Laserfiche WebLink
DeVera, Ashley <br /> From: Chuck Flaherty < <br /> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 7:05 AM <br /> To: Planning CDP; Planning General Plan; Planning Internet Mail <br /> Cc: Kimball, Heather; Jennifer Kagawada; Lee Loy, Sue; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; <br /> Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Galimba, Michelle M.; Villegas, Rebecca <br /> Subject: CDP AC-GP meetings <br /> Aloha, <br /> It was just pointed out to me yesterday that the General Plan Community Meetings have been scheduled <br /> at the same time as CDP Action Committee meetings, but are being listed on the County Calendar as two <br /> separate meetings being held at the same time. <br /> What is most concerning about this inexplicable obfuscation is: <br /> 1) the CDP AC meeting has other agenda items listed on its agenda, not just consideration of the draft <br /> General Plan 2045, and <br /> 2) there is no link provided in the agendas to the online draft GP2045 and/or to the link for the .pdf <br /> version. <br /> Given the draft GP2045 is an immensely complex document and the CDP AC meetings are only allowed to <br /> run for 2 hours: <br /> 1) why weren't the "community meetings" listed in the "public notice" not identified as CDP AC meetings <br /> when the public notice was sent by the Planning Department? <br /> 2) why is the GP2045 review not the sole agenda item scheduled? <br /> 3) why is there no link to the GP2045 document for the GP agenda item? <br /> It is frustrating that the Planning Department is continuing to perpetuate the bizarre experience the CDP <br /> ACs had during with the initial comment period of the 9/23 draft GP2045, that is, not placing <br /> comprehensive review of the draft GP2045 as the exclusive agenda item for the CDP AC meetings until <br /> they had achieved sufficient information to make informed recommendations. <br /> As V-P candidate Tim Walz likes say, "this is just plain weird", unless the goal is to limit public <br /> participation and feedback in favor of "backroom" special interests. <br /> Finally, why is the Planning Director referring to comments received prior to the release of the 9/23 draft <br /> GP2045 when the 9/23 draft was a complete gut-and-replacement of both the current GP and the GP2040 <br /> released in 2019? <br /> Mahalo, <br /> Chuck Flaherty <br />