2006-08-04 TMCNICOLL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

from the fact that the individual owns the lot in Waiakea Uka, there’s nothing, there’s no advantages, there’s no locational advantage to being in Waiakea Uka. It doesn’t serve the immediate area; and there are Light Industrial lots that one can buy or lease for baseyards in Waiakea Uka, in Keaau, which would be not any less convenient for the Applicant in terms of what they’re hauling and where they’re hauling from. So, with that, I’ve said that, you know, we’re comfortable with a year. I understand the predicament that the Applicant is in. He has started a business in this location, it has grown, he has ongoing contracts, it will take him some time to relocate. I looked at a time that we would regard as reasonable as, you know, that you’d have to go find a place, you have to enter into a lease, you have to move equipment. But the economics of it, as Commissioner Salavea has said, the other companies that are in the business are presumably operating from zoned locations that have these same economic issues. So that’s the rationale for a shorter timeframe. It’s a rationale that we’ve been okay with some of these Special Permits for five-year timeframes. But there’s a different rationale for this and why we would support a shorter timeframe. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Director. It puts it in a better context for me to understand the situation. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe, you mentioned that you’re okay with the Director’s recommendations. And before I ask the Applicant’s representative if they’re okay with that, I wanted to know your thoughts.Given what Commissioner Graham has said, you know, we’re going to ask the Applicant to make all these changes and then in one, two years we expect them to be out of there. I wondered like what mitigating conditions we could impose that wouldn’t involve a major expense. Like I’m thinking around like the visual impact, the one from the neighbors. See, two out of three neighbors have the potential to have a visual impact, actually all three neighbors, but two out of three are saying they don’t have a problem with this particular situation. I’m leaning toward not having that as a recommendation, but the sight distance is important because of the safety issue. But the visual impact is not a big deal for me, especially when you get two out of three saying that it’s not a problem for them. So I wonder if we can eliminate that as part of the, that particular one as part of the overall recommendations. How would you feel about that? Just to see if we can cut down some of the “to do’s” before, because there’s a lot of “to do’s” that they would have to do. WATANABE:Yeah, if the other, maybe you should take a poll because I’ll go along with what the other Commissioners feel. I guess my point here is I didn’t particularly care to approve this particular application yet. I was willing to go part-way with it. I came in with a full intention of saying “no,” but I was willing to go part-way with it because, you know, I wouldn’t want to cause him that much economic harm. ALAMEDA:Yeah, Mr. Darrow, I wanted to ask if you could review the recommendations one more time -. DARROW:Sure. EXHIBIT D 26