COB Staff Update On Comp. Plan Is Misleading In Focus At 1:15 PM on Monday, the city council committee involves An overview on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update process, including draft growth alternatives for accommodating projected growth using the 2036 growth forecasts adopted by the City and County. However, what they will hear is anything but an overview. Instead, it will be a piece mealed process focused almost exclusively on growth, population and jobs. The city is attempting, incorrectly, to treat the Critical Area Ordinance review as something unconnected to the comp. plan update. The city could really care less about the environment and wants to put as little time in as possible. They requested a fast track review from DOE, which was refused, and for good reason, because DOE found problems with the staffs attempts to incorporate the new wetland rules into the city code. After meeting in secret with developers, the citys primary concern was helping the permit applicant through incorporation of LEAN processes into the CAO. Staff told the audience that the developer is every much the client under the CAO as is the public, winning over few fans. Apparently, they are unaware of how they come across after living in the mayors cloistered little world of developers, profit and growth. The update materials fail to reference the fact that the CAO review did not go so well for the city last week, and the PC is holding a work session on 2.5.15, and would like to know if the city addressed the proper scope of the CAO review. Of course it did not. The city leads the public to believe that it is coordinating with the county in its EIS (Environmental Impact State, required under the SEPA review), but this is untrue. The county EIS review will include UGA areas, some of which the city may end up annexing, but anything within city boundaries requires the city engage in its own EIS review. It does not appear willing to do so, nor to hire an professional consultant to conduct the still missing habitat and wildlife assessment and analysis. As was shown by the PC hearing last week, and the public comments during the waterfront district hearing, this remains one of the publics top concerns and it being routinely ignored by the city. The proper scope of the comp. plan update is no secret and it certainly is not focused on growth and economic development to the exclusion of all else. The Department of Commerce, with jurisdiction over the update process has a website with easy to find information showing the scope of the review, including checklists to walk one through the process. Some of the items for consideration include Provisions for protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies. RCW 36.70A.070(1); Identification of lands useful for public purposes such as utility corridors, transportation corridors, landfills, sewage treatment facilities, stormwater management facilities, recreation, schools, and other public uses. RCW 36.70A.150 and WAC 365-196-340:and Identification of open space corridors within and between urban growth areas, including lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails, and connection of critical areas. RCW 36.70A.160 and WAC 365-196-335. Critical areas and Best Available Science are also listed. Listen to how many times these subjects are mentioned as part of the overview of the 2016 Comp. Plan. I am going to guess never.
Posted on: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:06:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015