Thurston County commissioners on Tuesday held a public hearing on a package of changes to the county’s permit review process, including updates to permit‑review timelines and revisions to SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) categorical exemptions intended to ease housing development in urban growth areas.

Ashley Bridal, director of Community Planning, Economic & Development (CPED), told the board the proposal bundles four elements: clerical edits; timeline updates tied to a referenced state Senate bill; revisions expanding categorical exemptions under SEPA to support local housing initiatives; and clarifications directing land‑use appeals to the superior court rather than to the Board of County Commissioners.

The SEPA changes, Bridal said, would make it easier to develop housing within UGAs by raising exemption thresholds. Under the staff presentation, multifamily projects of up to 60 units within a UGA would be exempt from a SEPA application while retaining critical‑areas protections and stormwater standards. Outside UGAs the threshold noted in the presentation would rise modestly (to six units from four), and SEPA review would still apply because municipal sewer and water typically are not available outside UGAs.

Speakers during the public comment period urged the board not to cede appeal authority. Charlotte Persons of the South Sound Bird Alliance summarized written comments urging the board to retain the commissioners’ role in appeals so residents—particularly lower‑income residents—can access an affordable, democratic review. Persons and several other commenters warned that moving appeals to the courts would effectively raise the cost and technical barrier to challenging land‑use decisions and could reduce public notice about large projects.

Rhonda Larson Kramer and other longtime residents said the board’s review provides an important check on hearing‑examiner decisions and allows consideration of county policy goals beyond strict legal interpretation. Multiple speakers with planning experience added that the board can often integrate disparate public‑health, environmental and policy concerns in a way a court limited to the administrative record cannot.

County staff advised that the timeline and SEPA items have relatively greater urgency because they respond to state law changes and clerical needs, while the appeal‑process change is community‑driven and could be removed or tabled for additional work sessions. Commissioners debated the tradeoffs: some echoed the county prosecuting attorney’s advice favoring removal of the board from appeals for legal predictability; others said retaining appeals preserves democratic accountability and a means to correct hearing‑examiner errors.

No formal code changes were adopted at the hearing. The board voted to close the public hearing and asked staff to return with a follow‑up work session in the next few weeks to continue deliberations on the various elements of the package.