Spokane County Planning Commission November 2, 2006 Hearing Amend the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code

5 pages

English

Spokane County Planning Commission November 2, 2006 Hearing Amend the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code

Nesing - Spokane County

Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres

5 pages

English

Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

Spokane, Washington Thursday, October 26, 2006 From: Paul Kropp 3311 E. Donora Ct. Spokane, WA 99223 To: Spokane County Planning Commission c/o Spokane County Department of Building and Planning 1026 W. Broadway Ave. Spokane, WA 99260 Re: Proposed text policy amendments and capital facilities update for the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and specific changes to the zoning code per public notice of October 11, 2006 Members of the Planning Commission: Today I appeared before you and gave oral testimony on several of the matters subject to notice. Below are comments that reflect that testimony. I. THE MATTER OF NOTICE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The public participation standard for the adoption and amendment of comprehensive land use plans by jurisdictions subject to Washington’s Growth Management Act (36.70A RCW) is “early and continuous public participation”. Each such jurisdiction is expected to adopt a public participation program providing for “...broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration and response to public comments.” (36.70A.140 RCW) In the case of the material before the commission today it is doubtful this standard has even been attempted much less met. The first and only public notice for any and all of these very extensive ...

Informations

Publié par	Nesing
Nombre de lectures	16
Langue	English

Extrait

Kropp to PC – 10/26/06

Page 1 of 5

Spokane, Washington

Thursday, October 26, 2006

From:

Paul Kropp

3311 E. Donora Ct.

Spokane, WA

99223

To:

Spokane County Planning Commission

c/o Spokane County Department of Building and Planning

1026 W. Broadway Ave.

Spokane, WA

99260

Re:

Proposed text policy amendments and capital facilities update for the Spokane

County Comprehensive Plan and specific changes to the zoning code per public

notice of October 11, 2006

Members of the Planning Commission:

Today I appeared before you and gave oral testimony on several of the matters subject to

notice. Below are comments that reflect that testimony.

THE MATTER OF NOTICE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The public participation standard for the adoption and amendment of comprehensive land

use plans by jurisdictions subject to Washington’s Growth Management Act (36.70A RCW) is

“early and continuous public participation”. Each such jurisdiction is expected to adopt a

public participation program providing for

“...broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for

written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open

discussion, communication programs, information services, and

consideration and response to public comments.”

(36.70A.140 RCW)

In the case of the material before the commission today it is doubtful this standard has

even been attempted much less met. The first and only public notice for any and all of these

very extensive proposals—encompassing almost 200 pages of tables and text—was dated

and published only just 15 days ago on October 11, 2006. Page 3, however, of the notice

itself states the material “is additionally accessible at...the Spokane County Library District

branches, and the City of Spokane main branch library.” In fact, the package of information

was not supplied to the libraries in advance and, upon my inquiry, I discovered that the

county library district branches in the northern part of the county received their copies on

Thursday, October 19, and the Moran Prairie branch received theirs on Friday, October 20.

For what it’s worth, the cover of the copies prepared for the libraries is entitled “Capital

Facilities Plan – Draft 2006 Update” and gives no indication whatsoever that additional

materials (the text amendment proposals) were also included.

I do not regard this performance, which is apparently tolerated by county officials, as in any

way meeting the standard of “early and continuous public participation” the Act specifies,

nor did the public hearing before you today receive “effective notice” in terms of the Act.

The members of the commission, at the very least, should extend the period allowed for

public comment to be extended at least a week.

Kropp to PC – 10/26/06

Page 2 of 5

II. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS

•

Chapter 2, Urban Land Use

Policy UL2.3 and UL2.4

(p. UL-5)

The proposal “to eliminate the need for a

design review board

and establish design review

as an administrative function” (Notice, p. 1) is inappropriate because it is arbitrary and

unfounded in public dialogue and should not be recommended for adoption.

There is no real justification supplied for this amendment proposal, save the inconvenience

of county administrators. The amendment should fail recommendation by the Commission

because the weight of extensive, detailed and careful consideration that incorporated these

provisions into the Plan is in no way matched by an observation of having received only just

“a few” proposals requiring the design review board device in the first few years of what is

intended to be a policy covering 20 years of ever-more densifying—and surely increasingly

“mixed use”—real property development. In any event, the “Planning Report” generated by

staff only mentions the paucity of “mixed-use” applications, whereas the list of project types

which are “larger, more complex developments” and which may be subject to the attention

of a design review board also includes PUDs, aesthetic corridors and large-scale commercial

and industrial developments. Thus even the supposed evidence for lack of need is slim to

none.

Finally, it should be reiterated that the participation schema for the design review board,

namely, “members from designated professional groups (architects, engineers, planners,

developers, etc.), community representatives, and a representative from each of the

affected neighborhoods or neighborhood associations”—having been proposed and ratified

by an extensive public participation process, planning commission consideration and county

commissioner ratification in 2001—cannot and should not be dismissed merely on account

of an alleged inconvenience of administration.

•

Chapter 2, Urban Land Use

Policy UL8.2

(p. UL-12)

The proposal to delete Plan policy UL8.2 relating to

manufactured, modular and

manufactured homes

is alleged by staff to be inconsistent with state law. This may be

true, but the Planning Commission should at the very least inspect the apparently recent

legislation that is involved to confirm the incompatibility. The staff should be required to

document, not merely assert, the basis for each of the proposals they forward for

consideration.

•

Chapter 2, Urban Land Use

Policy UL18.3

(p. UL-24)

The proposal to “clarify” an exception to the rule that

UGA boundaries

should follow parcel

boundaries constitutes no better guidance than the existing language and should not be

recommended for adoption.

In fact, the proposed language is poorer guidance because abstract standards—such as

“illogical” or “irregular”—are inevitably more subjective or open-ended than standards

requiring reference to concrete circumstance (“other mitigating circumstances”), even when

the applicable mitigating conditions themselves are necessarily unspecified.

Again, I believe this provision was initially carefully and thoughtfully crafted, and should not

be tweaked in a fashion that appeals to broad abstractions instead of concrete

circumstance.

Kropp to PC – 10/26/06

Page 3 of 5

•

Chapter 7, Capital Facilities and Utilities

Level of Service Table

(p. CF-6)

The

terminology update

(“Uniform” to “International”) proposed for the Level of Service

Standards table for the category of fire and emergency services was not itemized or

otherwise mentioned in the text of the three-page notice document for this hearing. This

may not constitute a notice defect, but the question of whether it is or not should be asked.

•

Chapter 7, Capital Facilities and Utilities

Policy CF16.18

(p. CF-14)

The proposal to eliminate the policy to adopt a specific

Regional Utility Corridor Plan

as a

component of the Comprehensive Plan is unsupported in any fashion except for the fact that

the “policy has not been implemented” yet.

Again, a disciplined and extensive process admitted this policy requirement into the shape

of the Plan. Any proposal to do away with such a standard should bear the same scrutiny. It

should not be recommended for adoption unless and until that has occurred and the pros

and cons substantially reconsidered.

One would expect the rationale for a Regional Utility Corridor Plan component is no different

than, for example, the Comprehensive Stormwater Plan, which is currently being

recommended for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan as CF.8.10.

As a matter of fact, the Act itself specifically itemizes such components as these for the

capital facilities comprehensive plan element under the title of “Identification of Lands

Useful for Public Purposes”:

“Each county and city that is required or chooses to prepare a

comprehensive land use plan under RCW 36.70A.040

shall identify

lands

useful for public purposes such as

utility corridors

, transportation

corridors, landfills, sewage treatment facilities,

storm water management

facilities

, recreation, schools, and other public uses. The county shall work

with the state and the cities within its borders to identify areas of shared

need for public facilities. The jurisdictions within the county shall prepare a

prioritized list of lands necessary for the identified public uses including an

estimated date by which the acquisition will be needed. The respective

capital acquisition budgets for each jurisdiction shall reflect the jointly

agreed upon priorities and time schedule.”

(36.70A.150 RCW)

III. PROPOSED CAPITAL FACILITIES UPDATE

•

The “map” issue and population projections

It was admitted by county staff after public testimony was closed that the “overall updating

of the Capital Facilities Plan” (October 11, 2006 public notice document, second paragraph)

could only be based on the mapping of land use categories currently in place.

The members of the Planning Commission must recognize that this admission would imply,

in addition, that the extensive proposed revisions to Chapter 7, Capital Facilities and

Utilities, can only refer to the population growth estimates upon which the allocation of

those land use categories are based. That is to say, the incorporation of revised population

growth estimates into the current update project targeted for adoption by December 1,

2006—being based on the existing land use mapping and the original land quantity analysis

associated with each category of land use—is inappropriate and unnecessary at this juncture

Kropp to PC – 10/26/06

Page 4 of 5

and should be removed from any amendments recommended for adoption (Executive

Summary, etc).

•

What is the purpose of the capital facilities comprehensive plan element?

In fact the “capital facilities plan” (“CFP”) is the third of eight required elements specified in

the Growth Management Act. It is useful to review the law’s specification at this point:

capital facilities plan element

consisting of: (a) An inventory of

existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and

capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs for such

capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or

new capital facilities; (d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such

capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies

sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) a requirement to

reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting

existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities

plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element

are coordinated and consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be

included in the capital facilities plan element.

(36.70A.070 (3) RCW)

Please note the CFP

the required element and there is

no distinction

in the law between a

CFP and a “CFE” as is urged in the proposed revisions to the introduction to Chapter 7 (p. 1,

fourth paragraph). The ambiguities of the fourth paragraph of the draft proposed for the

Introduction might be remedied as follows:

“The Capital Facilities Element (CFE), which is a chapter within the

Comprehensive Plan, is one of eight required elements of the

Comprehensive Plan. The CFP CFE sets the goals and policies for Capital

Facilities and Level of Service (LOS) within the Comprehensive Plan. The

CFE is tied to the CFP by categorizing and categorizes the services that are

provided by Spokane County and the various service districts (sewer, water,

fire, and school). In addition to the CFE and CFP, a third Also a component

of Capital Facilities Planning the CFE is the County’s annual Capital

Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP identifies current and future capital

projects as well as anticipated funding sources. Although the Transportation

Improvement Plan (TIP) is technically part of the CIP, GMA calls for

transportation to be addressed through the Transportation Element, which

includes the TIP.”

Equally importantly, it must be recognized that the capital facilities plan element is intended

by the Act to be amended annually as part of the budgeting process because it is itemized

as one of the five exceptions to the Act’s requirement that comprehensive plans not be

amended more frequently than once a year:

“... Amendments may be considered more frequently than once per year

under the following circumstances:

(i) The initial adoption of a subarea plan

that does not modify the comprehensive plan policies and designations

applicable to the subarea; (ii) The adoption or amendment of a shoreline

master program under the procedures set forth in chapter 90.58 RCW;

(iii)

The amendment of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive

plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a

county or city budget

...”

(36.70A.130 (2)(a) RCW)

Kropp to PC – 10/26/06

Page 5 of 5

Other comments:

A. The sequence of required elements specified in the Act is different from those itemized on

the proposed changes to the CFP Introduction and the draft should be corrected:

GMA

Introduction Draft

1991 County Comp Plan

(1) Land Use

a. Land Use

Ch 2. Urban Land Use

(2) Housing

b. Housing

Ch 6. Housing

(3) Capital Facilities Plan

c. Transportation

Ch 5. Transportation

(4) Utilities

d. Utilities

[Ch 7.]

(5) Rural

e. Rural (counties only)

Ch 3. Rural Land Use

(6) Transportation

f. Capital Facilities Plan

Ch 7. Capital Facilities and Utilities

(7) Economic Development g. Economic Development Ch 8. Economic Development

(8) Park and Recreation

h. Parks and Recreation

Ch 9. Parks and Open Space

[

]

B. The Introduction’s draft characterizations of the Act’s requirements for capital facilities

plans do not match the specifications of the Act and should be reviewed:

36.70A.070 (3) “A capital facilities plan element

consisting of:”

10/11/06 Proposed Draft Revisions

(a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by

public entities, showing the locations and capacities of

the capital facilities

• Provide an inventory of existing capital facilities owned

by the various service providers in Spokane County,

showing location and capacity of the facilities

(b) a forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities

• Provide a forecast of future needs for capital facilities

new capital facilities

• Identify proposed expenditure, funding mechanism, and

capacity of expanded or new capital facilities

(d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital

facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly

identifies sources of public money for such purposes

• Provide a six-year plan showing how the County

proposes to build those capital projects within projected

funding capacities and clearly identified sources of public

money for such purposes

(e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if

probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs

and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities

plan element, and financing plan within the capital

facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent

• Provide policies to reassess the Land Use Element if

probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs

and to ensure the Land Use Element, Capital Facilities

Plan and financing plan within the Capital Facilities

Element are coordinated and consistent.

Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the

capital facilities plan element

Univers
Ebooks
Livres audio
Presse
Podcasts
BD
Documents

Livre audio en ligne - Développement personnel Livre en ligne Tout le catalogue Tous les Intérêts

Spokane County Planning Commission November 2, 2006 Hearing Amend the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code

YouScribe

Le catalogue

Le service

Les conditions