Minutes - 19890227 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

_'_ .~' federal laws result from the requirements which must be quantified to be effective. ,. The vast resources and expertise available on the staffs at the federal and the state level are already in place and functioning for our protection with criteria tuestions , scientifically justified and backed by enormous budgets. The EDC seriously q the need for an Ordinance that would largely duplicate their efforts and which would require a whole new staff of scientific engineers to process, implement and make judgements of a scientific nature at a local level. The EDC believes in the planning process, including planning for jobs, affordable housing, and a higher tax base. We feel that this is a vital function which has environmental implications. However, we believe that our present developmental ordinances, coupled with state and environmental laws should be sufficient protection for the County. If certain minor amendments are necessary to development or land use ordinances for this purpose then those should be made upon their merit, by you, the County Commissioners. There is no question that the implementation of this Ordinance will create cost to the County, to the developers and ultimately be passed onto the citizens. Time delays which are necessary as spelled out in the Ordinance are only to prolong the already long, tedious and arduous process necessary to get a project through. The more complicated the process, the longer the time of debate, the more costly it is and this is eventually passed onto the people doing the buying." McKee commented on the implementation process. He stated that the EDC works. very hard to get prospects to show them Orange County. His hope is that the process could be streamlined. In item 4.2.1 alternatives is the subject. This item requires that a person submitting an impact statement furnish all the alternatives that led to his conclusion to submit a project. They are also asking for the processes used in decision making. The additional requirements placed here on each of those alternatives cause each of them to be a mini-environmental statement. This causes the justification to be a long and arduous process. It seems that the focus should be on the main project. It needs to. stand alone. If it has to be mitigated, then a decision needs to be made between the project developer and the governing body. The idea of presenting alternatives indicating how you reached your conclusion, and debating among ourselves over this is a terrible exercise in time, energy, and money. He asked that this part of the Ordinance be reviewed very closely. For example, each alternative has to include an assessment of the social and economic impacts. Impact should be quantified for each alternative where feasible but where quantification by standard economic foals is not feasible, or intangibles are involved, the description of each impact is required. He stressed that these requirements are for the things that are not being used. These are for the alternatives. Chairman Carey asked Collins to direct his attentian to Item 4.2.1b. Mr. Collins said that these would occur only after the issues have been identified as a result of the environmental assessment being performed, so there would not be any further questions about the remaining issues. The only issue will be the impact that will occur. McKee agreed with this statement and commented that this is when you submit your environmental assessment papers, upon which the first judgment is rendered on that submission. Chairman Carey indicated that there would be no doubt when you have gotten to this point what the impact is and what the issues are that remain. McKee disagreed, stating that if he gave the county an environmental assessment today, that before the county responded he would not know the areas of controversy.