|
JACKSON: Right. I think it's a matter of getting Public Works and the Planning Director to
<br /> agree to the Commission to go ahead and do that and engage DOT in that working group.
<br /> KNOWLES: Okay, thank you for your answer.
<br /> VITOUSEK: [Inaudible–simultaneous speech] Go ahead, Mr. Fuke—
<br /> FUKE: No, I'll defer to Director Kern.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Yep.
<br /> KERN: My feeling is to, you know, specifically condition this application for the larger issue
<br /> isn't really the right pathway; I think the pathway would be to collect the funds,put into the fair
<br /> share but make a concerted effort with Planning and DPW and State DOT to push forward on
<br /> this and find a solution, and that could start with, you know, traffic impact analysis report. What
<br /> I would hate to do is spend a bunch of money on studies that would potentially then get stale and
<br /> have to redo. So I'd like to, you know, see a pathway where we can complete it. I think that's
<br /> been that the challenge all of these years is that there just hasn't been enough money to actually
<br /> get it across the board or the will. Obviously, there is a fair amount of money stacked up in there
<br /> to probably cover a lot of the soft costs but really needing that commitment whether it be County
<br /> or State to actually do the construction or what that traffic mitigation would be whether it's, you
<br /> know, pocket lanes, turn lanes, merge lanes, etcetera. That would be my feeling. And, again, it
<br /> would be hard to put that into the condition,but from the Planning side of it we are happy to
<br /> make that effort and work collaboratively to find some type of solution.
<br /> FUKE: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to try to respond to Commissioner Knowles' question.
<br /> My suggestion is that, you know, if you look at your agenda, there is this Planning Director's
<br /> Report at the end of the agenda, and perhaps like a statement could be made that the Director
<br /> provide an update in relative to the so-called collaborative effort between the State and the
<br /> County relative to, you know, this subcommittee, and, you know, in that way the Commission
<br /> will, you know, sort of like light the fire under the respective departments, the fire, you know, to
<br /> get something going. So, I mean that's my recommendation to have that as an obligation on the
<br /> part of the Director or the Department to provide an update to the Commission.
<br /> VITOUSEK: So, essentially, the Commission would be putting a condition that would be the
<br /> responsibility of the County Planning Department to uphold? Is that correct? Is it—normally
<br /> the conditions are for the applicant.
<br /> FUKE: Yeah, I'm, no, I agree with Director Kern in a sense that, you know, it's kind of hard to
<br /> structure a condition that would, on, on this application to make the applicant be responsible in
<br /> coordinating such a meeting when actually it's the responsibility of government, you know,
<br /> rather than the applicant, because the applicant has no control over that. My suggestion is just to
<br /> have the Commission ask the Director or the Department of Public Works to provide you with
<br /> periodic updates in terms of how the funds are being used and what has been done, you know, to
<br /> improve that area's intersection, you know, so on and so forth, so.
<br /> 12
<br /> EXHIBIT C (DRAFT)
<br />
|