2005-04-22 tHuggett (fka Soto SMA 03-007)2

Home

YUEN:Are they individuals who were supposed to get notice? HAYASHI:I have not checked our file as far as Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Spangler, as to whether they were supposed to get a notice from us. I can check that. YUEN:Well, my question is, is everyone thats an adjoining property owner whose entitled to get notice do we have a record that shows that all those people got notice? HAYASHI:We would have a record yes. YUEN:Yes, all right. Andif that is the case, the fact that somebody who either they are on that list and they got noticed and if they are not on that list but they filed a Contested Case hearing then its up to- if theyre not people who areentitled to get notice but they requested a Contested Case hearing I believe its up to them to come to the meeting and make theircase. KIM:Mr.Chairman,mayIsaysomethingfortherecord? GALDONES:Mr.Kim? KIM:Thankyou.InresponsetothePlanningDepartmentsrepresentation- GALDONES:Mr. Kim could you increase your volume please? Thank you. KIM:With regard to the representations of the Planning Department regarding notice I would want to state on the record that pursuant to information from my client the adjoining landowners have new tenants, new people who own property at the condominium next to the adjacent property and therefore they did not get notice, not everyone got notice of this meeting. With regard to the issue of notice itself, remember, even though they had submitted Contested Case hearings the notice submitted by Mr. Mooers in his March 31, 2005 letter did not contain notice of the Contested Case hearing. So it not only affects those who submitted the right to Contested Case hearing but those people who were never notified of their right to a Contested Case hearing as set forth in the March 23, 2005 letter from Mr. Yuen. With regard to Mr. Yuens comments that the letter is erroneous, the letter has never been withdrawn or corrected by the Planning Department. The letter itself which has been sent to my clients Mr. Buscemi and Mr. Haney constitutes a right upon which they could rely which was created by the Planning Director to file a Contested Case hearing. For the Planning Director now to unilaterally now withdraw his letter after Contested Case hearing requests were properly follow pursuant to the Planning Directors own direction is a deprivation of their Constitutional Rights of Due Process. And I would like to state that on the record before any vote. My feeling is and of course I defer to the wisdom of the Commission is that the matter should be deferred so that proper notice can be given not only to all property owners who are adjacent properly with whatever the correct information of the department is, but also to those who submitted Contested Case hearings so that the matter and the record can be properly set for whatever relief may be sought following the decision of the Planning Commission. Thank you. 11 EXHIBIT B