2003-10-02 TSOTO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

IÓm here today because I understand this may be our last chance for public input. And IÓd like to bring to your attention three potential conditions that IÓd like, that I would like to ask you to add on to the Soto SMA application and to any future Planning Department permit applications. IÓm here today representing the owners of about 50 single-family homes and condominiums adjoining, abutting the Soto property. Altogether there are nearly 100 owners, so itÓs not just me that is talking to you today. I apologize for the package that I submitted to you this morning having 30 or 40 pages. In fact, it turns out that about 35 of those are letters that I received over the past several weeks from new members, new Sea Village members and new single-family owners in the area tha represent them. ThereÓs also three letters there, two of them I hope that you received earlier by fax. One is a new letter that you have not seen yet and itÓs from Sun Terra; and IÓll talk about that later. Lastly is a short description of what IÓd like to talk to you about today called conditions. The first of the three conditions is probably the simplest one to talk about. It concerns the artificial beach that was submitted in the original SMA application. The last time we th spoke to you on September 11 we described environmental concerns about the artificial beach; and Mr. Mooers, Mr. SotoÓs consultant, testified to you that the beach was actually just contained in earlier plans and that was no longer being considered. We respectfully request that as a condition of SMA permit approval and any subsequent Planning Department permit approvals that the artificial beach be prohibited. Since the beach is no longer planned by Mr. Soto, we doubt that this condition would have any concern to him. Moving on to the second condition, we request that a shoreline setback of 40 feet be added as a condition to this project. Due to the unique configuration and the small size of the parcel, we understand that Mr. Soto intends to declare hardship and asked the Planning Commission to request that you grant him a 20-foot shoreline setback rather than the normal 40-foot shoreline setback. This is new information for me. It is not included in the application that Mr. Soto gave to the Commission. IÓm not sure if youÓre aware of it yet. IÓm here to give you our view of why SotoÓs project does not qualify for the hardship case. There are four reasons. The first two reasons are contained in Rule 8 of the Planning Commission Rules. The Planning Commission Rule 8 states that a 40-foot setback can be waived if Ðit deprives the applicant of reasonable use of the land.Ñ We believe that a 40-foot setback does not deprive Mr. Soto of reasonable use of his land. It may deprive him of the most profitable use of his land. It may deprive him of his desired use of the land, but it does not deprive him of a reasonable use of the land. For example, Mr. Soto is proposing a 12-unit condominium complex which will b and would compose four buildings, each with three stories. That If the last of the four buildings were not part of the project, the Soto condominium project will be nine units and it would have no need to encroach within 40 feet of the shoreline. 19