Policy memo summarizing a public hearing Assignment

Policy memo summarizing a public hearing - Assignment Example shot Clark, the Chair of the charge on the Built Environment, opened the Public Hearing at 530, in the Seattle City Council Chambers. Also present were Vice-Chair Tim Burgess, and Council Member Sally Bagshaw.1 Three basic categories of debate and causerie were perceive on the evening a) development proposal of marriages in urban atomic number 18as b) neighborhood planning and c) complaints regarding the process of the plan amendment process. THE assist FOR ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Management Plan of the City of Seattle is open to amendments one time a year, according to the Washington State Growth Management Act.2 During 2010, the schedule for the submission, proposal and adoption of ad hoc amendments to be examined was as follows May 14, 2010 Deadline for the submission of a maximum of 10 applications3 June 19, 2010 Introduction and brief regarding the prop osed amendments to the Council Committee on the Built Environment4 July 8, 2010 Public Hearing at which particular proposals argon considered, at which argument for or against proposals may be raised, and the proposals to go forward are evaluated July 14, 2010 Briefing of Committee and further discussion to determine which proposed amendments leave be given further review and analysis, in lively of the commentary at the Public hearing July 28, 2010 Voting is conducted5 December 1, 2010 Final recommendations on the proposed amendments are submitted to the Council.6 SELECTION CRITERIA FOR AMENDMENTS Specific criteria are considered by the City Council in identifying amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, according to Resolution 30976, pick out on May 14, 2007. These criteria can be categorized under the following central statements as follows A. The amendment is assign for the Comprehensive Plan. B. The amendment is legal. C. It is practical to consider the amendment. D. There has been a neighborhood review process to develop and proposed qualify to a neighborhood plan, or a neighborhood review process can be conducted former to final Council consideration of the amendment.7 For the amendment to be appropriate, it has to be in line with the State Growth Management Plan, referred to above. Likewise, it should not contradict bailiwick planning, nor should it be possible to implement it by a change in regulations only. If the amendment could be implemented by changes to budget, or already existing programs, or processes, it will not be adopted. Further, the timing, the accessible staffing requirements suggested by an amendment, and the information available for analysis of the proposal will be considered. Only when the Mayor or Council are in favor of changing policy significantly, if necessary, as proposed by a specific amendment, will it be considered, as long as it does not as mentioned, contradict the Comprehensive Plan. If a proposal has been rejected b y the City Council already, it may not be re-tabled. Finally, it must not break national or state laws. SUMMARY PUBLIC COMMENTARY AND DEBATE The first proposed amendment (Proposed Amendment Number One PA 1) was tabled by the Department of Planning and Development.8 The essence of the proposal included the suggested update of the shoreline master program, to include comment on a container