2006-05-26 TGP_Amendment - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Hayashi. Without further adieu, Mr. Director? YUEN:Good morning, Members of the Commission and members of the public. As Mr. Hayashi said, at the last meeting the Commission did take action to send most of the proposed Interim General Plan Amendments up to the Council with a favorable recommendation, and withheld action on several of the LUPAG Map Amendments. In addition, the Director has withheld action on a text change with regard to the Waimea Bypass. So we do have this, a set of a few Interim Plan Amendments to look at that Ill be going through on the slides here before the public testimony. Just to give an overall view on this, the comprehensive review of the General Plan by the Planning Department took place roughly in the period 1999 through 2000; and the Plan was sent to the Planning Commission in April 2001; and then it went up to the Council in December 2001. ItwasfinallypassedinFebruary2005. Inthemeantime,ofcourse,therewereotherissuesthathadcometolightanditwasunderstood that there would be some General Plan Amendments, Interim Amendments, proposed to deal with things that were, that had come up in the Council discussions, and a few other issues and some discrepancies that came to light. So the Planning Commission here is advisory on these General Plan Amendments. Like the General Plan itself, any interim amendments to take effect have to be passed by the County Council. The timeframe is that this is the last meeting that the Commission can consider these. If there is a favorable or unfavorable vote by the majority or full membership of the Commission, the ordinance that talks about these General Plan Amendments doesnt specify whether they go up with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation. So we would simply report the action of the Commission and whatever the vote was in sending this up to the Council after today. So turning to the ones that are still at issue before the Commission, and the Commission held these because there have been a great deal of public testimony on some of these. The first one were looking at is a proposed amendment that would add an area in the Puna District as a Medium Density Urban, and that would be --. The significance of that is that it would signal that this would be an area for commercial development, maybe office buildings, maybe community facilities; and in recommending such locations by special permit or rezoning that this would be an area that the Planning Department would favor the location. This is along Ainaloa Boulevard, its actually within the Orchidland Subdivision. The Ainaloa Boulevard splits the Ainaloa Subdivision from the Orchidland Estates Subdivision. So although its located along Ainaloa Boulevard, its actually within Orchidland Estates. The current designation under the General Plan Map is Rural, which was a new category in the 2005 General Plan. And then I think Id like to, probably the easiest thing to do is at the end of each particular amendment if there are questions while we have the slide up we can talk about that. Are there any questions about this one? And we can take things at the end as well. Yes? ALAMEDA:Okay. Cool. Commissioner Graham? 2