Laserfiche WebLink
mitigate for everything. And what we’re seeing I think across in many areas in terms of planning <br />practices, we’re starting to provide wide buffers between developed areas and sensitive areas <br />because we just can’t engineer enough protection in. And so I think we’re beginning to look at <br />that. <br />DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman. <br />RHO: Commissioner Domingo. <br />DOMINGO: Thank you. I certainly feel like Mr. Woodward; and I feel a threat and see <br />a threat in your comments. But you know, as I look at what you’re trying to say and you’re <br />addressing a body that’s only advisory, you know, I think this issue should be taken with the <br />legislators and our County Council members; they are the ones that would address your concerns <br />and find solutions if needed to address those concerns. And you know, you may want to know <br />that you speak of some violations by the developer. As far as I can see, the only so-called <br />violation was inability to submit a plan approval (sic) application in time. All others are in <br />keeping with the General Plan. In fact, the General Plan was not changed to indicate the <br />concerns that have been expressed with regards to the denying or revocation of the zoning in this <br />matter; and I think it spells out clearly by the Findings of Fact by the applicant. So you know, I <br />just wanted to let you know because putting aside everything the applicant has done the best that <br />he could up to now, and he has made every effort to do it with exception that there has been <br />transaction of the ownership of the property and the inability to find funding to go ahead with the <br />property. But during the interim they have conducted studies and reports, and those have been <br />submitted to the Planning Department. So you know, it’s not like they bought the property and <br />just sitting on their lawns and not doing anything and waiting for an opportunity to just spin it <br />off, you know. But now as they have gone by this far, you know, what alternative do they have? <br />And I think it’s a very serious matter we should consider on this issue. <br />BYRNE: Do you mind if I just quickly respond -? <br />RHO: Can I just generally remind all the Commissioners that what we are doing <br />now is asking the testifier questions, and our discussion can be held or will be held at a later time <br />in this meeting. But did you want to respond to some of the Commissioners’ comments? <br />BYRNE: Yeah. I just wanted to clarify; I don’t know that I used the word <br />“violation.” I did say that annual reports weren’t filed. So if I did use the word “violation,” <br />thank you for bringing that to my attention cause that wasn’t the intention. <br />The other thing is I wasn’t personally insinuating lawsuits. But it is a fact. I mean, I’ve seen <br />those lawsuits brought in other areas. And I think if we are concerned about takings lawsuits, we <br />need to look at those as well. I certainly understand everyone in this room for the most part is a <br />volunteer where we take time off from our work. It’s not my intent to make anyone <br />uncomfortable; it was to share my experience and to share what I thought was what had been <br />expressed through the community. So you know, to the extent that I made anyone <br />uncomfortable with my choice of words, you know, please understand that was not my intention. <br />RHO: Commissioner Woodward. <br />EXHIBIT A <br />9 <br /> <br />