2008-01-03 tdoutoro - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Condition No. 3, which, you know, we also would like revised so that it provides for a time certain for performance. This is the one dealing with Plan Approval. And this is also addressing or imposing the requirement for heavy landscaping along the east and west boundary, and that is to provide some mitigation of visual or noise impacts to Mr. KruegerÓs client. We would, again, object to the language which requires us to do that before establishing the use. As I said, the use is, establish the use is, in effect right now. There are tours. We are not selling non-agricultural products yet because we wonÓt do that until and unless the Planning Commission grants this per activities of which we feel are legal, that is happening. So we donÓt want to have to stop all of that and have to apply for Plan Approval. We want to apply for Plan Approval in the process. Condition No. 6 is another similar kind of thing where it starts off prior to the establishment of the public tour and retail sales operations, we must satisfy health requirements. Again, you know, weÓre in operation so we would like that one amended. We have no problem with satisfying Department of HealthÓs regulations. For the record, you know, at the hearing, we stated that the Department of Health had approved of the activities on site; and, so, there may be additional requirements that we may need to do if certain activities change, but we donÓt know that at this point. So we donÓt have a problem with that language, with those requirements. We only have a problem with the clause which requires that we must get those approvals prior to establishing uses. I think the critical part of our exceptions really deals with Condition 5 of Ms. BroderÓs report. And when she summarized those for you, I believe she wa her report. Now prior to getting into that, I think Ms., I want to clarify something. Ms. Broder said that some of these conditions were in the ApplicantÓs amended application so she just took what we had set forth in the application and had then incorporated a lot of that here. I donÓt know if Ms. Broder is aware of this but the Applicant had submitted a lot of proposed conditions as a result of settlement efforts that have And, so, as a sign of good faith, the Applicant had included those restrictions even before final settlement had been reached, but to show good faith. Unfortunately, settlement broke down. There was no settlement. And so the chief consultant and planner, whoÓs Mr. Sidney Fuke, then wrote to the Planning Director, I can cite that letter if need be, and advised Mr. Yuen that because the settlement fell through, the m he had included in the amended application were no longer valid and they would just be completely subject to whatever this body felt would be appropriate. So I donÓt know if Ms. Broder was aware that those have been withdrawn, but I just wanted to point that out for the record. Getting back to Condition 5 on page 30, we took exception with the language of 5.b which relates to the maximum number of visitors per day. By the way, for your information, in the evidentiary record of this hearing, evidence was provided to show that over a, approximately a two-year period, the average number of, average over the 2 to 2 13