Laserfiche WebLink
time that we went and initiated the rezoning of that property backto its original designation or <br />more appropriate designation. <br />GRAHAM:Okay. <br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa. <br />SIRACUSA:I€m confused. <br />GALDONES:Mr. Chair? <br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Galdones. <br />GALDONES:Norman -. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Norman, this action that is before us <br />todayforconsideration,isthistime-drivenorisitprocess-driven? <br />HAYASHI:Ithinkit€smoreprocess-driventhan-.Theproblemthatwehadhadƒ <br />and we had conferred with the Corporation Counsel€s Office back in 2000when Mr. De Luz <br />came in for a rezoning, as the background indicates, when he came in for, I mean, not rezoning, <br />subdivision for the 13 lots back in 2000. We conferred with Corporation Counsel€s Office who <br />indicated to us that the zoning was not valid until certain conditions were met, the incremental <br />performance conditions. So on that basis we had determined that the current zoning at that time <br />back in 2000 was Agricultural 1-acre and not RS-7.5 as indicated in the zoning ordinance. <br />GALDONES:At the time this was acted upon, there was no condition which would state <br />that if certain conditions were not met that it would revert back to its original form? <br />HAYASHI:I believe that was a standard condition back in those days also and it€s <br />noted in your Exhibit A of the staff€s background report or the Department€s background report <br />that, at the very last portion before Section 3 on page 4, it says, Should these conditions not be <br />met the Planning Commission shall reserve the right to initiate action to rezone the subject <br />property to its former zoning designation.‚ <br />GALDONES:So this is the condition that we are acting upon today, this sentence that <br />you have mentioned? <br />HAYASHI:I guess formally that€s what€s needed to be done. <br />YUEN:If I can jump in here. <br />ALAMEDA:Sure. <br />YUEN:I don€t know that what happened here can be said to be 100 percent <br />consistent with everything that has ever been said on these situations. But what happened <br />specifically on this property was that in 2000 the landowner at the time wanted to do a <br />subdivision and the question, the subdivision could be allowed if the property was Ag-1 zoning <br />because the subdivision requirements would be less than as a 7,500 square foot zoning. The <br />4EXHIBIT C <br /> <br />