Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Comm. 554 (Bill No. 154) <br /> November 17, 2009 <br /> Page -2- <br /> <br /> <br /> Council Member Ikeda moved to amend Bill 154 with the contents of Communication <br /> No. 554.4, which contained the amendments that resulted from the meeting between the <br /> applicant, Chief Oliveira, Chief Kubojiri, Director Leithead Todd, and Council Member Ikeda. <br /> <br /> Before any discussion on Communication 554.4, Council Member Ford moved to amend <br /> Communication No. 554.4 with the contents of her Communication No. 554.5. <br /> <br /> During the ensuing discussion amongst your Committee members, Ms. Ford stated that Council <br /> Member Ikeda's amendments provided too many loopholes for the developer. She stated that <br /> she discussed the matter with the Fire Chief, the Police Chief and Mr. Ron Thiel from the <br /> Department of Public Works, and her amendments were fashioned to address their requirements. <br /> <br /> Council Member Kelly Greenwell stated that he disagreed with Ms. Ford's amendment requiring <br /> the developer to provide a secondary, driveable, all-weather emergency evacuation route. He <br /> stated that the Council cannot protect everyone from every conceivable disaster, natural or <br /> otherwise. Other Committee members agreed with his sentiments. Council Member Dominic <br /> Yagong stated that the emergency route was not necessary, because people would just "dig out". <br /> Ms. Ford stated that her suggested language was provided by the Fire Chief. <br /> Ms. Ford also stated that she found certain wording in Mr. Ikeda's amendment to be <br /> objectionable. Ms. Ford stated that she wanted the security gate to be "staffed," not "manned." <br /> Mr. Ikeda stated that he had no discriminatory intent, and indicated he was willing to change the <br /> language. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ford stated that if there was a security gate in the development, it would always be closed, <br /> thus requiring a person to be present at the gate, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Mr. Fuke tried to <br /> explain that the developer may choose to have the gate be open during certain hours, and closed <br /> during certain other hours, and that during the time when the gate was closed, a security person <br /> would be on duty. Ms. Ford stated that the developer would not honor its commitment and <br /> failure to have the security gate "staffed" on a "24/7" basis would result in costly delays for <br /> emergency personnel. <br /> <br /> Your Committee members discussed the requirement for a Traffic Impact Assessment Report <br /> (TIAR). Ms. Ford stated that she disagreed with the traffic assessment that was performed. <br /> Mr. Fuke stated that the developer would not abrogate its responsibilities. Mr. Fuke further <br /> stated that he would work with the Committee Chair to find language that would provide more <br /> triggers. <br /> <br /> <br /> PC REPORT NO. 57 <br />