|
that the lady today said it looks beautiful.It does not. We have development everywhere along
<br />that Drive; and there will be pressure to develop from that new Bypass Highway. I don’t care
<br />that we say, oh, well, we want it in preservation or whatever. There’s going to be tremendous
<br />pressure to develop that, along that Bypass Highway. Anyway, I really think that the
<br />Commissioners should really look at supporting this, the Director’s recommendations, for this
<br />specific area for the greater community good. Thanks.
<br />WATANABE: Okay, Shelly?
<br />OGATA: I guess my question at this point would be is there any possibility of some
<br />kind of a compromise from the RS-15 to the RA whatever it is, RA-5. Is there any middle
<br />ground that can be reached? Cause I share both sides of the issue and I’m just wondering if
<br />there’s any -.
<br />WATANABE: Let me take a stab at that, Shelly.
<br />OGATA: Okay.
<br />WATANABE: The Commission, the Planning Commission, as I understand it, does not
<br />have the power to initiate a zoning change. There are other zonings, like say RA-1 or RA-2, that
<br />could possibly, you know, act as a compromise. But the Commission on its own does not have
<br />the power to initiate any zoning change. We do have to one way or another respond to the
<br />Director’s initiation for revocation; and the deadline is today. I mean, it has been extended by
<br />way of the Director allowing it to be extended. We do, however, have an opportunity as a
<br />Commission to, again, we’re not going to do any approvals but we do have an opportunity as a
<br />Commission to suggest and recommend other conditions. And one of those conditions might be
<br />a limit on the units which, in effect, would have the same affect or nearly the same affect as
<br />rezoning to Ag-1. For example, if you had it at Ag-1 with 37.88 acres and allowing for the
<br />setbacks and the infrastructure and etc., maybe you could squeeze in, you know, between the
<br />gulches and everything, 30 units into that. So you would have an approximate same effect. The
<br />problem with still having the RS-15 is technically the developer could go in there and make
<br />15,000 square foot lots all in a bunch and, you know, there would be no view corridors at that
<br />point. But I would venture to guess that the developer is not interested in creating a pod with
<br />common areas, large open space common areas. So the developer is going to subdivide the lots
<br />to larger lots anyway, and it’s going to become RS-1 or 1 ½ or whatever; and, you know,
<br />potentially in the northern section where it’s Extensive Ag, maybe that’s the side that the
<br />developer may choose to place larger lots there. But we don’t have, as I understand we don’t
<br />have the ability to initiate, again, change of zone. But fortunately for us Condition C did have a
<br />unit, 50 units in there as a constraint and we are, you know, if the applicant’s representative is
<br />willing, able to negotiate on that basis. I hope I answered your question. But it doesn’t appear as
<br />though any type of negotiation between the applicant’s representative and the Director will
<br />occur; and we’re out of time.
<br />LIM: May I make a statement, Mr. Chairman. I guess, you know, we’re kind of
<br />stuck, in terms of the applicant’s side, we’re stuck. We can initiate a zoning amendment or an
<br />amendment to an SMA Permit, but we can’t do that without the Director’s cooperation.
<br />EXHIBIT C
<br />20
<br />
<br />
|