Laserfiche WebLink
E. Planning Commission: <br /> 1 . Phillips: Wish the commission' s 16. Retain present <br /> functions to remain as they are. Planning Commission <br /> functions. <br /> 2. Phillips: They do good job overall , <br /> but selection of members not the best: <br /> need experienced planners plus right mix <br /> of community representatives; present <br /> membership seems to be representative of <br /> developers . <br /> 3 . Phillips : Prefers Council oversee 17. Allow Council <br /> planning and zoning to insure check and to oversee planning <br /> balance. and zoning. <br /> 4 . Aste: Suggested using moderators or <br /> mediators at hearings . <br /> F. Initiative: <br /> 1. Phillips: Wants clarity on the 18. Need ballot <br /> ballot ; initiative representatives and clarity. <br /> community should agree on wording. <br /> 2. L'Orange: Mentioned abuse he ' s seen <br /> re collection of petition signatures; <br /> Questioned whether Charter should include <br /> regulations of how signatures are <br /> collected. Bethea: Ballot supposed to <br /> contain an objective summary of substance <br /> of measure and spaces for signing. <br /> Phillips: Says California mails out info <br /> which addresses pros and cons of each <br /> initiative; people should have the last <br /> say on initiative. <br /> 3. Aste: Recommends lowering initiative 19. Lower initiative <br /> to 7% to bring initiative to a ballot; to 7%. <br /> Hahn: National average is 8%. Lum: <br /> Discussed geographical issues . <br /> G. General Plan Amendments: <br /> 1 . Jacobs : Guidelines need to be 20. Address general <br /> addressed more specifically; Charter plan in Charter; set <br /> should set goals (2: 2 :46) . goals. <br /> 2. Jacobs: Review process is flawed; 21. Outline/clarify <br /> general plan has never been able to be general plan review <br /> process. <br /> 531 <br />