COM 1041.000 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SIRACUSA: I was a little bit confused about, now some things in here; I understand about notice to surrounding property owners, about adding that, and But why are you taking out "not result in a net increase in the density?" Why is that bracketed? YUEN: That's just to return it to the language before 1996. WATANABE: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: So, Mr. Director, so then on page 1 of the Exhibit A, that is the proposed new wording? Am I correct in that? That ordinance that is attached? But it still does refer to "not result in an increase or decrease in any zoning designation." Am I right on that? SIRACUSA: No, that's the current GRAHAM: It seems like you are just inserting something that kind of is almost the same as words you are removing maybe. Is that the sense, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah, and I'm not sure if this, well, it's, if I heard properly, you're saying that the current wording is much too broad, if I heard properly, and so it allows for more discretion. And so you are trying to tighten this up, but I'm not sure YUEN: Right, that is the WATANABE: That's the intent, right? YUEN: The Exhibit A is the proposed ordinance, yes. WATANABE: Yeah, so this is the proposed how does this tighten it up, though? I'm YUEN: Because it limits the area that can be involved to one acre or five percent. WATANABE: Oh, prior to this, didn't Oh, okay, okay, okay YUEN: That is, yeah WATANABE: Wait, wait, wait YUEN: That's not a WATANABE: No, no, this says, current wording YUEN: That's not a restriction in the current WATANABE: I, well, but isn't the current wording also on page 1 under No. (2), "Be the lesser of a five percent or one acre increase or decrease in the area of any zoning district(s)?" Isn't that the current wording? 3