SU0001042 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. APPEAL STATEMENT!,— 'All of the applicable Findings can be made, as more specifically set forth in the staff report to the Planning Commission.' RESPONSE: Staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was based upon having made all eight of the required Findings for approval. The Commission's concerns regarding the intent of the application would be reflected in the inability to make required Finding No. 1: The proposed map is consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. 3. APPEAL STATEMENT: 'All of the proposed Conditions are acceptable to the applicant.' RESPONSE: The staff report contained recommended Conditions of Approval, which were consistent with staff's recommendation to approve the proposed subdivision. The applicant's agreement with the recommended Conditions of Approval is not relevant to the appeal, given the Commission's denial of the application. 4. APPEAL STATEMENT: 'The homesite parcel is consistent with both the 1995 General Plan and the recently adopted 2010 General Plan.' RESPONSE: The staff report noted that the creation of a homesite parcel was permitted under the provisions of both the 1995 and 2010 General Plans. As noted by County Counsel staff at the hearing, the difference between the two documents is that only the 1995 General Plan required the making of a factual determination regarding the intent behind the creation of a homesite parcel. In denying the project, the Commission raised concerns about the applicant's intent for the owner- operator homesite parcel. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ACTION TO BE TAKEN FOLLOWING APPROVAL: None. Sincerel , CHET DAVISSON DIRECTOR CD:RL:fa Attachments: Appeal, Minutes, Staff Report c: Ted and Cynthea Witt Kjeldsen-Sinnock & Associates MS92-133.BL BOS LETTER PAGE 2