2005-04-01 TPULUWAI - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

pursuethisat least to that level before we turn around and walk away from it or, you know, pursue it to the end. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Andrade. Commissioners, are there any more questions of the applicants representatives? ALAMEDA:As a -. SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:Kind of a comment -. Aloha. You know, Ive been on the Commission for about a year now and weve added that condition to prior developments, you know, with old zoning and all. And its kind of tricky, I think,too, you know, like what makes your particular application different from the past. And so like if we go ahead and say, you know, like do away withthose,withthatconditionoffairshareandall,thenIfeelkindofuncomfortablebecausewe didnt do away with it in the past, you know, for the previous applicants. So this kind of, Im thinking in my mind Im a little uncomfortable with that. CORREIA:I tried to find precedence as to which particular case I could, and maybe we can research further, and who is the actual applicant before the Planning Commission? Was it the original developer that was in pursuit of, you know, getting the property entitled and not meeting conditions asking for an extension? Were totally a separate group altogether. So, and theres nothing, I believe, in the law that requires, under any statute or ordinance, that requires the County to say on these old ordinances to impose these fair share costs. So its an arbitrary thing. Its, you know, yeah, its a recommendation, but its a recommendation that is not required by law. So maybe that might address your concern. ALAMEDA:Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Alameda. Thank you, Mr. Correia. Director Yuen, do you have any comments to make into the discussion at this time? YUEN:Well, I definitely hold to our position. And this is something that is going to come up repeatedly. It has come up a number of times, it will come up again as projects -. Theres quite a bit of old zonings out there that was done in the late eighties or early nineties where time conditions have lapsed; and its going to come back in front of the Council and in front of the Planning Commission. We should make these subject to the same rules that we would bringing, that we would have for somebody coming in with zoning today. Theres no reason why it should be any different. If they were coming in for zoning today, we would put in this fair share. And some of the old ones, this one I thought I said already has affordable housing. But the same argument could be made on affordable housing, why put it on when it wasnt there before. We need, as we develop, this community is developing very fast now, we have a lot of growth coming in. As we develop, we need to make sure that the development pays for itself and that we have both a fund to deal with the off-site impacts of new development and also that theres affordable housing in the development. And you cant make your decision based on a statement of it kills the project. It doesnt kill the project. Every project has to stand on its own financially. There are lots of things that get required in a zoning. You can say the same thing for somebody whose project is very close to financial viability. You may say the 8