My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
REP PC 094 07/06/2006 2004-2006
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Reports
>
2004-2006
>
Planning Committee (PC)
>
REP PC 094 07/06/2006 2004-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2008 10:26:24 AM
Creation date
5/9/2008 12:02:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Reports
Reports - Type
REP
Reports - Council Term
2004-2006
Report
094
Committee
PC
Meeting date
2006-07-06
Document Relationships
AGE PC 07/06/2006 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2004-2006\Planning Committee (PC)
BIL 282 Draft 01 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2004-2006
BIL 282 Draft 01 2004-2006
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2004-2006
COM 0884.000 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2004-2006
COM 0884.000 2004-2006
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2004-2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
Communication 884 <br /> <br /> Bill 282 <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br /> Committee Chair Pilago noted that when the Director comes before the Committee at the July 31, 2006 <br /> Planning meeting, these amendments will be discussed. Mr. Pilago noted that the Committee has two <br /> options: vote now and move it on to full council or, the other much cleaner way, is to wait for approval of <br /> the General Plan Amendment and then discuss the application in August. Mr. Pilago stated the choice <br /> would be up to Mr. Tsukazaki. <br /> Council Member Jacobson stated that the process is very important and that this body should not <br /> disregard the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Planning Director. He also said he <br /> has a problem with taking the advice from a developer's attorney and wants to postpone this matter until <br /> Planning staff is available and said he is uncomfortable ignoring the laws of this state. <br /> Council Member Arakaki noted that in the past the entire area was designated light industrial until the <br /> General Plan down zoned it. He stated thatjust azound the block commercial zonings were granted to <br /> other properties and he didn't think this applicant needs to wait for a General Plan amendment. <br /> Mr. Tsukazaki stated he'd like to move this forward and, if the General Plan is heard on July 31, 2006, <br /> asked whether this matter could be added to the agenda so that when the General Plan is entertained, <br /> further action on this application can be done at the same time. He stated his clients do not want to delay <br /> final action until September and his preference is to have this committee take action today. <br /> Council Member Jacobson's motion to postpone this matter fails. <br /> Committee Chair Pilago stated he will be voting against this application as the General Plan needs to be <br /> addressed first. However, Mr. Pilago stated that after approval of the General Plan amendments he would <br /> then support this application. <br /> Council Chair Higa said one of the problems they had in looking at the General Plan amendments was <br /> that it seemed the Planning Director has the power of telling the Council what it can and can not do. <br /> What concerns him is that promises were made in the past that haven't been delivered and he intends to <br /> take a long look at Mr. Yuen's interpretation. Mr. Higa has no problem approving this application <br /> because that's what is needed in his district. <br /> Committee Vice Chair Hoffinann stated that legally, the committee can't go ahead on its own without a <br /> General Plan amendment and therefore wants to be careful so as not to put the committee in a bind since <br /> this measure cannot be passed until the amendments are approved. <br /> Mr. Tsukazaki agreed that rezonings cannot happen unless it is consistent with the General Plan, however, <br /> what he is saying is that the council has the authority to interpret and decide if the proposal is consistent <br /> with the General Plan. The Director provided his interpretation, but the Council is not legally bound to it <br /> and the Council can make its own interpretation. Mc Tsukazaki concluded if the committee looked <br /> closely at this application, it will find applicant's proposal does not require a General Plan amendment. <br /> PC REPORT NO. 94 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.