Laserfiche WebLink
the one to make the approval. I think it should be coming from the DPW, Department of Public <br />Works. In fact, in Condition No. 7, there is something there in regards to the Department of <br />Public Works, doing a drainage study, and whether -. It has been mentioned that that type of <br />technology exists with a drain going directly into the ocean but whether it’s going into a drywell, <br />that kind of sump, whether there is that kind of filtration system, I’m not comfortable to say <br />impose the condition upon the Applicant if the technology does not exist. That’s the problem I <br />have. <br />ALAMEDA:Okay. And that can be evidenced in your vote. Other comments before <br />we ask for roll call? Commissioner Iwashita? <br />IWASHITA:I’m willing to change it to subject to approval of the appropriate authority <br />in Public Works as opposed to the Director, our Planning Department Director. <br />ALAMEDA:And that helps, Commissioner Galdones, Mr. Director? <br />YUEN:I can tell you that Public Works does not like the idea of these separators <br />or filters around drywells. They don’t believe that it’s a problem. They do not want, you know, <br />‘cause the logical extension of this is that the streets would have these separators and they do not <br />believe that it is necessary.So they’re not advocates of it. <br />ALAMEDA:But we still have the motion on the table, so, we’re ready to -? <br />Commissioner Graham? <br />GRAHAM:Yeah, can I just, I appreciate Commissioner’s Rho’s comments, which I <br />think are very much on point as well as the Director’s. But I just have a few like attenuating <br />circumstances I’d like to throw on them. First, I think the application we approved before today, <br />the bulk of the impermeable surfaces are going to be more mauka than what this parking lot is. I <br />think in that case, you’re dealing with runoff both from the buildings and from the roads. I think <br />this case is a much more compact issue. So whether you can get by with one drywell or two <br />drywells, your runoff issue where cars are is much more centralized. So it’s much more <br />reasonable to try to filter them in one centralized location rather than in the other case where you <br />have all this parking all over the place and roads. So I think this is a little different than the other <br />one. I also don’t think we have any requirement in here that they only park new cars in this lot. <br />And then, finally, with respect to the Planning Director’s case, situation about the public roads <br />being a comparable issue, this is for private use. This is not generating a large public benefit in a <br />way that Alii Drive or something like that does. So I think our standards are perhaps a little <br />different here. That’s all. <br />ALAMEDA:All right. Commissioner Iwashita? <br />IWASHITA:Well, my main -. I have a, I guess my issue is, you know, we have a clear <br />statutory mandate on SMA considerations; and that is to protect the public safety and the <br />environment. I mean it’s very clear what we’re supposed to be doing. And to say that, well, <br />Public Works, you know, as a general matter as to all, the way I took it, as to all matters that <br />come before it, you know, doesn’t like these particular technology because they’re afraid they’re <br />going to have to utilize it to protect the environment on our County roads is, to me, I don’t know, <br />it’s Forrest Gump, stupid is is stupid does. If we keep doing the same thing over and over again <br />EXHIBIT C <br />14 <br /> <br />