2007-01-05 tgpamendment - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

potentially occupied the better part of the year. So that was the major impetus for it, and I can understand that. I certainly didn’t want to have the timeframes so compressed that there wasn’t adequate time to really deal with it. But let me just give you an example of some of the key things, some of the key timeframes in here. On the Planning Commission’s side the Planning Commission would have, let’s see, on the comprehensive review, which is, you know, the 10-year comprehensive review, the Planning Commission has 150 days. All right? On the interim amendment side, the Planning Commission has 60 days from its receipt of the Director’s recommendation and not less than two meetings. All right, so it, well, it gives the Commission 60 days to work on those; and in the meantime -. And it shortens the timeframe from, the current timefame is 90 days, so it shortens the timeframe from 90 days to 60 days. That’s the gist of what it does. GRAHAM: Okay, given your consideration before that you said it takes almost a year for the Council to go through this process to do an interim amendment, that seems a bit excessive. And so in general you support the idea of shortening -? YUEN: Right. The biggest cut in time is actually from the Council going to the Director. The present ordinance gives 120 days; and this would give 70 days. And I think that 60 days is sufficient for the Planning Director to evaluate it, especially -. The interim amendment has to start with a resolution from the Council, so the Director has some indication while the Council is considering the resolution that this may be afoot. So it’s not being, the Director won’t be caught completely off-guard. So the Director has 60 days to submit the recommendation to the Commission, and then the Commission has 60 days to make a recommendation to the Council. And, let’s see, if it doesn’t act, it’s a negative. GRAHAM: Okay, thank you, Director. Anything else? ALAMEDA: Let me just say, I don’t know if I’m missing the boat on this one but I see that the streamline effort and I cannot think of any negative, unless I’m missing something. So, Fellow Commissioners, if you don’t see any potential problems with this, then I’d like to make a motion. GRAHAM: Yes. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess my view on this is that because the General Plan is supposed to be a long-range document that personally I don’t see any real need, I guess, to shorten the timeframes because, you know, when the General Plan is approved it’s supposed to be, you know, with the idea that it’s going to last for ten years; and it should be a rather extraordinary circumstance that arises that requires an interim revision of the General Plan. So, and to me that would require time periods which provide for deliberation, you know, of that scale because we’re not talking about zoning change or -. We’re talking about changing the general, some significant aspect of EXHIBIT C 4