WPCP Master Plan report

You may recall the big shindig the city threw to get public input for the plant master plan upgrade. Well, two months later, the report about same is finally available. (Large PDF, although not as large as the SCVWD things I used to link to.) The summary points I find most pertinent are

Economical
• About half of participants and three-fourths of CAG members feel it is a fair or good idea to emphasize developing clean tech businesses on the site.
• Almost two-thirds of participants and half of CAG members feel it is an excellent idea to dedicate some of the site to solar panels for power generation for the Plant and community.
• Over half of participants and almost half of CAG members feel it is a poor idea to add retail development and entertainment on the site.

Environmental
• Almost half of participants feel some of the site should be dedicated for wildlife habitat, while almost two-thirds of CAG members feel a large majority of the site should be dedicated for wildlife habitat.
• Over half of participants and over two-thirds of CAG members feel recreating sloughs, creating ponds, or restoring wetlands on the site is an excellent idea.
• Over two-thirds of participants and almost all CAG members would use viewing platforms and other features that allow people to watch the wildlife and habitat.

As I’ve said, city staff seems bent on retail development no matter what. It’s funny that only “almost half” of the CAG members don’t want retail, but that “almost two-thirds” of us think the large majority of the site should be dedicated to habitat. I wonder who the CAG members are who think that both retail and wildlife habitat are good uses.

You may also recall that I had serious doubts about the methodology employed to get participants to rank the proposed uses. Based on that question, the report says:

Now, given that so many CAG members want wildlife habitat, I just don’t believe that our least favored alternative is, in fact, habitat restoration. And the idea that the CAG’s collective top priority is architectural improvements is just silly. As a footnote in the report says:

Participants encountered difficulties ranking the statements with the clicker technology. This question was repeated three times and data has a high margin of error. Following the workshop, this question was revised for better usability and use during the remainder of the public input collection period

Anyway, the process goes on. Please consider attending the next public meeting.