3/10/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• OBJECTIVES, RECOMMENDATIONS, COMMENTS REPORT A copy of DCA's ORC Report is attached to this agenda item. In preparing the ORC Report, DCA solicits comments from the Trauma Coast Regional Planning Council as well as other state agencies such as Department ofTransportation, Department ofEnviromneatal Protection, Water Management District and others. All approp=c agencies provided DCA with their objections and comments on the county's revised comprehensive plan to the DCA. In its ORC report, DCA raised 37 objections to the county's revised plan. The following list indicates the number of objections by plan element: ELEM[ENTS' # OF OBJECTIONS Capital Improvements (Concurrency Management System) 2 Future Land Use 5 2 Future Land Use Map Housing 4 Infrastructure 8 Coastal Management 6 Conservation 5 Transportation 5 • There are no objections to the other elements DCA'S OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENT REPORT As indicated previously, the ORC Report objections are not substantive in nature. To address those objections, however, the draft plan has been revised The attached ORC response matrix indicates how the DCA's objections are address. Generally, DCA's objections fall under one of the following categories: • Incomplete data and analysis • Incomplete maps • Objectives/policies which refer or defer to other federal, state, and local programs • Non-specific policies which are unclear as to actions to be undertaken. To address some of DCA's objections, the data and analysis section of the plan was revised as indicated in the attached ORC response matrix. Other objections were addressed by revising maps or preparing additional maps. Most of the DCA's objections, however, relate to policies that refer or defer to other federal, state, and local programs. Those policies were revised to add reference to the referred or deferred programs and to indicate specific actions that will be undertaken (such as Coastal Management Element policies 1.1, 1.7,1.15,1.16, 33, 3S, 3.6, 4.6, 7.5, 9.1, and others). The proposed actions to address these objections are indicated in the ORC response matrix and shown on the attached revised plan pages. Another category of DCA objections relates to use of words such as "assist", "cooperate", "support", or "participate", without an indication of how the county will be assisting, cooperating, supporting or participating. These policies have been reworded to make the policies clear and action oriented (such as Coastal Management Element policies 13, 1 A, 8.4, 5.1, 6.1 and others). The proposed actions to address those objections are indicated in the ORC response matrix and shown on the attached changes to the plan. Upon feather review of the RCA's ORC report and the county's comprehensive plan, six policies were deleted. Those policies were: policy 6.9 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element, policies 2.4, 2.10, 4.1, 7.8, and 9.1 of the Conservation Element. To address another ICA objection, this staff report includes additional data and analysis addressing the proposed EAR -based land use map changes. Also attached to this staff report are copies of the pages of the county's comprehensive plan which were revised to address the ORC Report objections as well as the objections revised by other agencies. Staffbelieves that these changes will address all of the ORC report objections. Changes are indicated by strike -through and underlines. MARCH 10, 1998 -39- • UoJo't � Fir;GE W