2008-04-04 TMIRANDA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

YUEN: Yeah, in the interest of reaching a consensus on this and with what Commissioner Siracusa is suggesting here, we shouldn’t just eliminate this entirely. What we could say instead is if the applicant does not perform the conditions in a timely manner the permit shall be brought to the Commission for revocation, rather than for a time extension. That, you know -. And the reason we had said that is that it does have to come back to the Commission for a revocation. You know, it does not just -. SIRACUSA: Whereas that’s the rules. YUEN: Yeah, the permit would just not drop dead itself. But this, I think, in terms of providing a message that no time extensions should be sought, I think that that’s fine and would meet your concern there. And I don’t, you know, as I said a few minutes ago the time extensions were to secure final plan approval and the metes and bounds. He has submitted both documents and they look like they’re either going to pass or they’re close to what would pass. And so, and then we would work on this question of the violation as a separate enforcement matter. SIRACUSA: Okay, I’m willing to accept that alternative wording, Director Yuen. But in that case I would certainly like to see Commissioner Rho’s concern addressed. For example, right now the plan approval has come in to the Department and I wouldn’t like to see Mr. Miranda waiting for another year before he even puts some plants in the ground, because then we would have to wait who knows how long before they’re of a decent size in order to block the neighbor’s view. I would like to see something in there that he start the planting process as soon as his plan approval is agreed to by the Department, or something like that, or that we talk about a certain size plant that has to go in in order to, for them to start mitigating the visual impacts as quickly as possible. WATANABE: I understand your concern and obviously I share that concern, that’s why I brought it up. On the other hand where I differ from you is, we do have an established rule, Rule 17. As I indicated earlier Rule 17 is much stricter than what you would typically require in an agriculturally zoned area. To customize each rule for every single applicant might be onerous. And, again, enforcement is another thing, yeah? I understand your concern and I’d like him to be a good neighbor. I think the rewording on Condition 10(D) where it becomes much stronger indicates that failing to comply means come back to the Commission for revocation, which is much stronger than reconsideration. And given the length of these proceedings and the previous proceedings if he doesn’t get that message by now, what can I say, it’ll probably get revoked. Yeah? Along those lines, if that’s okay with you, Ms. Siracusa, I’d like to make one comment with regard to some of the comments Mr. Rho made, and I don’t take what the State Department of Transportation says lightly. If you go back to the original records, you will find that the Director was opposed to this special permit. I was pretty much was opposed to this. In fact, I had insisted on reducing the number of trucks, etc. I was very concerned about the potential liability because it is a highway and, you know, generally you would want to have, again, like I had mentioned earlier, right-turn acceleration lanes, right-turn deceleration lanes, and a left-turn pocket. However, you know, in the spirit of cooperation I did with those added conditions agree to go along with this. And there were special conditions in this in that Mr. Miranda’s lease was being EXHIBIT A 23