Laserfiche WebLink
<br />HEAUKULANI: Can we take that in reverse order? Can we go into discussion now. I just <br />wanted to point out that Condition No. 6 as it presently reads doesn’t necessarily mean that this <br />particular applicant is going to shoulder all of this burden. What it says is that the <br />channelization, signalization and street lighting improvements shall be provided by the applicant <br />if required by the DOT, and I don’t know enough about that process or what else is going on, on <br />or around Orchidland Drive to know that in fact the entire financial burden of providing those <br />intersection improvements are going to fall on this particular applicant. There might be others <br />around. There might be other negotiations going on, and I note that the communication from <br />DOT is that they want to leave that provision in place for now, I think the language was. Or at <br />least for the time being. I don’t feel comfortable stepping into the place of DOT on in something <br />as important as that intersection. <br /> <br />GONZALES: Jeff, if at some time, the Department of Transportation in the future decides yes <br />now today we decided we want a light there, would Mr. Gadd have the opportunity to come back <br />and request another amendment to his permit? <br /> <br />DARROW: The applicant can always request an amendment at any time for that. Just as <br />Commissioner Heaukulani had mentioned about other applicants in the area may be required to <br />pay a particular fair share, there was the Orchidland Convenience Center that came in originally, <br />and there was a condition placed on them that says the applicant shall pay their reasonable share <br />for infrastructure improvements that may be required of other commercial development in the <br />immediate area, so it sounds like the intention was from the beginning to kind of cost share <br />improvements for anything that would be required to cover the infrastructure. But, yes, in <br />answer to your question, they could come in the future for an amendment. <br /> <br />GONZALES: Thank you. <br /> <br />KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, you know, one option the Commission may entertain is to continue <br />this hearing and ask us to have a representative from the Department of Transportation, <br />Highways Division, come before the Commission, and you can ask them directly what plans they <br />have, if any, how receptive they would be to some kind of pro rata condition, etc., but you know <br />for now, all we have on the record is their statement. So that’s you know, that’s a suggestion. <br /> <br />GONZALES: Mr. Gadd, would you have a problem if we continued this until we could get <br />somebody from DOT here? <br /> <br />GADD (from audience): Yah, I rather not continue it. I’d rather not stay (inaudible). <br /> <br />GONZALES: Okay, all right, well then I guess I’m back to a--I need a motion from one of my <br />fellow Commissioners. <br /> <br />ONO: I’m sorry, what was their request now. Are you amenable to us, a stay on this? <br /> <br />GADD: (from audience): I’d rather not. <br /> <br />GONZALES: I think he’d rather not. <br />12 <br />EXHIBIT A <br /> <br /> <br />