meetings and spoke the loudest wanted. Is that the right way to write zoning code language? <br />Put in the residential neighborhood context: “Sorry, we are rewriting the code because your <br />neighbors want a single-story neighborhood; if you want to expand to two stories you need to <br />move.” <br /> <br />4.a. What prompted the initial pursuit of a new neighborhood plan? <br />The rationale is that the existing plan is dated and we have spent a lot of time on the new <br />plan. <br />Just because something is olde does not mean it should go down the chute. Ask any Planning <br />Commissioner on Social Security. <br />Time and money invested is a crummy rationale for making people ride in a faulty new plane <br />design or adopting a bad plan. <br /> <br />4.b. Can the 1987 UFP be amended instead of repealed and replaced? Why wasn’t this the path <br />that was chosen? <br />This is the dump the old plan and get a new plan rationale; but it misses the point. <br />The old plan and the new plan are not the same type of work products. <br />The old plan has binding policies and specific plan designations that must be applied to land <br />use decisions. <br />The new plan is not a plan; it is a Vision Statement; it prohibits applying the plan to any land <br />use decisions. <br />This is not dumping the ’57 Chevy and buying a ’23 Honda hybrid. <br />This is like trading the ’57 Chevy for a new pair of sunglasses; everything looks better through <br />the new glasses, but you have lost the ability to get where you are going. <br /> <br />4.c. Can we layer the new neighborhood plan on top of the 1987 plan? <br />Sounds like Staff think layering is possible, provided it comes with the appropriate <br />introductory statement. <br />There can’t be any inconsistencies because the new plan is advisory only and the old is <br />binding by its terms. <br />And it would just be an interim fix. <br />All of the refinement plan diagrams will become panda thumbs when the promised, 100% <br />parcel-specific Metro Plan Diagram arrives by FedEx in 2026. <br /> <br />4.d. Is it possible to do a land use diagram? What are the options? <br />Queue the blue smoke and mirrors here. <br />The rationale in the first paragraph is that we should dump the 1987 RRSC plan Diagram now <br />and just use the Metro Plan Diagram until the 100% parcel specific Metro Plan Diagram <br />arrives in 2026. <br />This does not pass the straight-face test. <br />If you were starting a trip in the fog with a proven roadmap, would you really leave that <br />roadmap at home because you are promised the new and improved version two years down <br />the road? <br />Why not keep the 1987 Diagram until 2026 Metro Diagram arrives? It is just two years away. <br />Let’s keep our current RRSC road map until we get a better one. <br />76