Laserfiche WebLink
sewage treatment from this property. And I know in response to that Mr. Mooers contacted the <br />Bishop Estate folks and found that it was not practicable to hook up to the sewer; and we do have <br />the condition that the Department of Health will approve the sewage system, the sewage coming <br />from this project. And Mr. Mooers at our last meeting, and the Planning Director didn’t attend <br />that because of other obligations, but he indicated that his sense was that the Department of <br />Health would be likely more stringent upon the kind of wastewater treatment that’s allowed here. <br />Consequently it’s not easy to see that there will substantial adverse environmental effect from the <br />sewage, I don’t believe. <br />And the other issue, of course, is the road; and as Mr. Dupont declared today, as he put in his <br />testimony the additional traffic, which there probably will be on this substandard road, may <br />exacerbate the runoff, which also could effect the ocean quality. And the Planning Director has <br />put forth a couple of amendments for us to this permit which presumably will help to mitigate <br />any of that kind of runoff issues. So I think all issues are being addressed; and we have to decide <br />whether they’re being addressed sufficiently. I do carry a little bit of concern for the Planning <br />Director’s comments, both with regard to the prior rezoning in Kaloko and with regard to this <br />property about them being only small. Somehow I have a sense that the impact should relate to <br />the size of the project so that a hundred small projects that have a certain degree of impact, each <br />of which is very small can add up to as much as one large impact. So if the impact is somewhat <br />large compared to the scale of what’s being proposed, then I’d find it is substantial even though <br />the whole project itself is going to be a project -. I guess through all of this, it’s a tough decision <br />for me but I am inclined to probably support this application because of the steps that have been <br />taken to mitigate it. But I’d be happy to hear what other Commissioners have to say. Thank <br />you. <br />GALDONES:Thank you, Commissioner Graham. Commissioners, any other <br />discussion? Seeing none, Jeff. <br />DARROW:I had a request for clarification. There’s been a motion to add a new <br />condition regarding paved driveway access. That- in condition number two for the final plan <br />approval, we did mention paved driveway access and parking stalls associated with the proposed <br />development. Is that sufficient or do we still want to have a separate condition specifically <br />added? <br />GALDONES:Mr. Yuen? <br />YUEN:Well I’m- thanks for bringing- reminding me of that. I missed that. And, <br />well, I don’t think we need a new condition as far as paving the driveway then. <br />DARROW:So do I-? <br />YUEN:It would only be the gutters and discharging into a sump. <br />DARROW:Thank you. <br />GALDONES:Is the maker and the seconder of the motion okay with that? <br />10 <br /> <br />