My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-10-27 tcouncil
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2006
>
2006-10-27 tcouncil
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 11:16:42 AM
Creation date
6/14/2011 11:16:40 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
YUEN:Exhibit 2 is the current, I skipped the Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 is a copy of the <br />current amendment procedures, all right; and then Exhibit 3 is actually Ramsayered from the <br />current amendment procedures; and thats the Planning Directors proposed bill. All right. <br />SIRACUSA:Excuse me. <br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa. <br />SIRACAUSA:And the one right after that, the very final version is the final, the Planning <br />Directors final bill without the Ramsayering anymore? <br />YUEN:Right. Thats what you call the clean -. <br />SIRACUSA:I started to track it line-by-line and it looked like thats sort of what it was. <br />ButIjustwanttomakesurethatthats-. <br />YUEN:Thatswhatitwouldlooklikeasacleanbill,asacleanordinance.Itsa <br />mix of -. Jeff, is that correct? <br />DARROW:Exhibit 3 is the Ramsayer version and the clean version, so its combined <br />to . <br />ALAMEDA:Okay. <br />YUEN:Okay. So the second thing that, in Exhibit 3 that starts Ordinance No. <br />and doesnt have all, as much underlining, thats how it would, if you sat down and read it <br />straight through, thats what it would look like; and sometimes its a little difficult to read things <br />with the Ramsayering and the brackets; and you get lost on it. <br />Okay, so back to the Ramsayering version -- The first section is a clarification. And what it tells <br />you is that the Planning Director is, theres supposed to be a 10-year annual review both on, <br />under current procedure. It doesnt tell you, though, exactly what, does this 10-year start, do you <br />start the process after 10 years, what stage happens after 10 years. And, so, this one tells you <br />that the amendments that result from the 10-year review are supposed to be forwarded to the <br />Council 10 years after the last enactment of the General Plan. So that would be 10 years after <br />February 2005. So then, you know, in a few years time the Planning Director has to make, <br />internally make the timetable, working back from a deadline to forward to the Council. And the <br />Planning Commission has a set time to review. And, so, the Planning Director has to work out <br />this timetable. And partly itll depend, I mean, in practicality do you hire a consultant to work <br />on this; and it may start as much as two years before the 10 years to get the General Plan <br />amendments done and ready for the Council. But thats the thrust of the first change there. <br />And then the second, if you turn the page in Section 3, this has to deal with, this part deals with <br />the difference between what the Council bill says and what the current procedures say. The <br />current procedures say that the Council can initiate an interim General Plan amendment at any <br />time except during the comprehensive review. And the Council bill says, well, the Council can <br />initiate a General Plan Amendment at any time. <br />3EXHIBIT B <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.