2003-12-04 TDOUTOR - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

YUEN:You have your rules, theyÓre perfectly clear. Your counsel has on the record and in public said that what is being attempted here is against the rules. If you allow this kind of procedure, youÓll simply invite anybody, anytime they donÓt like a decision that youÓve made to come forward like this, despite the provisions and the rules, and try to convince you, geeze, you made a mistake and spend hours and hours debating whether you made a mistake or not, and then perhaps make a change that affects many people, affects the permit, where the notice has not been given to people that this change may be made accordingly. And this is a safeguard which the rules are put in there and is uniformly, is uniformly applied. Someone could come in and requ provision of any permit that they donÓt like without giving notice to the surrounding property owners and without filing the application. You should reject this motion. GALDONES:Mr. Tsukazaki? TSUKAZAKI:Again, this is, that response is saying that you guys donÓt know how to distinguish between a request that go to technical grounds, etc. I have much more faith in this body than that. So, again, there are different ways to approach this issue. But I believe that you have the ability under Roberts Rules to take another look and change something if you feel that itÓs warranted because of some from the time that you took the action. GALDONES:Ms. OÓToole? OÓTOOLE:Well, by then, by that do you mean that you will give no or is it your position that we donÓt have to give notice under this procedure? TSUKAZAKI:Are you talking about putting this on an agenda or are you talking about serving everybody within 500 feet? OÓTOOLE:Yeah, IÓm talking about that. TSUKAZAKI:No. My view is that the public notice is served, this is an amendment of something of a decision that the Planning Commission made in August. ItÓs, the only way we move on here is if this body votes to go back and look at amending something. ItÓs not an applicant-initiated matter, so there is no rule that requires us to go back to the beginning and serve everybody again. ThatÓs a different procedure. OÓTOOLE:Thank you. Because that brings me back to the idea that you have a specific rule which protects the public and adjoining property owners and that this is an attempt or will have the result of circumventing those protections. GALDONES:Any further discussion? Hearing none -. KUBOTA:Wait, wait, Mr. Chairman. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota? 11