2005-06-17 HUGGETT SMA03-007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

was from Charles Buscemi and the other from a William and Rebecca Hunt. The Hunts had submitted a letter stating their opposition to the request. Mr. Buscemi had expressed some issues and concerns that he had and I assume that Mr. Buscemi is here to present testimony on this issue. The Planning Director is still recommending approval of this particular request. We submitted to you an amended or revised recommendation and if you look atthe top of the recommendation its dated June 7, 2005. We are recommending approval. And basically what we did was make some changes by incorporatingconcerns or in the recommendation portion addressing the PASH and the Ka Paakaidecisions. Also talking about the biological recognizance of the property and the other historical and cultural resources concerns or issues, we also, as presented at our last meeting added a new condition number 3, which states that a 20- foot wide easement shall be provided for vehicular access and utilities to the project site. Are there any questions at this time? GALDONES:Commissioners any questions of Norman? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:No, I just had a couple of specific questions about the recommendations nottheconditionsofapprovalbutyouknow-sinceweoftenadopttheserecommendationsif they go along with something ahead on pages 2 and 3 of the recommendations. And, maybe theyre just more wording issues but you know, it feels to me they do touch on relevant things. Like on the first new paragraph on page 2 about a third of the way down says the revised project will not create significant adverse impacts upon immediately adjacent properties as surrounding properties are zoned and in residential and commercial uses. Because of something being residential and commercial use doesnt necessarily indicate to me that there wont be impacts because of something going on adjacent. So I just was kind of wondering about the logic of a sentence like that, if you had any thoughts about that. HAYASHI:And your question is? GRAHAM:I dont find a logical progression in that sentence. It sounds like the- as surrounding property zoning seems to be the basis for saying theres no significant adverse impacts upon immediately adjacent properties and that doesnt sound very logical to me. HAYASHI:Well this is basically what we are representing that we feel that there is no substantial adverse impact based on what surrounding uses of the area is. Single family residential, the Sunterra office structure and the Sea Village. However if the Commission feels that that is not a finding that they would like to include you are free to delete that particular finding. GRAHAM:Sure and maybe what youre saying- another way is that, this is not a conclusion based upon purely the zoning of adjacent properties. This is more of a summary sentence or something is that correct? HAYASHI:Oh yes, yes. GRAHAM:Okay. And then on, a little farther down the page it talks about the view corridor. So this would be like about 6 lines up from the bottom. And it says there is a better EXHIBIT A 2