Paww...Attached is a copy of a flyer handed out via Patricia Farley at Planning Comm. meeting of past Thursday evening.
The Meeting had rather good attendance at the meeting.
One of the persons speaking at the meeting mentioned that he (an others?) received in the mail a notice to attend the meeting. (Was that a slip up?) Further mentioned that "Everyone within Hundreds of feet of the C-U-P applicant received one. One person mentioned said they lived a significant series of Miles away. Although neighbors mentioned they NEVER received a notice, the person miles and miles away did. And so spoke on behalf of the C-U-P applicant.
Long before public meeting ever got started, it was mentioned via commissioner Wilson, that there would be zero history lessons, as to the past of the C-U-P applicant, and no testimony could be spoken of concerning that era and only presentation that could be expressed was as to what was known about the future of the C-U-P applicant. Further, talk was limited to about middle of 2009, and more modern era. For the C-U-P applicant was in attendance of own violation, and had voluntarily planted some one gallon plants just middle of last week, erected some large steel doors on the building, and installed maybe 50-90 percent of the required fire extinguisher system already. Fire chief and mate was in attendance to verify that language. A host of nickel and dime items were then mentioned and being installed middle of last week. Apparently sometime on Wed. Atty. Tetley was hired to act as a legal representative to the C-U-P applicant, and so mentioned and so spoke on behalf of the C-U-P applicant. So noted in Tetley's mention at the podium.
As near zero flyers actually got into the hands of the neighbors, the "contrary" evidence was rather poor. And remember, the C-U-P applicant had turned over a new leaf, we were repetitively warned against bringing up any old facts, and thus old data on past behavior could not be admitted. Planner Powers mentioned how this sort of limited the discussion, but once the public portion got going, it was evident that the C-U-P applicant had called in some old favors and personally invited many old friends. For near each and every public person going up to the podium mentioned that code violations had been grievous in past, but where now taken care of. A whole new "Beneficial" company had taken over at the time. Thus they could speak of "In the past" but not anyone in opposition to the C-U-P applicant.
On behalf of the C-U-P applicant.
Mr. Swertfinger came up to podium near last. He mentioned how the property was bought in 1964, and the property was zoned by the County of S.B. as M (for manufacturing) and made a few repeated mentions of this fact(s). The actual construction of the business was begun in 1984 as per Swertfinger, and was zero C-U-P's required, and the property was zoned (still) as for M. Swertfinger further mentioned that was zero complaints over the years regarding trucks, parking, and general usage. In a 10 year old (or older) document that somehow snuck in to the conversation, it was mentioned that the north and south neighbors homes were vacant, and no response from them. It was mentioned by yet another person stepping up to podium that the C-U-P application was wrong, for the residences were occupied, one person was in hospital and expected to die (thus no complaints) and the other was on vacation several states away (and later moved there too).
I figure it was a pre-conceived approval, for the Planning staff had not done any actual mailing out of letters as mentioned, the only ones mailed out were by the C-U-P applicant, to employees and to friends which are known ringers and to one fellow who cried before the podium. In speaking to four of the neighbors who showed up that night, they never received a notification as to the meeting in the mail.
Jeffrey Mc Connell stood up to the podium, and basically confused many listeners. He spoke of the nearness to old Stater Bros. truck lots, and complained to the PC back when. But the PC told him it was a finger extension of Colton and to take his complaint to them. He mentioned that should any Dispatching go on, this would then make the site a DEPOT and in violation of most every city and county rule.
One passing interest of mine was the mention of how the "Preconceived Approval" of any C-U-P requirements Run With the Land, and any situations mentioned would then apply to new property owners as per Powers. It was also mentioned how the property had changed ownership numerous time in the past twenty years, as most recently being only three months ago.
That was only for tax purposes, not getting ready for a sale on the property. So it was your typical City of GT Public Meeting. Who is lying now? Who had their objections and the history of the objections gagged? Prior Actions predict Future Actions.
