Agenda - 10-07-2008- 7b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

302 Approved 10/1/08 383 384 Jay Bryan: Pretty much. 385 386 Renee Price: The problem that I have is, we've told other advisory boards and members of the public that you can't 387 change the goals, and although I'm not against the changes, it's a matter of procedure and fairness. I didn't know 388 they, member of the OUTBoard, were actually going to change the wording of the'goals. We had already said for the 389 most part, this is what it is for now, forward. 390 391 Jay Bryan: What had happened was in April, Sam and Nancy presented us with a 3 or 4 page document at the end 392 of a meeting that had a series of ideas about transportation that was a sort of a model. It was an outline, we didn't 393 have time to thoroughly review and discuss it and what Roger ditl was attach it as an appendix and that's when the 394 OUTBoard said they were really not satisfied and it was handed back to them and to say if you're not satisfied then 395 reformat it as best you can in the way this was originally written and that's where they came back with these. 396 397 Jay Bryan: My thought was to pass along our discussion to the Commission about it and let them make this decision. 398 Really in fairness, again we don't have everybody. 399 400 Larry Wright: I was told by an OUTBoard member that air quality is not in the purview of transportation, that's what 401 the OUTBoard decided. Its air quality and there is more to it than transportation. It was rational. 402 403 Jay Bryan: I appreciate you saying that, we're not that far apart in our thinking about it. Although, you've helped me 404 understand that really just focusing on what was purely transportation: The problem is that none of this is purely one 405 thing or another, we have these links, in that pieces of land use policy do cross over in those objectives into other 406 areas such as the environment and soon. They may be narrowing it, but they've still got it in part of the qualities. I 407 don't know the answer, I think there's something in between that can address their desire to have it more streamlined 408 but address the values that come about in transportation issues. They do affect community character, environment, 409 neighborhoods, and so on. 410 411 Bernadette Pelissier: My overall general comment was there are good things here and I appreciate the work that 412 they did but I also see that it's taken out a lot of the flavor. I realize this whole thing to work with regional goals and 413 objectives, well that gets taken out and everything becomes Orange County centric and very some of what is in here 414 I would say is actually more related to the implementation phase. It's so specific. The objectives we have are more 415 generic and give a certain flavor that I think got lost. I'm not sure I like all the changes at this phase and that it 416 belongs for later. 417 418 Larry Wright: I agree, they want to develop regulations or ordinances, the spirit of this is that they want of some sort 419 connectivity. I think it's a noble statement, I don't know why it's said this way but what they really would like is some 420 sort of design to determine what communities would be connecting and which would be permitted to have cul-de- 421 .sacs to keep everything to keep from eking out on major highways. 422 423 Jay Bryan: If you look on page 81 line 9, it was stricken. That's what I meant, my concerns are more than what Alice 424 addressed. My concerns continue with the other changes to the original objectives. 425 426 Tom Altieri: What I would like to have tonight, I don't have to have it, but what I'd like to have from the five (5) of you 427 is your recommendation for the entire plan, including what you would like to do with the transportation element. Then 428 find out what impact if any the lack of quorum has on the process. My feeling, I think, the commissioners at their 429 discretion can take it as a valid recommendation or choose to send it back to the Planning Board and have it 430 readdressed with a quorum: One proposed solution to the transportation element, you could choose to include all of 431 the text revisions to the body of the text in your recommendation and not address any of the proposed changes to the 432 goals and objectives at this time. You can simply state that you were uncomfortable with doing that. 433 434 Jay Bryan: I think that's a fair idea, what I would want is that the minutes about this particular discussion, that they 435 have access to our particular discussion about the transportation piece. Rather than just worded vaguely. I think it 436 would be better if they read what we've said to capture the main issues that were talked about. Would that be 437 acceptable to everybody that if we are generally finished, to decide whether or not the five (5) of us would feel