Residents, climate groups press Thurston County to add specific climate actions to comprehensive plan

Several residents and climate advocates urged the Thurston County Planning Commission on April 16 to insert clearer, enforceable actions from the county's 2021 Thurston Climate Mitigation Plan into the public hearing draft of Thurston 2045, the county's comprehensive plan update.

Speakers at the meeting said the implementation crosswalk between the two plans currently substitutes vague verbs such as "encourage" and "study" for the TCMP's required or actionable language, which they said erases accountability. Paris McCloskey, "representing the Climate Action Team," said, "42 of the 72, TCMP actions are now partially or fully represented in the climate chapter of the implementation plan, which is a big improvement," and added that many items are still "unclear, vague, or incomplete."

The public comments came during the meeting's public communication portion and were followed by a extended staff-commission work session on the climate crosswalk. Commissioners and staff discussed revising action verbs, prioritizing low-cost/high-impact measures, and identifying steps the county can "lead, pilot or implement" even when regional approaches are recommended in the TCMP.

Why it matters: The comprehensive plan guides future land-use decisions in unincorporated Thurston County and is used to prioritize funding and programmatic work. Commenters argued that leaving TCMP actions in vague form will delay or prevent measurable greenhouse-gas reductions and local adaptation work.

What speakers said and asked - Paris McCloskey, representing the Climate Action Team (TCAT), said the crosswalk shows progress but "the interpretations of their incorporation are often unclear, vague, or incomplete." McCloskey urged adoption of language that mirrors the TCMP where it uses "require." (Transcript: 1012.505''' 1162.985) - Tom Crawford, identifying himself as a board president for a climate action group, told commissioners some TCMP items remain unrepresented in the crosswalk, citing commercial building energy disclosure as an example. (Transcript: 1205.29''' 1307.445) - Karen Messmer, a volunteer for TCAT, said, "Encouragement is not enough. We need to commit to actions with clear language." (Transcript: 1849.355''' 1884.25) - Ron Smith, president of Protect Henderson Inlet, criticized the aquaculture language in the draft, reading aloud a paragraph from the online draft and urging environment-first framing. (Transcript: 268.345''' 496.185) - Phyllis Ferrell, representing the South Sound Sierra Club, urged stronger water-management measures, including metering permit-exempt wells and limits on new exempt wells. (Transcript: 1621.245''' 1798.79)

Staff response and next steps Planning staff acknowledged concerns and described the crosswalk as a tool, not a verbatim substitute for TCMP language. Nina (staff) said the crosswalk lists only the actions that are formally adopted in the TCMP (not an extended appendix) and that related comprehensive-plan policies were provided as "jumping off points" for drafting stronger language. (Transcript: 3976.19''' 4138.145)

Near the meeting's end staff and commissioners agreed on a set of next steps: staff will review the crosswalk and draft clearer, more actionable language where gaps exist; identify near-term, low-cost/high-impact "low-hanging fruit" measures (for example, retrofits or pilot programs); and propose specific ways the county can lead or pilot actions that may otherwise be framed as regional responsibilities. Commissioners asked staff to return with suggested wording. (Transcript: 6245.0747''' 6329.9146)

Ending: The planning commission scheduled further review of the crosswalk and invited detailed, item-by-item comments from commissioners and stakeholders ahead of the public hearing phase. Staff said the public hearing draft will remain open to additional refinement and that the commission will receive proposed language changes in follow-up meetings.