Laserfiche WebLink
STURGES:I believe that refers to our preparing a playing field for the lower school <br />students in the pasture land. Theres no construction of any buildings involved. Use of Ag land <br />for a playing field is allowed in the County code without any kind of a use permit. And it <br />involves using a flat pasture land, mowing it over and in some cases smoothing it out so the kids <br />will have a place to play. Were a little crowded on the main campus. There is no construction <br />of any kind going on in the pasture land. It did not require a grading permit because of the size <br />of the parcel involved. And thats all the-, thats the only thing I could imagine would be <br />described as construction. Someone from the County came out and inspected the site. Actually I <br />had several people from the County come out. The Planning Commission person said that we <br />did not, it was not necessary to get a grading permit. Not Planning Commission, it would have <br />been the, who would issue a grading permit? <br />VITOUSEK:Public works would issue a grading permit. <br />STURGES:Okay,publicworkscameoutanddecidedthatitdidnotrequireagrading <br />permit what we had done. Secondly, somebody from air quality came out and decided that there <br />was no violation of the air quality with the dirt pile that we had in reference to this. And then <br />somebody from water quality, well, there wasnt any water quality issue related to the pasture so. <br />SIRACUSA:Thank you. <br />GALDONES:Seeing that theres-. Commissioner Graham? <br />GRAHAM:Mr. Vitousek, in the course of doing the hearing and all like that and the <br />course of reading all the paperwork we have you know we see that the lawyers kind of spar back <br />and forth about issues and all. And for us here, the Commission, obviously we want to kind of <br />try to distill out whats most important and whats crucial to our decision and all. And clearly, <br />the main point or a main point in all this is the traffic issue. And I know during the hearing Mr. <br />Woodell presented information about surveys that were taken. And the hearings officer accepted <br />the surveys but apparently granted them less than full weight that would be there if it was done <br />by a traffic engineer. And there have been you know, correspondence or comments back and <br />forth about the validity and whatever those. So what Im getting at is I read those traffic <br />assessments provided by the intervenor as sort of a background baseline for people who are not <br />familiar with the area. Most of the people on the Planning Commission to get a sense of you <br />know what is the general traffic in that area. And if, if they were to say like roughly maybe 1 car <br />every 60 seconds, I never heard anywhere from you folks on the applicant side saying that no <br />thats way too much or no thats way too little. And I never heard anybody say, well if it was <br />less than that it would be less of a problem. If it was more than that, it would be more of a <br />problems. So anyway, I dont see that theres any real issue with that. I see that as a rough <br />representation of information for the Planning Commission to understand the regular traffic that <br />now is in the area. Is there something Im missing there? Is there some other part of that issue <br />that makes it important beyond what I just said? <br />VITOUSEK:No and I recall that you were at the hearing at least part of the time. And <br />we did not object to the data from their traffic studies coming in. What we objected to is the fact <br />that they included a number of statements that were purported to be given by pedestrians during <br />EXHIBIT A <br />13 <br /> <br />