2009-12-04 TSUGAI - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the application and it depends on those who make the specific decision to approve or not to approve. When I first read the original recommendation for denial I looked at it and, you know, I felt that the reasons for denial were somewhat probably appropriate. And then based on that I was prepared to come into a meeting. It was then deferred. And to my surprise it was then, the decision to recommend approval was a complete 180-degree turn for approval. This, in a way, bothers me because it gives, it puts me in a mode for a denial, based on the recommendation, and then I have to look at another modified decision for approval. And that further helps, that makes it difficult because I need to further program my mind to accept now an approval recommendation. And I don’t think that’s fair for me as a Commissioner when I have to make these decisions. Now I know for the applicant themselves, you know, if this is, if this was done, in my opinion now, if this was done in a systematic way of viewing all of the concerns, all of the potential problems that such a development would entail then perhaps the meeting, the meeting with the applicant in its original application before submittal to the Department should have been made so that there’d be no flip-flopping of a decision that came to us. I’m also of a philosophical thought that, you know, we need developments such as this. I think the development costs would probably be about $2 million. And what would happen here in time of economic times within our County, it would enlarge the tax base for our County government, thereby bringing more monies to provide, so that those monies could be used to provide services for the County, you know. I’m not one of a nature I want to say no, no development at all. And I look at it very, I look at it very seriously, and think and weigh the facts and the results of it, and the benefits from any development. I just needed to emphasize my concern about this and, you know, this is not the first application that we made a turn-around. And I hope that, I hope that, you know, I hope that no feelings are hurt. I made this in deference in respect to the work that has been done. The facts and, the writing of the recommendation was splendid. Only thing is, you know, it somewhat contradicts each other. Thank you. WOODWARD: Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. In defense of, BJ is not here, the original recommendation, three of the points are directly related to traffic; and those were specifically addressed in the interim. And my understanding is that’s the reason for the change in recommendation. Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: With regard to Condition H in the revised recommendation or ordinance, proposed ordinance, it basically says that, well, should the applicant develop a land use beyond what is proposed in the application which is this office/apartment proposal, and it says, which would generate over 50 peak hour trips, then a TIAR is required. Yeah? I guess my concern is that who’s going to determine whether whatever new proposal will generate the 50 peak hours? COTTLE: When the applicant or if a future owner of the property or the current owner were to come in with plans for plan approval to the Department and it was for a development beyond the scope of what’s proposed now, what they would do is look to see how 3 EXHIBIT A