CEPA appeals, and reduce accountability in the permitting process.

The commission moved to add findings and sharpen its recommendation to the BOCC reflecting those concerns. The motion passed unanimously. Staff told the commission it will transmit the planning commission’s recommendation, and — as directed — prepare two versions of the draft permit‑review code package for the BOCC: one that removes the BOCC from the appeals process (the board‑directed draft) and one that retains the BOCC in the appeals chain.

During discussion staff and commissioners reviewed the item’s origin: it began as a Board‑directed docket item and was discussed over multiple cycles as staff and commissioners examined recurring appeal patterns and the county’s prior legal exposure. Senior planners said the change was proposed to reduce the risk of ex parte communications that led, in prior cases, to litigation. Commissioners said their role was to provide a recommendation to the BOCC and that the BOCC retains the authority to adopt, modify or reject staff or commission language.

Next steps: staff will include the planning commission’s findings and recommendation in the packet to the BOCC, and will submit both package versions with staff analysis. The commission will track the BOCC’s consideration; no BOCC action was recorded at the May 21 meeting.","Thurston County Planning Commission voted unanimously May 21 to have staff include findings opposing removal of the Board of County Commissioners from the land‑use appeals process and asked staff to prepare two code package versions — one that removes board appeals and one that retains them.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission ties commute trip reduction, remote‑work supports and EV permitting to permit‑review updates

Commission endorses adding solar actions to implementation plan; narrows solar‑ready mandate with carve‑outs

Commission signals support for narrower rural SEPA exemption, asks staff for options

Planning Commission urges retaining BOCC role in appeals, votes to add findings to recommendation