My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012/12/18 Council Agenda Packet
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2012
>
2012/12/18 Council Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/22/2017 9:05:56 AM
Creation date
5/22/2017 9:04:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Agenda Packet
Date
12/18/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
281
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br /> Mary Cunningham <br /> From: Allan Giffen <br /> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:07 PM <br /> To: Dave Koenig; Mary Cunningham; Jim Hanson <br /> Subject: FW: Comment re proposed Central Waterfront Subarea Plan <br /> From: Charli McGourty On Behalf Of Mayor Stephanson <br /> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:06 PM <br /> To: DL-Council; Allan Giffen <br /> Subject: FW: Comment re proposed Central Waterfront Subarea Plan <br /> FYI from mayor's correspondence. <br /> From: Peggy Toepel [mailto:ptoepel(afrontier.com] <br /> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:05 PM <br /> To: Mayor Stephanson <br /> Subject: Comment re proposed Central Waterfront Subarea Plan <br /> I can't attend tomorrow's Council Meeting/Hearing, but have strong concerns about provisions of"Preferred Alternative <br /> #4" , expressed below and copied to Council Members. <br /> Comment re City of Everett proposed Central Waterfront Area Plan 12/18/12 <br /> Peggy Toepel <br /> Planning Commission Recommended Alternative #4 appears to not offer enough flexibility to strongly attract <br /> long-term, high-employment-density industrial manufacturing enterprise, whether or not water-dependent. A <br /> blend of Alternatives #3 and 4 would likely prove more successful. <br /> Based upon <br /> • City of Everett consultant's assessment of current interest and market outlook <br /> • continuing reliance upon automation of industrial processes to increase productivity, and vulnerability of <br /> associated structures to obsolescence before wearing out <br /> • necessity for site use compatibility with restrictions related to neighboring Naval Station Everett and Port of . <br /> Everett operations <br /> • ongoing regional competition among Puget Sound/Salish Sea cargo handlers <br /> • the substantial length of time required to complete in-water cleanup by Kimberly-Clark <br /> there is very slim likelihood that industrial waterfront manufacturing (or water-dependent industry in general) <br /> would be accompanied by high—density employment (and corresponding increase in utilization of downtown <br /> amenities by waterfront workforce). <br /> The market for affordable, expandable non-water-dependent manufacturing sites to serve our regional economy <br /> is likely to remain in flux well beyond the next two decades. Port of Everett's proposal to amend Alt. #4 to <br /> allow substitution of off-site public access would undermine this rare opportunity to develop meaningful public <br /> access to waterfront enjoyment readily accessible from downtown workplaces and residential areas. As a once- <br /> proud qualifier for All-American City designation, the City of Everett should seize this chance to enhance its <br /> shoreline personality! <br /> Basic priorities for Everett's Central Waterfront Subarea Plan should be <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.