2005-04-22 tHuggett (fka Soto SMA 03-007)2

Home

GRAHAM:Im concerned with the timing issue here. Itseems likes we will probably want to go into Executive Session before we take a vote on this but italso feels like a lot of stuff has not been flushed out yet enough for the moment. And then may- cause I dont want to go into Executive Session and come back and have a bunch more discussion and go into Executive Session again so my sense is that we should kind of- be a little more up front about the issues unless theres some risk I dont understand in doing that so that we have more tightly focus on where were going with the Executive Session is what the issue is. GALDONES:Point well-taken Commissioner Graham. Are there any other questions that you have or issues that you would like to raise before we do a deliberation with our legal counsel? GRAHAM:Sure. Why dont I just- Sure, and maybe I should just put them forth without asking a particular question of anybody just so that everybody can sort of see whats chewingoninmymind.First,itseemslikeitsclearthatweareinthehabitoftaking applications where theres been an ownership change without having it be a new application because the item right preceding this on the agenda was a perfect example of that. It does seem that, to me that, the Planning Directors letter, which went out as he says now is erroneously- could reasonably be expected to have some negative consequences for you folks as to what you were expecting here today. But it certainly doesnt seem to me that it would imply that the applicant who as far as I can see is (inaudible) and followed proper protocol should be burdened with a Contested Case hearing which is not based upon our standard rules as a result of this erroneous letter. Also I feel like theres a issue of- were kind of mixing 2 issues the timeliness issue and the ownership issue. You talked about the change of ownership as maybe being a reason why it should be a new application. But if there was no change in ownership and it was still continued application from 12 months ago or more, there would also be new owners in the adjoining condominium and I dont believe they would be required to be notified of a new hearing. So I feel like we got a couple of issues kind of all pushed together here and I guess what I also would like to focus on at some point is if, where I started, if you folks have come here and been prejudiced in some way by that erroneous letter that we at least look at is there any other way that you could be- well I dont want to say compensated but that you know your prejudice could be remedied by the Planning Commission, rather than granting a Contested Case hearing which seems to me kind of off the face at this point in time, kind of uncalled for given our standard rules. So those are all the issues that are kind of running through my head and I just hate to go to Executive Session and come back and deal with all this stuff and need to go to Executive Session again, which is why I bring it up right now. IWASHITA:Mr. Chairman. GALDONES:Excuse me, Commissioner Iwashita, in light of Commissioner Grahams concerns do you wish to defer the motion for the moment until such time that Commissioner Graham has a comfort level that these questions can be answered before we proceed into Executive Session. 17 EXHIBIT B