2020-02-06 Exh A PD Initiated Vincent Tai REZ 13-167

Home

plans, building permits, or Plan Approval. There has also been no work on the property, and by that, I mean any groundwork or construction, to indicate that the landowner intends to develop the property with multiple -family residential units. So, you know, while the landowner did intend to develop the property, that isn't happening now, and the General Plan discourages speculative development which this is. This is becoming a form of speculative development now that the property is up for sale. One of the criteria for granting a Change of Zone is that the zoning is consistent with the goals, policies, standards of the General Plan, and that the zoning would promote the general welfare of the community. The housing section of the GP also states to continue to study and implement appropriate measures to curb property speculative practices that result in increased housing costs. The land use section of the General Plan recommends establishing controls to discourage speculative land development. Specifically, the multiple -family residential section states to assure the use of multiple -family residential zoned areas, and to curb speculation and resale of undeveloped lots, the County may impose incremental and conditional zoning which shall be based on performance requirements. And then another policy states support the rezoning of those multiple -family residential zoned lands that are used for other purposes to a more appropriate zoning designation. In this case, the property is more appropriate to be zoned Single -Family Residential because at this time, that is what it is being used for. So, the Director's recommendations, the Director believes the current RM -1.5 zoning district for the property is not the best land use pattern, and it will not promote the general welfare of the surrounding community at this time. Therefore, the Director recommends rezoning the property to its original designation of RS -7.5 so that up to 19 Single -Family Residential units and lots can be provided. If a subsequent landowner wishes to develop a multiple -family project on the property, they would need to come in for a Change of Zone to RM and at that time, the Planning Commission and County Council could look at these, the requested zoning and project to determine if the proposed zoning and density would promote the general welfare of the community. So, based on all of that information, I provided to you, the Director is recommending forwarding a favorable recommendation to County Council to rezone the property from RM -1.5 to RS -7.5. And, since we sent out your Background and Recommendation report, we've received several additional letters of testimony, so I just want to go through those with you. The first thing you should have is a map. We forgot to include that in your ordinance package. This is just a map that we typically include with a rezone ordinance. Let's see, we also have an email dated January 31" from Melanie DeMello at Department of Public Works to Mr. Tai; a letter from Mr. Tai dated January 31" to Mr. David Yamamoto of Public Works; a letter of testimony dated January 31" from Charlene Nishida to the Commission; a letter dated February 3rd from Mr. Tai to Mr. Yee; a letter dated February 4 1 from Mr. Tai to Mr. Yamamoto; an email dated February 4d' from Ms. Nishida to me for the Commission; and an email dated February 5h from Mr. Tai to Melanie DeMello at Public Works; a letter dated February 5 1 from Mr. Tai to Mr. Yamamoto at Public Works; another one-page letter from Mr. Tai to Mr. Yamamoto dated February 51h; an email from Melanie DeMello to Mr. Tai and the arborist, Justin, dated February 5h; and lastly an EXHIBIT A 4