Testimony before the Planning Commission
September 2, 1992
We urge you not to recommend approval of this amendment processing all proposed land use amendments involving 50 acres or less to be processed by Independent Consideration, for three major reasons.
- The Charter Commission is recommending to the electorate a major change in the Development Plan process which would make this proposal irrelevant. If this change is approved, the Development Plans and land use maps will no longer be detailed like zoning maps. Instead of involving individual projects or parcels of land, they will describe the desired urban character and other intentions for the development of the several parts of the city so that they may serve as a policy guide for more detailed zoning maps and regulations.
We believe that the proposed amendment goes contrary to this Charter provision and, indeed, works against its intent.
- If the new Charter provisions are adopted by the electorate, there will be a period of years during which the existing Development Plan maps will have to be reviewed and revised. We think that piecemeal amendments should not be encouraged during that period, but that a comprehensive review will be needed to bring the Development Plans into conformity with the new Charter Provisions. The proposed amendment, we feel, will open the door to one-by-one consideration of individual projects or parcels of land, which we think will work against the comprehensive review.
- If the new Charter Provisions are not adopted by the electorate, then the present Annual Review procedure remains the sole opportunity for any kind of comprehensive or coordinated review. To eliminate parcels of 50 acres or less from that Annual Review would permit major development impacts to occur without adequate analysis. For example, the Aloha Motors site contains less than 10 acres; a shopping center of 50 acres has major development impacts; a 50-acre medium density apartment site can involve 4000 dwelling units. In fact since we already have D.P. approved large sites involving tens of thousands of dwelling units and from now on most projects will be smaller, the proposed amendment would in effect eliminate the Annual Review.
Arlene Kim Ellis