Thurston County planning staff on Wednesday outlined the main public-comment themes the Board of County Commissioners will face at a Nov. 4 public hearing on the county’s 2025 periodic comprehensive plan update, focusing on the legal status of a proposed 5% rural-growth figure, detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in rural areas, incentives for cluster (conservation) subdivisions, and code updates to address battery energy storage systems (BESS).

Ashley Arai, Thurston County community planning and economic development (CPED) director, told the board the briefing is intended to help commissioners “tune in on November 4” and prepare for the decisions they will need to make before final adoption at year-end. Rai said staff will highlight those decision points so the board knows what additional information it may need after the public hearing.

The planning commission’s public‑hearing draft and recommendation triggered roughly 61 comments provided before the board packet was circulated and about 10 more since, staff said. Staff summarized the recurring themes as land use and housing, environmental protections, and specific code provisions and implementation details.

Why it matters

The comprehensive plan guides land-use policy for Thurston County for the next 20 years; decisions in the update could affect rural development patterns, housing availability, habitat and water protection, and the county’s exposure to legal challenge. Staff warned the board that framing certain policies as a mandatory “hard cap” without implementing code could expose the county to appeals.

Key issues discussed

5% rural‑growth figure: cap versus target

The planning commission recommended language that would limit rural growth to 5% of countywide growth. County staff reported legal advice that the draft’s current wording reads more like a mandatory cap than a nonbinding target. That, staff said, could require accompanying implementing code (for example, downzoning) to make the cap enforceable and could invite legal appeals if adopted without clear implementation steps.

Derek Beyer, community planning manager, summarized the implementation challenge: changing underlying zoning could mean reducing allowable density (for example, changing a one-home-per-5-acre standard to one-home-per-10-acres) or imposing lot-assembly or consolidation requirements. Staff emphasized those approaches would be controversial and lengthy. "It really emphasizes the nexus to the natural resource industries," Beyer said about draft zoning changes intended to tie allowed rural uses to agriculture, forestry or mining.

Rai told commissioners the county could adopt the 5% figure as a policy target rather than a mandatory cap, then monitor outcomes and use a suite of tools short of downzoning — what she described as an “adaptive management” approach — to pursue the goal over the planning period.

Detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in rural areas

The draft permits detached ADUs in some rural situations but includes conservative limits: 800 square feet and a 100‑foot proximity requirement to the primary dwelling. Staff said the planning commission recommended allowing detached ADUs, and that the draft’s 800‑square‑foot/100‑foot rules reflect a conservative stance in light of unsettled case law and recent state proposals. Staff said allowing larger units — for example, 1,000 square feet — or removing the proximity requirement could increase the risk of appeal.

Rai emphasized coordination with Environmental Health because septic and well capacity limit where ADUs are feasible: "We don't want people at one counter getting told yes and then going to a different counter and being told no," she said. Commissioners raised that detached ADUs are one of the few affordable housing options in rural areas, while others noted they could conflict with a 5% rural-growth objective if broadly enabled.

Cluster (conservation) subdivisions and density bonuses

Staff described cluster development (often called conservation subdivisions) as a tool to concentrate homes on smaller lots while preserving larger contiguous resource parcels for agriculture, water protection and habitat. The code changes before the board would add incentives — primarily density bonuses — to offset higher construction costs associated with communal septic or purchased water rights.

A post‑hearing change in draft development code was noted: the maximum project size limit used to be 100 acres; stakeholders asked staff to allow larger, single projects (for example a 300‑acre farm) to achieve larger contiguous resource parcels rather than forcing a developer to process multiple separate projects over several years. Tribes and habitat partners have supported the approach as a water and habitat protection tool.

Battery energy storage systems (BESS) and new energy technologies

Staff said a set of code updates would establish a local permitting pathway and standards for BESS and related solar infrastructure, addressing setbacks, review thresholds and fire-safety measures. Fire districts and regional stakeholders have been engaged; staff recommended caution because BESS applications are already in the land‑use queue and the technology and standards are rapidly evolving. Rai and staff noted an alternative permitting route exists at the state level — the State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (FSEC) — which can override local regulations for large projects.

Procedural and legal risk

Staff repeatedly warned that drafting policy language without clear implementing code can trigger appeals; they cited recent comprehensive-plan updates and appeals in Snohomish, King, Pierce and Kitsap counties where implementing-code language was a dispute. Rai said the planning commission may have proposed a harder line than staff recommends given short timelines, and that some topics might be pulled from this year’s package and handled as a separate docket item or future work program to avoid delaying overall plan adoption.

Board reaction and next steps

Commissioners asked for clearer explanatory language and for staff to return with draft implementing options after the Nov. 4 hearing. Rai said staff will develop draft implementing language only after the board gives feedback following the public hearing. She reiterated staff’s role as steward and not an advocate: the briefing aimed to present the range of community input, the planning commission recommendation and implementation considerations so commissioners can decide policy direction.

Staff also reminded the board that public comment will continue to arrive through Nov. 4, and that hundreds of pages of background and comment materials are available online. The board and staff discussed the possibility of one‑on‑one briefings or additional work sessions if commissioners want deeper analysis before making final policy decisions.