Laserfiche WebLink
of the General Plan as well as other regulatory codes. If there is a need to implement <br /> supplementary regulatory measures at a subsequent level in the hierazchy ofstatutes/ordinances. <br /> then the Council should pursue that avenue. Doing so will ensure the adoption of a functional <br /> General Plan for our County and applicable ordinances to enforce and implement it. <br /> Strategic Performance Plans: Included in Draft 3 is language that mandates County <br /> departments to develop Strategic/Performance Plans to implement the General Plan. This <br /> is a new concept and addition to the plan. The aim here is to compel the County as a <br /> whole to examine our functions, responsibilities, goals, and objectives. At some point, as <br /> a County we need to move beyond simply maintaining the "status quo" and plan for our <br /> needs, i.e. parks, roads, protective service, into the future. <br /> Agriculture Intensive Definition: The definition has been expanded to include lands <br /> that aze classified by the State as Prime and Unique. This hopefully will address <br /> concerns in relation to IAL. In the months ahead, I urge the Council to lobby the State to <br /> act on this matter. I also challenge the Council to thoroughly review all background <br /> information when considering the idea of IAL. It may also be beneficial to the Council to <br /> run various models and scenarios of possible impacts in relation to the use or not of the <br /> IAL designation. <br /> In recent weeks, there has been much clamor about the future of General Plan and its adoption. <br /> There is even talk of going back to draft 1 and adopting it in entirety. Of course, this is the <br /> Council's prerogative. However, it is important to note that it was never expressed to me by any <br /> member of the Council that this Bill 163, Draft 1 as proposed, was the best and only possible <br /> alternative for Council action. In fact, since the plan was first received in 2002 and before Bill <br /> 163, Draft 2, the Council held the proposed plan with no significant action. At anytime during <br /> this period, a member could have officially initiated the process for consideration, adoption, or <br /> make amendments. No amendments were proposed nor did anyone officially request review of <br /> the plan. <br /> When I took this job on, I confirmed that the lengthy deferral represented that Council's desires <br /> to make more then minor editing adjustments, but to actually make amendments to proposed <br /> revisions to the plan. No resistance was presented. If the Council's real intent was to simply, <br /> adopt what was presented in Draft 1 in totality that could have been done by this Council long <br /> ago. Instead, Councilmembers participated in the amendment process by meeting with the <br /> Auditor's Office and adding significant modifications and additions of language via district <br /> vision statements and various map changes. <br /> There is still much work that needs to be done on the General Plan. This is true no matter, which <br /> draft is pursued. I do not believe that any one document can be considered an exemplary canon, <br /> <br /> by which to plan for our future. I do believe, however, that the final document should be easily <br /> <br />