COM 0196.001 2018-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

KAY: Okay, I, looking back through the file for this,we didn't, I didn't see anything. I am not aware, so I wouldn't be able to answer that question. Maybe the applicant can address that, if they are aware of that. Or we can— DARROW: Commissioner Shimaoka, there were, there were meetings that were held with, I believe, the previous owner. They had come in several times and met with staff, and the proposal was similar to the original proposal, and the issue that we were having at that point was the site building width wasn't able to meet it, and so that's what we were struggling with. So it wasn't that an application was submitted; it was that there was this continual dialogue on how to try to create these small lots on this very skinny long lot and meet these minimum building width standards. And so I think that might be what you are thinking of.,But this, as far as we know, the original FA-1 acre application was our first one. Thank you KAY: Thank you. CARR SMITH: I'm a little bit concerned due to the fact that the background report and all of the department input and the testimony was all based on the previous request. And so–wouldn't the applicant have to reapply, if they are changing their request? KAY: So what we looked at, when we'were asked this question, is that the comment letters that we received from the agencies weren't very hard-hitting in terms of what their requirements would be, and actually,because the original request was for a proposal that would allow for more density as opposed to less, we didn't think the comments would change. In fact, again, with the example of the Department of Water Supply,they were able to, this new proposed two-lot subdivision would actually rectify Water Supply's issue. In terms of public testimony, we did require the applicant to send out a notice to surrounding property owners of the proposed change in resulting zoning, instead of FA-1, Ag-5. And most of the testimony, the earlier testimony may have addressed the FA-1 zoning,but there:was an opportunity for surrounding property owners and the public to see that that was changed. So we didn't, didn't feel like it was necessary to make them,go through andresubmit an entirely new project or application. There was an addendum that was Exhibit 1 of the background report, and in the background report I just articulated that what the issue was, and that in some cases the information and the addendum would supplement or supplant the.original application. Does that answer your question? CARR SMITH: Yes,'I guess I must have missed the fact that they submitted notice to the property, surrounding property owners. Is that in here? KAY: We don't normally put that in the background and recommendation report; that's just a requirement of our code for surrounding property owner notice. But, yeah, we did require that. CARR SMITH: And so you know for a fact that it was done in a timely manner with sufficient notice. KAY: That's correct. In fact, this hearing was supposed to be last month,but to allow for that time to make sure that surrounding property owners were properly notified, the applicant requested to move it to this month's hearing. 6 DRAFT