|
right-of-way of 50 feet. And so what the Department does as conditions of approval, they
<br />require additional right-of-ways. So what you do is you incrementally secure the added and the
<br />needed right-of-ways. But if you use that logic to say you don’t have enough right-of-way, then
<br />I would venture to say none of the rezoning applications that have been considered by the
<br />Commission recently, you know, could be favorably considered.
<br />Having said that, you know, relative to, and I won’t go down the theft issue cause I think that it
<br />was well covered, I think, by Commissioner Domingo. But on the issue of the road
<br />improvements, I would like to kind of suggest, and Mr. Sung the applicant stated that, you know,
<br />the improvements that were negotiated with Shipman prior to the negotiations falling apart, he’s
<br />still willing to make all of those improvements. Now I don’t have that specific language before
<br />me. However, I did come up with something during the break that generally kind of reflect,
<br />could be reflective of that kind of improvements. And it would read something along these lines,
<br />“Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, traffic mitigation improvements such as signage and
<br />shoulder improvements within the existing right-of-way and between the subject site and through
<br />the school site identified by tax map key,” and I’ll leave that blank cause I don’t have it with me,
<br />“shall be made. Said improvements shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public
<br />Works.” Now generally the kinds of mitigation that we were talking about during the
<br />negotiations dealt like with making sure that, you know, there is adequate site distance, making
<br />some shoulder improvements so that it would not, you know, there will be minimal conflict
<br />between the children, the students, and, you know, that activity and any uses below that area,
<br />putting up signage, those kind of things, and, you know, coming up with specific plans and, you
<br />know, submitting it to the County. So that, I think, pretty much like summarizes the proposed
<br />mitigation that we were talking about. But I don’t know, that’s my part. Now I don’t know
<br />whether Mr. Sulla wants to -.
<br />WATANABE: Mr. Sulla?
<br />SULLA: Yes.
<br />WATANABE: You have something to add without getting overly technical?
<br />SULLA: I hope to and I hope to be very brief. I know we’ve had a long time with
<br />this and a lot of things have been already said.And just to in some ways summarize some of the
<br />things that have gleaned through here, it’s that there has been a statement that there has been no
<br />attempt to deny use in the negotiations, but then their, in that question, in the same situation, the
<br />negotiations have been broken down over that, and a few other things that have been sort of
<br />testified to. So what has happened is the special use permit route has been shown to be more
<br />restrictive than others would have; and we felt there is some sort of a problem because traffic and
<br />safety has never been a problem in our negotiations, we’ve agreed. We’ve had lots of talks about
<br />that in different ways. We even approached and tried to come up with ideas for better security if
<br />that was a concern. So it has never been these concerns that have been holding us back.
<br />Negotiations have been difficult with the timing back and forth, and it came in the last minute
<br />that we didn’t reach an agreement. Mr. Sung was flying yesterday, and I know in good faith they
<br />attempted to. But the problem was, is that I think there’s a breakdown of confidence in whether
<br />we can reach an agreement that’s permanent. It keeps changing for us, and I know they can say
<br />the same. So in that case two parties always, it’s either two parties are going to make a deal or
<br />they’re not.
<br /> EXHIBIT A
<br />26
<br />
<br />
|