Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews governance and historic-preservation edits; adds tribal consultation and NAGPRA language
Summary
The commission reviewed modest governance edits that add a policy to ensure meaningful collaboration with federally recognized tribes (HB 1717) and new historic-preservation policies recommended by the tribal engagement group and climate team, including compliance with NAGPRA and assessing climate impacts on cultural resources.
During the Dec. 20 meeting the Planning Commission reviewed proposed edits to the governance element and the historic and archaeological preservation element of the comprehensive plan. Consultants recommended one new governance policy to comply with HB 1717 and added language to include tribal treaty rights in the county's tribal-collaboration policy.
Mandy Roberts (principal planner, OTEC) presented the new governance language: "ensure meaningful collaboration and coordination with federally recognized tribes throughout the planning process, respecting tribal sovereignty, and integrating tribal input on issues impacting their lands, resources, treaty rights, and cultural heritage." Commissioners discussed whether additional governance language should explicitly reference unincorporated urban growth areas (UGAs) and how to ensure meaningful outreach where no separate municipal government exists; staff pointed to planning-review committees and public-engagement procedures for UGAs.
On historic and archaeological preservation, the county's tribal engagement working group proposed a policy to ensure the county complies with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA); the climate element team proposed policies to assess and address climate-related risks (inundation, shoreline erosion) to cultural resources. Commissioners recommended small wording edits to avoid implying competing land uses are the primary frame and asked staff to return revised text.
No formal votes were taken on the governance or historic-preservation edits; staff said they will incorporate advisory-group input, revise phrasing and bring updated draft language back to the commission before forwarding to county council.
