CHC 1979-03-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the study indicates, I may .come forth before the commission and make specific recommendations in terms of incorporating language within the County Charter. MR. SCHUTTE: One last question, Mr. Fuke. In regards to the general plan where we make , a general plan for a specific purposeif you follow the charter. You said some kind of "guidelines" and yet we are the first to make changes or revisions to the general plan. What I mean-- complete changes. What does this have to do with having a general plan and how does this work? MR. FUKE: The present though t,ori ,the _-general plan is that it has to be responsive to the needs of the people and the people' s needs invariably change over time. So by having periodic review, .whether they come at the five or ten year i-n ervals,_:S think it gives the county the greater ability to have apTanhing document which is in tune with the needs of the people® This is why within the existing general plan there is a requirement that the general plan be reviewed at intervals of five or ten years. It is only, again, designed to make sure that the plans that you prepare are flexible enough now and can respond to the changing needs. One good example is that when the plan was prepared in 1970, ' 71 , nobody talked about energy. And then came 1974 and ' 75 and we had the big energy crunch. So what we did was that?.somewhere along the line we have to make sure that there is expression2 gas far as how do you handle the alternate energy programs. Should we go full blast? Should we have solar easements, or what have you. So what we did was, you know, this came in within the last four or five years , so we had to develop a new section as they relate to policies as they relate to energy. Then, again, this is only because the needs and the situations have changed, of the community. Without kind of like a forced review of the existing plan , I think you might eventually wind up with a document that is easily outdated and not responsive to the needs of the society. CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Mr. Fuke, who is the principal enforcer of the general plan? The Planning Director? MR. FUKE: Right now, I am the so-called de facto enforcer of the general plan. There is no language within the charter. I am responsible to enforce the Land Use Law; the subdivision; the zoning code and etc. And inasmuch as the primary responsibility for preparationtaof the general plan rests within the Planning Department, what I was suggesting is that there be a provision to say that the Planning Director shall also be responsible in enforcing theprovisions of the general plan. This is, in a sense, kind of similar to a . lot of. . like the state plan legislation whereit delegates tke responsibility of enforcement making sure that everything is in order, to the State Department of Planning and Economic Development. . . - 26 -