Laserfiche WebLink
Director feels like IÓm wrong in anything I say, I would certainly welcome being <br />corrected. The point I want to bring up is the particular permit that we are being asked to <br />grant is a Special Management Area Permit. And apparently in the past when this <br />Topliss application went on, the permit was not granted; but the Planning Commission <br />essentially didnÓt grant it because of traffic impact rules or traffic impact problems; but <br />then the court said the traffic impact per se is really not an issue for a Special <br />Management Area Permit. Obviously, thereÓs a lot of nuances involved when you get <br />down to all the legalities and all, but I just wanted to sort of make it clear that we have a <br />whole set of requirements that must be met for a Special Management Area Permit. The <br />traffic per se is not one of them or, you know, traffic safety i <br />putting that forth as information to you that weÓre not in the same situation we would be <br />in if like in the prior application that we had here just today, where we were talking about <br />recommending for a rezoning where traffic is, traffic and access are real sort of direct <br />obvious issues for a rezoning. So IÓm not sort of saying this to you in any other way -, <br />just to sort of let you sort of share the same feeling I have as IÓm going to, at some point, <br />have to deal with this issue. <br />Right today, all weÓre dealing with, I believe, in your case is whether you have proper <br />standing to go ahead with a Contested Case on this. And, so, what IÓm saying is not <br />really directly related to that at all, but itÓs just there as sort of background to you to <br />consider in this matter, thatÓs all. And if thereÓs any corrections anyone would like to <br />make to what I said, please do so. <br />FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners, with the Director or the testifier? <br />SPRINGER:I donÓt have a question. But I believe, given the proximity of the <br />Petitioner for Standing in a Contested Case to the project, I would be inclined to grant <br />them that at the appropriate time. <br />FUJIKAWA:Fine. Any other questions, Commissioners, with anyone, the <br />Director, staff? If not, now weÓre on the issue of accepting the Contested Case Hearing. <br />What is your move? <br />SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? <br />FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Springer? <br />SPRINGER:Given Commissioner GrahamÓs discussion regarding the Topliss <br />decision which, in effect, diffuses the emphasis placed on traffic considerations, the <br />Applicant for Petition, IÓm sorry, the Petitioner for Standing in a Contested Case Hearing <br />mentions other factors, including potential damage by construction. Does the Planning <br />Department take things of that nature into consideration in their evaluation of an <br />application? The Petitioner for Standing in the Contested Case mentions another <br />construction project where damage was apparently made to their property. Does the <br />Planning Department take that up when evaluating an application? <br />6 <br /> <br />