Title
Comprehensive Plan Amendments of 2016 - Commission-Initiated Proposals
Staff Recommended Action
None; any action is at the Commission’s discretion.
Report
Issue:
The Washington Growth Management Act provides that cities like Olympia can generally only amend their Comprehensive Plans once each year. Pursuant to a schedule established by the City Council, preliminary proposals for amendments to be considered in 2016 are due on November 2, 2015. This agenda item will provide the Commission with an opportunity to propose any amendments for consideration next year.
Staff Contact:
Todd Stamm, Principal Planner, Community Planning and Development Department, 360.753.8597
Presenter:
Todd Stamm, Principal Planner
Background and Analysis:
The Washington Growth Management Act provides that, subject to certain exceptions, the City of Olympia may only amend its Comprehensive Plan once each year. Chapter 18.59 of the Olympia Municipal Code sets forth the basic two-step review process.
Preliminary proposals are to be submitted by a date established by the City Council. For 2016, that date is Monday, November 2, 2015. The code provides that individuals and agencies may initiate proposals.
Preliminary proposals will be ‘screened’ by the City Council early in 2016. By January proposals do need sufficient clarity for preliminary review by the Council. This ‘screening’ step includes a preliminary review and evaluation of proposed amendments, including rezones, that assesses the extent of review that would be required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Screening by the Council includes the criteria set for this Olympia Municipal Code 18.59.020:
1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the county-wide planning policies, the Growth Management Act (GMA), other state or federal law, or the Washington Administrative Code?
2. Would the proposed amendment cause little or no adverse environmental impacts and, is the time required to analyze impacts available within the time frame of the standard annual review process?
3. Is sufficient analysis completed to determine any need for additional capital improvements and revenues to maintain level-of-service, and is the time required for this analysis available within the time frame for this annual review process?
4. Can the proposed amendment be considered now without conflicting with some other
Comprehensive Plan established timeline?
5. Can the proposed amendment be acted on without significant other amendments or revisions not anticipated by the proponents and is the time required for processing those amendments or revisions available within the time frame of this annual review process?
6. If the proposed amendment was previously reviewed, ruled upon or rejected, has the applicant identified reasons to review the proposed amendment again?
At their October 19 meeting the Planning Commission narrowed a list of possibilities to two amendments that the Commission may wish to propose for consideration in 2016. These were generally described as a “Design review standards policy” and “The triple bottom line.” Commissioners Parker and Richmond, respectively, were asked to present more specific proposals on these topics at the next meeting (November 2). At this meeting the Commission will decide whether to forward either or both proposals to the Council for ‘screening’ as described above.
Neighborhood/Community Interests (if known):
No known interest.
Options:
The Commission may propose either, both or neither of the amendments described above. Note that any Commission proposals would be in addition to any amendments proposed by other parties.
Financial Impact:
Impacts would depend on the scope and content of any specific proposed amendment.