|
how best to approach it, rather than abruptly come up with, bang, certain amendments to the
<br />Zoning Code. You know, if we’re going to be delegated the responsibility, the Planning
<br />Commission, and treat them as any rezoning issue, then all subdivision applications would come
<br />to us as a Planning Commission. You know, I would like that, I’d have a good permanent job.
<br />You know, I would get a good permanent civil service position.
<br />ALAMEDA: Where, at the Planning Commission?
<br />DOMINGO: Well, the Planning Commission would be given that responsibility; and if
<br />I’m going to be asked to come to work every day, certainly I would wish some kind of payment.
<br />That’s right. Isn’t that true? You know, that’s what we’re looking at. So, you know, in our
<br />decisions, let’s be prudent and look at it real objectively and see what the facts will be. It’s not
<br />the end of the world to see that, you know, we’ve come to this point, we’re going to change it
<br />right away otherwise we’re doomed. It’s not that way. We have time to talk about it, deliberate
<br />it, and discuss it. You know, the legislatively body and the administration should get together.
<br />Because, you know what, the Planning Commission is caught between this and we’ve got to
<br />make recommendations. But if the battle is so intense, don’t include the Planning Commission.
<br />I don’t want to be involved in that. My input is just a recommendation. What I would feel better
<br />is if I say no, then it’s no, period.
<br />ALAMEDA: Commissioner Ogata?
<br />OGATA: I agree with a lot of the points that have been brought forward thus far.
<br />However, my stand on this as of right now and, you know, I’m still waiting to hear more about
<br />this issue, but I agree that there seems to be a need to address the overall Subdivision Code and
<br />that there might be areas for reform. However, I don’t think that we should, or perhaps the best
<br />route is not to do this piecemeal but to do an overall Code reform strategically, you know, rather
<br />than just say, okay, one part of this is to now do, have us review, you know, every subdivision. I
<br />think that it needs to be done strategically and it needs to be done as a whole rather piecemeal.
<br />So I would at this point not support this kind of an amendment.
<br />ALAMEDA: Okay, that’s good for the record. Let me check with Brad, Mr. Kurokawa,
<br />on some of his thoughts on this. Go ahead, Brad.
<br />KUROKAWA: Just one more kind of final parting comment. In essence, you know,
<br />Commissioner Siracusa, I agree; and I think if you look at the recommendation from the
<br />Planning Department it basically acknowledges the gaps in the Subdivision Code. And so the
<br />recommendations, and we actually have a strategy. You know, we’re working on the roadway
<br />standards which kind of addresses parts of it. And what we’re doing, you know, in that effort is
<br />also recognizing that the Council has, obviously, the policy ability to change some of these
<br />Codes, and we recognize some of the changes that are in. But I guess from the larger perspective
<br />in terms of process is this appropriate, our recommendation is that, you know, to have reviews of
<br />these various applications when we’re actually trying to get at the root, which is more the
<br />Subdivision Code reform. And so that’s where we’re coming from, and recognizing and
<br />acknowledging the need for some of the changes.
<br /> EXHIBIT B 6
<br />
<br />
<br />
|