|
And, the types of comments we receive fundamentally fell into four categories. Some were just,
<br />you know, simple stuff like typos and style preferences. Others were just, were coming at things
<br />without a full understanding. They didn't have time to read the rationale, and so they just didn't
<br />quite get the full context. Others were substantive. Many were just expressions of support.
<br />Others saw issues differently or thought other strategies might be more effective. And, then,
<br />there's a whole lot of comment about Discovery Harbour which you'll hear more about tonight I
<br />imagine. And, then there were a lot of comments specific to implementation and how the CDP
<br />would go from adoption to implementation.
<br />So, like every other time when the plan went through review, lots of good ideas, suggestions, and
<br />so, you'll see many of those are reflective in the draft that you have before you tonight.
<br />So, then, it went back to the Director's desk, and the Director considered all the draft CDP, all
<br />the agency comment, all the work that went into all of that, and at the end of the day, decided to
<br />make a favorable recommendation to you for your recommendation to the Council. At the same
<br />time, included some non -substantive revisions, and that "non" part is important because as
<br />Chairman Henkel read at the beginning, if Council is considering any substantive amendments,
<br />then before they make their final decision, it has to come back to the Steering Committee and
<br />back to the Planning Commission before they make their final decision, so.
<br />And, those non -substantive revisions are really of three types—incorporating agency
<br />recommendations for improvements, some organizational improvements, and then what really is,
<br />most simply, clarification. I'm not going to go through the first two. They're really pretty
<br />straightforward and included some improvements in flow, some updates from agencies, that sort
<br />of thing. If you would like to see a kind of a track changes version of that, I have it on my
<br />computer tonight if you'd like to or can provide it to you otherwise.
<br />But, the clarification really boiled down to the land use scope of CDP's. And, this gets touchy
<br />because, you know, obviously we're doing CDP's because we want to have the community's
<br />perspective in preferences and goals for their community expressed through a CDP, and yet, we
<br />also need to be mindful that the General Plan is very clear that the General Plan is controlling if
<br />there's a conflict between CDP's and the General Plan, right? And, so I put this on the screen in
<br />part because they informed the Director's suggested refinements but also because they speak to
<br />some of the comment that you received recently as well. But, these are all verbatim quotes from
<br />Chapter, Chapters 14 and 15 of the General Plan, and then I highlighted in blue the kind of a key
<br />land use related ones. So, the CDP's do have the authority to direct development. To designate
<br />development patterns and to guide zoning and land use, but, in those instances, if there's
<br />conflicts between the CDP and the General Plan, the General Plan is controlling, right So, that's
<br />really important to understand. And, it gets a little messy because, so, you'll see in a CDP,
<br />recommendations for land use policy that we know is different from what's in the General Plan.
<br />And, that's important because the whole point of a CDP is for the community to be very clear
<br />about what it'd like to see. But, at the same time, you gotta recognize that until, if and until,
<br />those recommended changes are actually adopted as amendments to the General Plan, they, they
<br />make the community's preference clear, but fundamentally, the General Plan is controlling in
<br />terms of land use decisions, so.
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />11
<br />
|