Camas Earth Day Society
DEIS Comments
NEW SECTION 3.1 (D) City of Camas Alternative 3 special note:
Alternative 3 submitted by the City of Camas includes 160 acres of rural lands adjacent to the UGB. This section acknowledges limitations to the County level of impact analysis due to the city’s incomplete submittal, and lack of consideration of several key elements of analysis. Growth Inducement . Camas’ proposed UGA addition represents the introduction of dense, urban development in a rural landscape. Representing an extension of already limited capacity in Camas’ roadways, including Crown Road and HWY 500, su ffi cient analysis of tra ffi c and other impacts are required before consideration for inclusion. These have not been submitted. Pursuant to SEPA requirements, the County must consider indirect impacts from this action. Indirect impacts include among others growth inducing elements. This proposal, given its geographic and topographic location, would reasonably be seen to serve as a new gateway for urban development. Extension of sewer service, for example, would introduce sewage treatment in an area now served by septic systems on acreage. Examples of development impacts also include water quality (stormwater), air pollution, wildlife and most other subjects required for analysis under SEPA. The County is required to consider reasonably foreseeable impacts including growth inducement. The City of Camas’ submittal did not contain analysis of the potential urban buildout from this intrusion of dense urban uses in wide belt of current rural agricultural land. Alternatives Analysis. SEPA and the GMA speak to consideration of alternatives as basic to a community’s process. The City of Camas did not provide analysis of alternatives for GHG reduction, housing a ff ordability, and long-term sustainability to consider alternatives such as brownfield development. Under the GMA, the lack of consideration of brownfields, and the resultant use of green fields is contrary to the legislature’s recent actions to promote a ff ordable housing in developed urban areas and thereby reduce GHG emissions. As a general finding there is insu ffi cient analysis and public participation for consideration of Camas’ Alternative 3 proposal and therefore this document excluded further consideration of this Camas special request. Subsequent sections of the EIS refer to this section in stating there was insu ffi cient information for the County to consider the request given the reasonably foreseeable impacts from this proposal.
November 29, 2025
Page of 10 11
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease