Laserfiche WebLink
for moderate income families. The ordinance to rezone the propertyfrom Agricultural 1 acre to <br />RS-7.5 was approved -. <br />ALAMEDA:Excuse me, we had a Commissioner who just left the room and we€ll wait <br />for his return. Just for the record, Commissioner Graham has left the room. <br />YUEN:We have to take a break. <br />ALAMEDA:Okay, could we take five -. Oh, for the record, he has returned. <br />HAYASHI:You haven€t missed anything, Commissioner Graham. <br />The ordinance was approved back in August of 1972. Since that time, there were several <br />changes in ownership of the properties. Basically, there were two properties involved. One was <br />thepropertythatiscurrentlyownedbytheMatsunoEnterprise,thiswouldbetheirproperty. <br />And, as you recall, the Commissioners recently heard the rezoning request by Matsuno <br />Enterprise for rezoning for a portion of their property, approximately 8 acres to a commercial <br />zoned district. <br />The other property was subdivided into lots ranging between one to six acres in size; and that <br />was done and granted back in 2001. These lots were created under the current Agricultural <br />1-acre zoned district. The ordinance that was approved back in 1972 was approved subject to <br />several conditions; and these were conditions with incremental performance. In other words, it <br />was broken up into several increments because of the proposed housing project at that time. <br />And, as an example, the second increment could not be approved until performance was done in <br />the first increment and x‚ number of houses had to be constructed in the first increment before <br />the second increment was released, and so forth for the third and fourth increments. <br />SIRACUSA:Excuse me, Norman, could you point out which is the first increment and <br />which is which? <br />HAYASHI:Okay. We don€t know. Because of the subdivision of this particular <br />property into several lots back in 2001, we don€t know where the first increment is or where the <br />second increment is or will be. Therefore, that€s the primary purpose for this repeal of this <br />particular ordinance, because the current zoning is still Agricultural 1-acre. Although the <br />rezoning request was for RS-7.5 because there were these performance conditions incrementally <br />that were not complied with, we are recommending the repeal of this or initiating the repeal of <br />this particular ordinance. <br />All of the parties were notified of this action and what was being proposed; and all of them were <br />informed that the current zoning is still Agricultural 1-acre, even if there was this rezoning <br />ordinance that was granted back in 1972. <br />SIRACUSA:And are those lots that I see, are those l-acre or more -? <br />HAYASHI:Yes. <br />2EXHIBIT C <br /> <br />