Laserfiche WebLink
unless you can show a direct bearing between the traffic as it relates to coastal zone management <br /> objectives, you know, and that was pursuant to the Topliss versus county Planning Commission <br /> decision that was rendered by the state Supreme Court, or the Intermediate Court of Appeals. <br /> So, you know, given that, then there was like no traffic study done. If they were, if this were like <br /> a rezoning time extension, then very definitely pursuant to the concurrency provision of the <br /> zoning code, a traffic study would have been required. So the short answer to your question is <br /> that no traffic study was done in conjunction with the original, neither for this current time <br /> extension request. <br /> CARR SMITH: I think we heard that last time as well. Mark, you are not I can't hear you. <br /> You are muted, I guess. <br /> VAN PERNIS: (Inaudible—muted) <br /> HALL: Can Rachelle unmute him? <br /> CARR SMITH: It's, it's Noriko's deal. <br /> VAN PERNIS: Can I be heard now? <br /> CARR SMITH: Yes, go ahead. <br /> VAN PERNIS: Thank you. <br /> CARR SMITH: Go ahead, Mark. <br /> VAN PERNIS: All right, thank you. The letter of Mr. Oue and Mr. [sic] Yoshimoto, I've <br /> written this kind of letters, too, as an attorney, and this is a way to avoid a commitment; it says <br /> the applicant will consider or intend, but there is no commitment. Will the applicant commit to <br /> taking care of the homeless problem,putting it to—look, they are not going away—will the <br /> applicant commit, not consider or intend, but commit, to dealing with the homeless problem <br /> immediately? <br /> CARR SMITH: On the property. <br /> VAN PERNIS: That's a question for Mr. Fuke. <br /> YOSHIMOTO: Oh <br /> CARR SMITH: Well, you, you were referring to the attorneys' letter, so let's let Kim or Evan <br /> respond, please. <br /> YOSHIMOTO: Sure <br /> VAN PERNIS: I'm asking—all right, then let me ask other questions <br /> — <br /> 9 <br /> EXHIBIT B <br />