2007-05-04 TMILLER - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I dont know the dates involved, but I can testify that the water issue is not what it was. Thats all. I just thought Id add my two cents. GRAHAM:Thank you very much for that. MILLER:I believe -. GRAHAM:Mr. Miller? MILLER:As a comment the Sonomura Contracting had done a large amount of work I believe as I said in 2002, 2001, which had reduced it. So the flow through the property in that area has greatly been reduced as stated. GRAHAM:Okay, so I guess the issue for you then is its in all your initiative to change the paperwork; and thats what could be costly that you are surprised by. ROSS:Maybe I can, may make one more comment? GRAHAM:Certainly, go ahead, sir. ROSS:Well, I would, I guess, ask the Commissioners to consider this, the impact of what, everything that has been said just in the last few moments is to have probably 40 feet more of the land we thought that was available to be used not to be used. Thats, you take the north side boundary of the flood easement. What Im hearing the Planning Director say is that the Code, County Code, allows you to do certain things in that fringe area that hes saying no to, is that correct? In other words, there are ways to build foundations and let the water run through that youre saying no to, were not going to allow any structures in that area? YUEN:Right, right, structural improvements. ROSS:Okay, right. So I just would have the Commissioners consider this, we have not only the owner but another landowner testifying about drainage improvements that have been made that have reduced the flow. In my earlier comment about whats legal, it really doesnt matter whats real, its whats legal is. If anybody is familiar with letters of map revision with the FEMA folks, thats a fairly long extensive process to get those 100-year lines moved. Its probably a 2-year process and at least $50,000 or more for even a small project, so thats not really a realistic thing for this project. However, if you had a foundation that was set in the fringe and supported a building up above the flood zone that was engineered according to standards, which is done, -- and Im not saying thats even necessary, I think were probably going to be able to do it without it -- in an area where we just lost 40 feet that isnt going to get wet anyway according to not engineering legal things but in terms of public testimony, is it necessarytopushthatlimitonthisproject? WATANABE:Mr.Chair? GRAHAM:CommissionerWatanabe. WATANABE:MayImakeasuggestion,Mr.Ross?Youknow,theDirectorcancorrect meifImwrong,butinthepastwehaveallowedparkingstructures,meaninglikeyourparking stallscouldgointhatarea,butnotthebuilding. ROSS:Right. WATANABE:Yeah. And so my suggestion to you would be to structure your, redo your design so that, if anything, the parking area goes into that area and its not going to affect the size 12EXHIBIT C