2006-04-21 Tgp-amendment - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

conform to reality. And then on, even beyond what is currently developed on the State land there that because its right around the harbor that does seem alogicalusefor somekinds of harbor related improvements. So, you know normally, if somebody came in for just to draw a boundary here. These colors here are, the way its in (inaudible) maps its not meant to be an absolute boundary. So this indicates a general area of a low-density urban area, this yellow color. But if somebody came in for zoning-. And now you know with GIS and computers its very easy to overlay these against other, against a map to really precisely look at, the blob becomes very precise. It is never-. When the General Plan-. And most of these are really taken, are not changed. A lot of the designations arenot changed from the original General Plan in 1971, which is mapped again on a very big scale. And they were not meant to be exact boundaries. So, here, so you could have, you know if you had a proposal that looked like a good zoning proposal and you went slightly beyond the boundary of the low-density urban area as shown on this map you could still consider that as being consistent with the GeneralPlan even though it didnt exactly match up. I can show you, there are a lot of examples of this kind of thing. Let me give you another example. If you look at the Industrial areas that are mapped in the Hamakua Coast they meant to indicated where the existing mills were. But if you actually take them on a map like this now they dont line up with the mill sites. They were just meant to indicate that in this general area you have the mill and you have an industrial area. So, converting those as we did to a GIS format makes it look more exact than it was meant to be. ALAMEDA:Thank you. IWASHITA:I guess given all that you know you said about that is the National Park comfortable with expanding that Urban area you know up to the National Park boundary? Because I guess for purpose of future development if its a fuzzy line and you keep the line on the road and then you pretty much would limit-. If the intent is to keep that, to have development along the road down to the harbor I dont have any problem with that. But the way that you know it has been redrawn it goes right up to the boundary of the park and I dont know if thats, you know if thats really whats wanted if you-. Seems like you want to keep sort of an open buffer area from the boundary of the park you know to whatever commercial uses are going to be built along the road. YUEN:I dont think we specifically went to the National Park with this General Plan amendment. Let me close this and pull up something else and then I can talk about what would actually have to happen before there was anymore development on this side. Because typically and then one of the reasons why theres not a public notice to neighbors required in General Plan amendments. And the reason is that typically there will still be a follow-up step before anything happens thats based on the General Plan amendment, whether therell be a rezoning or therell be an SMA permit or the like. So I can pull up the current and Im not sure what the current zoning is in the area, I can pull that up right now. IWASHITA:I appreciate the, you know the different steps involved in what would be required for ultimate development but I guess my-. What Im trying to clear up is that if you know we got this fuzzy line and thats how it is that if you keep that line right on the access road and thats fuzzy enough to allow futurecommercialdevelopmentontheroadIdontseewhyweneedtochangethatwholeopenareayou know to the Urban area. And that if you just kept it the same way this development still could you know, couldoccurdowntheroad.So,thatsmyonlypointandIunderstandthatfurtherstepswouldbenecessary. But I just dont see that given that, that is a fuzzy line that we really have to make this change. EXHIBIT D 17