There will not a 30 day public comment period.  A decision will be made in 3 weeks.  See the bottom of this update for more information to make your voice heard.

At last month’s meeting, the developer was actually present to speak with the council and answer questions. The last time he was physically present for an in-person meeting was July 19, 2019.  Then he was “present” for the virtual meeting discussing the developers agreement on September 29, 2020. Unfortunately we were unable to be there, but comments were submitted and we viewed the meeting via YouTube.  Also unfortunately, the livestream started almost 10 minutes into the meeting so by the time it actually showed up Mr. Bradford was already speaking.  This can be viewed here and goes for roughly 22 minutes.

Last October the northern part of the property was sold to another buyer who has plans to build sheds for storage.  This has created a concern for both the council and the city attorney as the annexation agreement ends this fall.  Additionally, there was a concern from the mayor over the lack of current information regarding the layout and how this addition of a new land owner and structures may affect the process.  

I think good questions were asked by Mayor Auringer and the city attorney. As a viewer and resident affected by this proposed project, I felt the developer was not adequately prepared to present himself at this meeting.  Things HAVE changed.  He hasn’t been clear about what this facility will offer, often letting hopes and wishes of supporters build a false vision of what they want vs. what is actually proposed. 

Overall, Mr. Bradford was looking for the council to give him a yes or no: will he be able to build his project?  Of course, the process is NOT to that step yet.  We’ve been told that after the 3rd party review the supplemented EAW would be published for the 30 day comment period – where the public and affect agencies can submit their comments in regards to the 2 key points that were not adequately addressed the first time around. 

 

Then there was the city council meeting last night.  Again, we were unable to attend this meeting and I greatly regret it.  In the last 35 days the 3rd party review appears to have been dropped, as they could not decide who would pay for it (it’s a privately funded project so it would be on the developer to pay for it).  Instead, on June 28th they will hold a public hearing in which they will make a decision on the need for an EIS. As discussed during the meeting last night, this public hearing isn’t required but it’s been mentioned before so it should happen.  We were also told that there would be a 30 day comment period but with 21 days until the public hearing that clearly isn’t happening.

What happened behind closed doors?  How did we go from questioning the changes and being concerned about another owner being involved to no 3rd party review, no public comment period and a decision being made in 3 weeks? 

There have been many concerns about this project, but the lack of transparency and disrespect for the process have been some big ones.  There is NO process for a “supplemental EAW” as it doesn’t exist.  It’s not a thing.  They supplemented the EAW – they added information that was originally missing.  They did not create a new entity or an addendum to the existing EAW.  The public comments would have been to apply to just those key points that were supplemented, but given that we didn’t have that information to review the first time it should be included in the process so we can adequately provide our feedback.  Not get a lousy 3 minutes during a public hearing.  It’s not our fault they didn’t do it correctly the first time.  And we're still waiting for the updated layout because - yep, there are changes!

With no official public comment period, please take the time to view the supplement EAW, available here (scroll to "Supplemental EAW") and give your feedback to the city council.  While the document itself is 166 pages, the actual EAW is only 25, going from page 3 to page 28.  Key pages with supplemented/new information:
Product description Document pages 7-9 (EAW pages 2-4)

Surface waters (namely wetlands) Document page 13 (EAW page 8)

Fish, Wildlife, Plant communities & Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features)  Document pages 15-21 (EAW pages 10-16)

Visual  Document page 22 (EAW page17)

Noise  Document pages 23-24 (EAW pages 18-19)

Cumulative Potential Effects  Document pages 25-28 (EAW pages 20-23)

Thank you again for the support and continuing to stick with us as we fight to protect our homes and demand transparency.  If it's all on the up and up, what are they hiding and why are they doing it so fast?