2008-04-04 TMIRANDA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RHO: If I can refer the Commissioners to the County Planning Department’s background report. I guess it’s dated, at the very top, February 19, ’08 and it’s kind of a thick packet. It’s the same packet that contains black and white pictures that the planner or the inspector did on January 30, ’08. And if you turn further to the back of or actually if you turn to the last several pages in the very back, you’ll see the certified letter from Paul Lal who represents CSA Service Center. And then following his letter is a series of very poor photographs. And if you turn to maybe the third or fourth to the last photograph -- you can actually look at that photograph -- and then turn to the original photographs by the inspectors, you’ll see the same picture or the same pose. It’s of that, what looks like a forklift in front of what looks like a canvas or plastic tent. You can actually see the same photograph. It looks the same. It’s taken obviously on different dates but it’s basically the same thing. So I really do think the issue is whether or not the applicant will comply now after 2 ½ years, after violating or not having a special permit and conducting his business, or conducting whatever he was conducting for I don’t know how long prior to 2004. He gets the permit in 2005 and doesn’t comply. So his neighbors have to look at his operation that obviously by the photographs were taken in January -. I know we can differ on what a junkyard looks like or does not look like. But to have put in that condition of landscaping meant something. I’m not sure what it actually meant, but it meant something. And that wasn’t done for 2 ½ years; and so the neighbor is now complaining. I don’t want to reiterate everything that we discussed for the last I don’t know how long it has been. But I would like to point out a couple of things. We have these conditions for a purpose. Yes, he didn’t file or he didn’t get his plans approved so therefore he didn’t do the landscaping. It’s like a circular argument. We have I think coming up or we just discussed a similar circumstance; and we’re, in my view, the Commission is forever giving in. And my guess is that the public believes that as well and so therefore these conditions are basically being ignored. I’m putting it bluntly, but at this point I’m not sure what else to say. So maybe we shouldn’t have any conditions and see what happens. The last thing I want to say is when this permit was approved the Commission took a leap of faith in not requiring, or not whatever you guys or whatever the Commission can do, requiring that channelization of traffic that was suggested or recommended by the Department of Transportation. It’s written in the decision. If you read the decision it’s written in there, forget th about the channelization, no need. And yet we received a letter just dated March 10 that talks about the channelization. That letter refers to the channelization which appears on the letter th that’s dated May 11, 2005. And he claims in his letter of March 10, this person, whoever this person is, the attached comments dated in ’05 and, well, the two letters dated ’05 are still valid and applicable. So the Commission takes a chance, bends over backwards for the applicants, and this is not just for this applicant, it’s all the applicants. We do our best to assist the applicants, all the time. Almost two years that I’ve been on this Commission, we do our very best, each one of us do our very best, to bend over backwards for the applicant. I think the Commission needs to really look at whether or not that’s the best thing to really do in the long term. Thank you. WATANABE: Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I find it very interesting that Commissioner Rho has made this statement. Because last night I wrote out for myself a very similar statement with some of the same concerns that I had. That by not obeying the agreed upon terms they gain two years grace EXHIBIT A 21