2008-02-22 TPDCDP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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