2012/07/25 Council Agenda Packet

02/26/12 City of Everett Planning &Community Development Department Attn.: Dave Koenig, Long Range Planning Re: DNS, SEPA11-027, Parks Element Update to Everett Comprehensive Plan It is true that the Parks Element Update to Everett Comprehensive Plan does not impose a probable significant adverse impact upon Everett's environment, and therefore is eligible for DNS status. However, it's unclear why this Element was needlessly re-organized in a manner that complicates citizen assessment of changes from the previous Comprehensive Plan. It was hoped that this Update would identify new or revised goals and/or policies, and relative priorities for addressing them, especially in underserved areas of Everett. This update's main shift in goals and policies is clear in Section III, Parts C, D, and E: positioning of the Parks and Recreation Department for increased engagement in revenue-producing forms of recreation,to sustain and supplement the Department's budget. Fine: but why rewrite even the unchanged objectives, policies, and supporting activities into lengthy, shuffled lists re- labeled"Strategies"?. Section III A,. Policy#3 clearly expresses the Parks Department's heightened priority on the business of recreation: According to the introductory paragraphs of Section III: "The statements of"policies, goals, and strategies are intended to guide the public and those who make decisions about our future." "Policies are plans or courses of actions designed to determine decisions. Goals are broad statements of the community's desires and are supported by Parks and Recreation policies. The strategies are specific actions that are designed to help achieve goals." Yet many of the"strategies" cited for policy implementation apply to multiple City department operations in general, and represent objectives and sub-tasks internal to these Departments' normal administrative functions, without need for specification at the level of Everett's Comprehensive Plan. For example,the tasks specified in Strategies 9.6.1 through 9.6.3 would also apply to the work of the departments that support Transportation, Housing, or Public Works,as standard administrative practices. If included, they should at most be boiled down to concise statements like those used in Section V,the Action Plan. Two other unfortunate Strategy statements (below) seem to suggest that the Department seeks to steer the Parks Commission's role in decision-making toward to endorsement of Dept. priorities: Strategy 9.6.4 Utilize a management strategy for the Board of Park Commissioners that allows it to achieve measurable outcomes and that hold the Department accountable. (Interpretation,please?) Strategy 9.6.7 Train (?? Provide guidelines to?) all advisory boards and committees on communication and management practices (?) of boards to achieve the highest level of productivity. (City departments serve the public: citizen advisory boards and committees deserve respectful communication, not "training".) 4 -1-