Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Deployment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission endorses adding solar actions to implementation plan; narrows solar‑ready mandate with carve‑outs
Summary
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.
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.
