|
particularly this area. So he had applied for and then subsequently secured an approval from the
<br />State to have, if he’s successful, to have this area be declared as part of the enterprise program;
<br />and the approval letter is found in Exhibit B. The goal basically, and perhaps it’s very timely
<br />right now, the goal behind the whole enterprise program is really to help create new and, at a
<br />minimum, you know, retain existing jobs. And considering the global economic situation,
<br />whatever little that can be done to foster job creation, particularly in an area that’s relatively
<br />depressed, you know, I think from the State’s and the County’s standpoint they had looked at it
<br />rather favorably.
<br />The staff’s background report also discusses, you know, like preliminarily notwithstanding the
<br />access issue, all of the different infrastructure questions. The utilities are available, the
<br />government service is there. The plan is to do an aerobic system largely because of the location
<br />of the well on the property, and also there’s a County well a little more than a 1,000 feet from the
<br />subject property. So they would be subjected to, you know, an added wastewater system.
<br />We did conduct a traffic impact study which is included in the report; and essentially the report
<br />kind of concluded, based on the projected traffic generation, that the impact would not be
<br />significant. There are some, as the staff and, you know, you just kind of pointed out
<br />Mr. Chairman, some access questions but, and I’ll just kind of defer that to later on to subsequent
<br />discussions. We did have also an archaeological survey done. And as the Commission knows
<br />any building that is in excess of 50 years old is considered historic. And so what the State does
<br />is like require, like required of the applicant in this case to kind of take photos and catalogue all
<br />of the remnants of that building and they’ll kind of put it in their archives. I also kind of pointed
<br />out, like as your staff noted, that the General Plan designates it Industrial, as kind of pointed out
<br />in the Director’s letter. I provided also a copy of which was not included in my original
<br />submittal to the Commission excerpts of the County General Plan, you know, dealing with the
<br />relationship of the Community Development Plans and the General Plan. And basically what I
<br />highlighted was on page 2; and basically it states that if there’s a direct conflict between the
<br />Community Development Plan and the General Plan, the General Plan shall be controlling,
<br />basically saying that the CDP does not, you know, inherently trump the General Plan.
<br />Relative to the CDP however, and I can go into a little bit more discussion, if you want me to
<br />defer I’ll, you know, gladly defer in the interest time and to respond later on.
<br />WATANABE: I would suggest that we defer. That way if you do wind up addressing it
<br />we’ll be addressing the concerns of Shipman.
<br />FUKE: I understand, and I think that would be better. Just to go over very briefly,
<br />the other items that I included as exhibits would be Exhibit D, which would be like copies of the
<br />application which I tried to demonstrate the relationship of the project to the Community
<br />Development Plan. And, lastly, on Exhibit E, which is a copy of a letter which I don’t believe
<br />the Commission has, it’s a letter of support from a surrounding property owner. Actually the
<br />owner of the property is just directly across of the proposed development. Thank you.
<br />WATANABE: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions of Mr. Fuke,
<br />Commissioners? Seeing none, you may be seated. I do have three people signed up to testify.
<br />Let’s see, we have Thomas Yeh, Robert Betts and Cory Gadd. Is that correct?
<br /> EXHIBIT C
<br />4
<br />
<br />
|