Laserfiche WebLink
The Planning Director's recommendations refine language to provide clarifications in intent and <br />implementation of the policies. For example, the recommendations changed "shall" to "should" <br />for Policy 8. The changes in the verbiage were based on input from Corporation Counsel to <br />provide clarity and not to be confused as mandates. Since the intent of Policy 8, which you can <br />read in the rationale document in your binder, the intent was to encourage and incentivize <br />clustering development as an existing planning tool and to provide some flexibility in site <br />planning. So, because the intent was to encourage and incentivize, this was not a mandate and <br />the recommendation would be then to remove the "shall" language. <br />Similarly, the recommendations changed "shall" to "should" for Policy 22. Again, this was to <br />provide clarity on the intent of the policy to provide guidance for preserving agricultural lands <br />during the Planning Director's review of consolidation and resubdivision applications. This was <br />to provide guidance again so that's why the language was changed from "shall" to "should." <br />To summarize, the rationale for these changes was to clarify the distinction between policy intent <br />and policy control which I explained previously in the presentation. <br />The Director's recommendations also deleted policies that were made obsolete due to <br />clarification or changes to the State law since the Steering Committee finalized the <br />recommended draft. This included prohibiting cesspools, developing clustered rural <br />subdivisions, and allowing farmers' markets on ag land. <br />Finally, the Planning Director's recommendation added a new Policy 39 to develop inland cliff <br />setbacks which was a policy gap noted during the agency review. Please note that this is a <br />County action which as noted earlier would require separate research and analysis to identify the <br />draft strategy that would need to go through another public review process. <br />The CDP project team then provided the Planning Director's recommendations as an update and <br />overview to the Steering Committee on February 26, 2018. The Steering Committee heard <br />testimony from members of the public and had the opportunity to ask questions and engage in <br />discussion. They discussed the recommended changes that I just outlined as well as some of the <br />other non -substantive revisions that were presented. The draft minutes from that meeting have <br />been included in your Exhibit 16 or you can read the specific discussions that were had. <br />The Planning Director recommends a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission <br />including the recommended revisions based on agency review and recommendations, <br />organizational improvements and language clarification. Your binders include the <br />Recommendation, the Background Report that includes the CDP program, the plan elements, the <br />planning process, and the CDP implementation that I have outlined today. And, your binders <br />also include several exhibits. The first exhibit is the most important, that is the Hamakua <br />Community Development Plan that would be adopted. Exhibit 2 is the strategy rationale for that <br />document and so anytime we have a question about why a certain strategy was written a certain <br />way, you can refer to the rationale for that discussion. Exhibit 3 is the revision summary and the <br />remaining exhibits are comments that were received. <br />10V1111.11 11 <br />