<html>
<body>
Mark, <br><br>
I think I answered your question quite clearly: <br><br>
<tt>Yes, there are numerous examples. But the predominant case for
local<br>
land use planning is the safety and health of the residents.<br><br>
</tt>But you raise one of my major points of concern about our local
planning commission and that is their fulfillment of the primary duty to:
<br><br>
<tt>to conduct a comprehensive planning process designed to prepare,
implement, and review and update a comprehensive plan, hereafter referred
to as the plan.</tt>. <br><br>
The primary components of the planning process are, as you properly
cite:<br><br>
<tt><x-tab> </x-tab>
a) Property Rights -- An analysis of provisions which may be
necessary<br>
to insure that land use policies, restrictions, conditions and fees do
not<br>
violate private property rights, adversely impact property values or
create<br>
unnecessary technical limitations on the use of property and analysis
as<br>
prescribed under the declarations of purpose in chapter 80, title 67,
Idaho<br>
Code.<br>
(b) Population -- A population analysis of past,
present, and future<br>
trends in population including such characteristics as total population,
age,<br>
sex, and income.<br>
(c) School Facilities and Transportation -- An
analysis of public school<br>
capacity and transportation considerations associated with future
development.<br>
(d) Economic Development -- An analysis of the
economic base of the area<br>
including employment, industries, economies, jobs, and income
levels.<br>
(e) Land Use -- An analysis of natural land
types, existing land covers<br>
and uses, and the intrinsic suitability of lands for uses such as
agriculture,<br>
forestry, mineral exploration and extraction, preservation,
recreation,<br>
housing, commerce, industry, and public facilities. A map shall be
prepared<br>
indicating suitable projected land uses for the jurisdiction.<br>
(f) Natural Resource -- An analysis of the uses
of rivers and other<br>
waters, forests, range, soils, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals,
thermal<br>
waters, beaches, watersheds, and shorelines.<br>
(g) Hazardous Areas -- An analysis of known
hazards as may result from<br>
susceptibility to surface ruptures from faulting, ground shaking,
ground<br>
failure, landslides or mudslides; avalanche hazards resulting from
development<br>
in the known or probable path of snowslides and avalanches, and
floodplain<br>
hazards.<br>
(h) Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities
-- An analysis showing<br>
general plans for sewage, drainage, power plant sites, utility
transmission<br>
corridors, water supply, fire stations and fire fighting equipment,
health and<br>
welfare facilities, libraries, solid waste disposal sites, schools,
public<br>
safety facilities and related services. The plan may also show locations
of<br>
civic centers and public buildings.<br>
(i) Transportation -- An analysis, prepared in
coordination with the<br>
local jurisdiction(s) having authority over the public highways and
streets,<br>
showing the general locations and widths of a system of major
traffic<br>
thoroughfares and other traffic ways, and of streets and the
recommended<br>
treatment thereof. This component may also make recommendations on
building<br>
line setbacks, control of access, street naming and numbering, and a
proposed<br>
system of public or other transit lines and related facilities
including<br>
rights-of-way, terminals, future corridors, viaducts and grade
separations.<br>
The component may also include port, harbor, aviation, and other
related<br>
transportation facilities.<br>
(j) Recreation -- An analysis showing a system
of recreation areas,<br>
including parks, parkways, trailways, river bank greenbelts,
beaches,<br>
playgrounds, and other recreation areas and programs.<br>
(k) Special Areas or Sites -- An analysis of
areas, sites, or structures<br>
of historical, archeological, architectural, ecological, wildlife, or
scenic<br>
significance.<br>
(l) Housing -- An analysis of housing conditions
and needs; plans for<br>
improvement of housing standards; and plans for the provision of
safe,<br>
sanitary, and adequate housing, including the provision for low-cost<br>
conventional housing, the siting of manufactured housing and mobile homes
in<br>
subdivisions and parks and on individual lots which are sufficient to
maintain<br>
a competitive market for each of those housing types and to address the
needs<br>
of the community.<br>
(m) Community Design -- An analysis of needs for
governing landscaping,<br>
building design, tree planting, signs, and suggested patterns and
standards<br>
for community design, development, and beautification.<br>
(n) Implementation -- An analysis to determine
actions, programs,<br>
budgets, ordinances, or other methods including scheduling of public<br>
expenditures to provide for the timely execution of the various
components of<br>
the plan.<br><br>
</tt>I have been attending Planning Commission meetings for over a year
now as they have plodded through the proposed changes to the
Comprehensive Long Range Plan. In virtually every meeting, one or
more attendees have raised the question - why are you doing this? what is
your objective? what is the problem you are trying to resolve. In
not one single meeting has a planning commission member reached into a
file, briefcase or drawer to produce a copy of an analysis of any
kind. Not once. This group has not provided evidence of an
analysis that includes any of the required analysis units - despite
repeated requests. This would seem to be in conflict with the
requirements of 67.6508.<br><br>
I think that this is the primary reason that this particular proposed
ordinance has met with such resistance. The Planning Commission has
taken several positions on issues, presumably based on their personal
knowledge, experience and beliefs, instead of providing an analysis of
issues, with the results available in writing for review. And they
have certainly not reduced their findings to writing to allow review or
dialogue about their analyses supporting their findings.<br><br>
Coincidentally, the makeup of the committee did not have a representative
for the farming sector for the full year. The group that would be most
impacted by the proposed ordinance was not even represented on the
Commission.<br><br>
I would very much like to know what their population analysis is and the
assumptions they made about it and drew from it.<br><br>
I would very much like to know what their assessment of school needs is
and what it is based on.<br><br>
I would very much like to know what their conclusions for economic
development are and what they are based on.<br><br>
I would very much like to know what their conclusions for land use are
and what they are based on ....<br><br>
... and on and on and on.<br><br>
As an example of how the process has worked, when asked on direct
questioning why they took the particular approach they did to regulate an
activity, their response was, "Well we received a letter stating
that we should do this" They talked about it and thought it
was a "good idea" and drafted that provision of the
ordinance. For example, by their own statements, they acknowledge
that the lighting ordinance was the result of input from one citizen - Mr
Stu Goldstein. If there was an analysis of the neede for the
lighting ordinance, they have not made it available to the
public.<br><br>
During my participation at the planning commission meetings, there have
been <b><i>no charts</i></b>, <b><i>no maps</i></b>, <b><i>no population
demographics</i></b>, <b><i>no economic demographics</i></b>, <b><i>no
studies or reports of any kind </i></b>made available to the public.
<br><br>
<b><i>Mark - Thank you for bringing the elements of the planning process
to light. This may provide a means by which future proposals for
changes to the Long-Range Comprehensive Plan are conducted in accordance
with all the applicable provisions of the planning process. It may
also help to refocus everyone on the appropriate elements to consider as
we conclude consideration of the changes pending now.</i></b> </body>
</html>