|
TSUKAZAKI:Well, again, I think Staff did a good job of providing some background
<br />on this again. My understanding, hopefully, it's not wrong, too, is that the matter on the
<br />agenda today really relates to a request that we made some time ago asking this body to
<br />consider whether it should review its decision in this case, and that was the decision that
<br />granted the special permit on August 1of last year to -, because we felt that there was some
<br />misunderstanding at that meeting. And the subject of that really is whether or not there should
<br />be, whether my client should be allowed one large bus, a maximum of one large bus per day.
<br />And currently the permit says no large buses. So we were asking you to review whether there
<br />was, in fact, a misunderstanding, and if there was a misunderstanding, then whether you would
<br />entertain a motion to go back and amend that provision so as to allow a maximum of one large
<br />bus. So that's what I -, what my understanding is this particular meeting is about. And I do
<br />agree.
<br />And as I have indicated in my letter which responded to the Planning Department's letter
<br />earlier this week, I tried to clarify that -, in the Planning Director's letter, I'm sorry, he
<br />indicates that this is our motion and it's really not. We -, it's a Planning Commission motion
<br />that was adopted at your last meeting to put this on the agenda, and I agree with Corp. Counsel
<br />that, you know, that for action to be taken today to amend or not to amend, it would require a
<br />motion of some kind from this body, not from me. So I want to make that clear that I -, that's
<br />my understanding of what the process involves.
<br />I think my letter -. I've said in the past at previous hearings to you that the large bus issue is a
<br />critical one for my client, it's a survival issue. So we wouldn't be going through these lengths
<br />if it were not a critical issue. And we believe there is, there are ways to accommodate a large
<br />bus every now and then in a safe way, and -.
<br />In regard to the letter dated yesterday that I filed in reply to Mr. Yuen's letter, I think the main
<br />thing there I point out what I think is improper, I would like to touch upon the question that
<br />came up earlier as to whether allegations found in the zoning inspector's memo have any
<br />relevancy to the hearing this morning. And my argument is that such information is irrelevant
<br />because it really pertains to an enforcement issue, whether or not my client is or is not
<br />complying with some kind of legal requirement. That brings up a host of new information,
<br />and really there, as you are well aware, there are enforcement procedures that are available to
<br />deal with that and, in fact, you know, we are involved with the Planning Department in some
<br />of those issues. So I have -, I make an objection to trying to incorporate the enforcement
<br />st
<br />issues into the issue of whether this Commission, looking back at what it did on August 1,
<br />based upon that record at the time, feels that there should be an amendment to allow us to have
<br />one large bus or not. So I try to make that argument.
<br />And then lastly, because I don't want to leave you, you know, with no comment, I will just say
<br />this. On the zoning inspector's report and his information about a couple of dates when he
<br />observed a large bus which he thought, you know, was bringing visitors to the property, there
<br />are explanations for those instances, and so -. But I'm afraid that, you know, if we start
<br />getting into that today, that's basically what this hearing is going to turn into, it's going to turn
<br />6
<br />
<br />
|