2006-11-01 tnakamura - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

GRAHAM:Any other comments from the other Commissioners? I might just rephrase a little bit what I was concerned about, about the precedent, and maybe ask the Planning Director to comment on that too so we get his feel since he did give a positive recommendation. I feel like this application is valuable to the landowner. And, in general, something thats helpful to a landowner, we should try to support it if there are no negative sides to it. I mean thats my general feeling as a Commissioner. Again, Im speaking as a Commissioner not as a Chairman. When I look at like Mr. Nishimuras comments about the State Land Use area that had already been moved to Urban next to it not having rezonings in that area since then is indicative of the fact were not going to get a lot of rezonings coming after this. It also seems to me its indicative of the fact that from a land use perspective theres not really a need for more residential lots in that area. So I feel like, you know, we are sort of setting a precedent, but we dont really have the public need shown in the past that this precedent will work to the publics benefit. And, hence, Im concerned about that precedent. And since Planning Director Yuen is certainly aware of all these things and he made a favorable recommendation, Id like to hear his comments on that. YUEN:Sure, thanks for asking. The Commission is correct to look at this as potentially precedent setting, but you also have to keep that in perspective. Strictly on the matter, first of all, on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment, which is the subject of motion right now, one factor in the Departments favorable recommendation on the boundary amendment is that it is contiguous with the existing State Land Use Urban area. Now that wouldnt be true for, you know, if you went in 1000 feet and you wanted a boundary amendment, then you dont need that criteria any more, not to say that that means absolutely no. But the contiguity of this is, on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment side, is something that affects how you look at this because, and this is by the Statute itself, the State Land Use Statute. So then, well, what about within that existing Urban area, all those Ag-3 acre lots where there has not been any rezoning requests, or there has only be one rezoning request? Yes, you do have to look at the potential that if this went through favorably people would cite this as an example of acknowledgement that a greater density of half acre lots would be an acceptable use. I point out that the General Plan designation for the area is Low Density Urban which suggests that something like this half acre lot or even a smaller lot is consistent with the General Plan. As to whether another lot on another street would have, we would say, no, that -. You know, I dont know what the other streets look like, if they have the width of Awa Street, the right-of- way, the pavement width, the shoulders, whether they have the available water supply, all those factors that are favorable. In this case, you know, may or may not be; but there is a, as far as this being consistent with an overall plan, we do have an overall plan; and that is the General Plan. And I wanted to say one thing about the term spot zoning that was used. First of all, as a technical matter, were still on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment, were not on zoning. The State Land Use has, the contiguity is the similar idea here, and that you dont just pick a spot out in the middle of Agriculture and change it to Urban. Thats a factor against it. But this is contiguous. But the phrase spot is zoning is something that has, that suggests something that, people misinterpret that phrase. Spot zoning means that you single out a particular piece of land for preferential treatment or differential treatment not based on an overall land use plan. So if this were a lot that was in the middle of an area that was designated, you know, Extensive Agriculture or Important Agriculture and you were singling out this one spot for rezoning, that would be a legitimate statement of the term spot zoning. But when you have a General Plan that has a map for the area and this is consistent with that map, this is not spot zoning. GRAHAM:Onefollow-upforMr.Yuen.WhenIlookattheGeneralPlanMap,the LUPAGMap,itseemedtojustsortofbarelyencompassthisareainsortofaroughboundary comingthroughandnotthatwholefullarea.But,again,weknowthattheGeneralPlanissortof 9EXHIBIT A