|
Planning Commission’s agenda, we still, there would still be an investigation, we’d still have the
<br />opportunity to contest some of those circumstances. Under my proposal or my suggestion, it’s the
<br />same thing. We, in either scenario we don’t get a free pass. We’re still held accountable; and there
<br />still is going to be an investigation. I just thought it would be easier, just in terms of my perspective
<br />it’s cleaner as we move past this phase and start the next phase, which is the amended application.
<br />
<br />So obviously from my client’s perspective, we’re interested in, you know, maximizing our due
<br />process. Because I would hate to think that there’s somebody with bad motives out there who just for
<br />the sake of doing it is going to make a complaint which would put us right back here on a revocation.
<br />So I think there should have to be some kind of, hopefully some kind of investigation regardless of
<br />whether somebody files a complaint; and that’s why my suggestion is to dismiss the revocation, we
<br />move on to amended permit application. And, again, if we do the Bob Marley fest we’ll still be held
<br />accountable when the complaints roll in.
<br />
<br />AU: So our Director talked about a possible traffic analysis. I’m assuming it hasn’t started yet?
<br />
<br />HONG: No. And that would be part of the amended permit process.
<br />
<br />AU: Okay. So what would be the timeframe? You know, I mean it’s like we’re dragging this out.
<br />We keep coming back, we keep coming back, and continuance, continuance. You know, I like to hold
<br />everybody accountable. I wanted to hold our beloved Planning Department, you know, to a date, as
<br />well as the applicants, as well as everybody. Because everybody here is testifying, we’re here
<br />volunteering our time, you know, so I just wanted to know timeframes. I don’t like to leave things
<br />open like, okay, whenever we’re going to get done. So, like, I mean, does anybody have any comment
<br />to that? Staff, Planning Director?
<br />
<br />DARROW: Mr. Chairman, at this point, these are in a sense separated, right? We have the
<br />amendment to the special permit which is on its own track. The revocation hearing which is separate
<br />is what we’re working on today. So the amended permit will be coming to the Planning Commission.
<br />In regards to a timeframe, it’s supposed to be within 90 days of when we accept the application. But,
<br />again, because of this issue regarding the traffic report, usually, once we have that issue we ask the
<br />applicants to conduct it, they do it, and we bring it in a timely manner.
<br />
<br />In regards to the revocation hearing, the reasons why we’re asking for it to be continued isn’t because
<br />we just want to keep it going. We also have other issues in regards to the, what brought us to this place
<br />in the first place that have not been resolved; and that is the unpermitted structures. Although we
<br />haven’t had any complaints regarding activities, we still have this issue of the unpermitted structures
<br />that we need to resolve to feel comfortable to say that we’ve resolved these issues that have brought us
<br />here in the first place.
<br />
<br />LEITHEAD TODD: With deference to some of what my staff has said and kind of thinking through
<br />all of this, given the fact that that the current permit does not allow the performances, you know, and
<br />all of that, I do have a hammer. Cause I can initiate investigations, and notices of violation. And I do
<br />have a hammer on the unpermitted structures. Because if you want to process the special permit
<br />application we’re going to have to deal with that.
<br />
<br /> 13
<br /> EXHIBIT C
<br />
<br />
<br />
|