My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0493.065 2000-2002
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2000-2002
>
COM 0493.065 2000-2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/23/2019 10:19:42 AM
Creation date
5/10/2008 2:52:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2000-2002
Communication
0493
Point
065
Author
Merle Martin
Communications - Referred To
PC
Comments
PC-Close Fi le - 10/08/02
Communications - File Code
PLG
Document Relationships
AGE PC 10/08/2002 2000-2002
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2000-2002\Planning Committee (PC)
BIL 163 Draft 01 2000-2002
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2000-2002
COM 0493.000 2000-2002
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2000-2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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).
View images
View plain text
The proposed CGP also fails to provide for the necessary growth of the <br /> H.O.V.E. sub-division, as it only expands the UEA in the makai sub- <br /> divisions, which ignores the fact that H.O.V.E. has many times the number <br /> of properties in H.O.V.E. then the makai sub-divisions and that there are <br /> many more businesses and residences in H.O.V.E. than in the makai sub- <br /> divisions. <br /> This current draft of the CGP chokes off future business opportunities, jobs, <br /> tax revenues and property development in the H.O.V.E. sub-division by <br /> discriminating against this sub-division. <br /> Council members are faced with enormous fiscal problems and to eliminate <br /> fair and future commercial and cultural growth in this community is contrary <br /> to the public need. This would also seem to be contrary to the suggested <br /> change of land use designation from agricultural to rural, while the makai <br /> sub-divisions would remain agricultural. i~Vhy expand the urban designation <br /> in agricultural zones, but not in rural areas? <br /> I respectfully urge the Council Members to consider these concerns about <br /> <br /> the planned UEA excluding I-LO.V.E.. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Merle Martin <br /> Cc: Mayor Harry Kim <br /> Ocean View Chamber of Commerce <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.