2003-03-07 THOKUKANO1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

TSUKAZAKI:I would be happy to explain the reasons for these proposed revisions. So if you want me to go into that, please let me kno SPRINGER:Commissioners, have you had a chance to quickly review this information, and are you ready to hear Mr. Tsukazaki's comments? GIFFIN:Yes. KUBOTA:Sure. SPRINGER:Yes, please, Mr. Tsukazaki. TSUKAZAKI:Thank you. The first condition is E, and this relates to Staff's noting for you that the -, what has been analyzed and presented in the application is really based upon this particular project concept, the visitor center, and the relatively low level of improvements that will be made to the site. This condition looks at one of those kinds of potential impacts that are assessed in an application like this, dealing with a traffic impact analysis report. And the condition that has been proposed by the Department would require that if the, if there are other commercial uses proposed on this site at some time in the future, then there would have to be another TIAR or a revised traffic impact analysis report done. The problem we have is with the -, we don't have any problem with the concept, you know, that's fine. But the last sentence contains language indicating that the revised TIAR shall consider the highest and best use that's being proposed. We've looked at that. We do not believe, you know, it's, we don't believe it's specific enough to be enforceable. There's no definition in the Code for highest and best use in this kind of context. And so our proposed language is to say that if there are other uses proposed on this property in the future, then a revised TIAR will be done, will need to be done to address the potential traffic impacts from various proposed uses. It appears to be logical. And, but really, you know, the bottom line is that highest and best use, it's a very vague term at this point. G relates to improvements in the flood zones. And our recommendation is that last sentence of that condition be amended to delete the specific description of improvements that would be allowed and just use a more generic language, which indicates that no new improvements shall be allowed except for those which may be allowed pursuant to Chapter 27, which is the flood control chapter for the County, as well as any applicable regs, at whatever point in time that is. So that was the intent there. For Condition I, dealing with traffic improvements, the scenario here again is -. Well, there are two things that are addressed here. In the existing third sentence, it states that a left turn lane shall be installed at the project site, access driveway on Konawaena School Road. We, in our communications to Public Works, we do not believe that that's warranted at all, given the low level of traffic that's projected for this type of project. So 11