Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> respect to all the work that has been put into this for such a long period of time, I would like to <br /> see us extend it to 90 days. And that's my first point, but before I go onto anything else, I'd like <br /> to get your take on that suggestion. <br /> <br /> YUEN: Well, 60 days does give the Commission several, probably three meetings <br /> to deal with the Community Development Plans. It's also, remember that the Council At each <br /> stage of this there is an opportunity for public input. So all the Steering Committee meetings are <br /> public and people get to testify. Then you have the Planning Commission, which is public and <br /> people get to testify. Then finally the County Council public meetings, people get to testify. So <br /> I'm not, I would like to see the process moved along. And there is also a possibility for it to <br /> circle back to the Steering Committee. So I would prefer 60 days. It is because there is so much <br /> opportunity for public input. <br /> <br /> WATANABE: Before we continue, you know, I've been informed that maybe I was in <br /> error in allowing questions for this. I've been informed that we really scheduled this to begin at <br /> 9:30, and we started actually before 9:30. And just, although there is no one from the public <br /> present at this point, maybe we should take a recess just to give the public the benefit of, albeit, <br /> in the event that someone wanted to attend this. So may I suggest that we take a five-minute <br /> recess, and reconvene after that and then we can continue with the discussions where we left off? <br /> <br /> SIRACUSA: Fine. <br /> <br /> WATANABE: Okay. So we're starting a recess for five. <br /> <br /> RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at 9:29 a.m. <br /> <br /> RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 9:36 a.m. <br /> WATANABE: The Planning Commission come back in order. For the record, it's now <br /> nearly 9:40 and there is no one from the public present; so I guess we're in the clear now as far <br /> as that goes, the technicality goes. And I guess we can begin where we left off, and I believe you <br /> had a follow-up, Ms. Siracusa. <br /> <br /> SIRACUSA: Thank you. All right. Some of the other parts of the addition here that <br /> I'm having problems with are that one of the options is that the Commission could reject the <br /> entire Plan in total, and that also the streamlining of inaction shall be considered an unfavorable <br /> recommendation. I find that that's being too broad a brush. I really have some, I can't imagine <br /> how come, you know, with all the different parts of it - as many parts as the General Plan has <br /> because basically this Community Development Plans are addressing the same types of issues - <br /> and, you know, all the thought that's gone into it, just to imagine that the Commission could <br /> conceivably just nix the entire thing I can see where they might be uncomfortable, you know, <br /> with one part or one suggestion and want to tweak it a little bit. But to just downright turn the <br /> whole thing down, I think it's such an insult to a whole community in there and all the time they <br /> put into the work, that I really have problems with that, and that they could do an unfavorable <br /> recommendation to the entire document. That bothers me considerably, Chris. <br /> <br /> YUEN: Well, it has to be an option for the Commission. I also, knowing the work <br /> that has gone into these, hope that the Planning Commission wouldn't recommend disapproval of <br /> <br /> 3 <br />