2016-02-04 Hearing Transcript - Arrow SPP 09-076 & Rodrigues SPP 15-178

Home

YEH: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, thank you very much for the attention that you brought to this proceeding along with the site visit that we had. We realize that there’s a lot to chew on. We’re going to try to kind of put the issues and conditions that we would propose into some perspective. This is not about whether or not these quarries serve a benefit to the community from the standpoint of providing cinder to locations therein. This is really about the conditions and the kind of standards that the Commission needs to follow when it does make a determination that a proposed use is unusual or reasonable, and in making that determination, whether a proposed use is reasonable is measured by the criteria under the Planning Commission’s rules, including Rule 6. And, one of the primary ones deals with the issue of whether or not a proposed use has adverse effects upon surrounding properties and to the extent that it does, whether or not conditions that are imposed to minimize those adverse effects thereby makes that use reasonable. Now, there’s been much discussion about whether or not this case is about whether or not you should be imposing a condition requiring the Applicants to pay special assessments. That was one of the conditions that the Planning Department had proposed at the beginning of this session or the beginning of the hearings. We’re advocating that if the Commission is not inclined to require the payment of special assessments, that rather, as in other Special Permit conditions, when you’re dealing with roadway conditions and adverse effects, that you do impose conditions that relate to taking care of driveways and intersections and roadway sections that this site inspection clearly showed are being caused damage by these operations that you’re proposed to approve. The criteria of the Planning Commission’s Rule 6 doesn’t make the distinction between whether or not roads are owned by a private entity or maintained by a private entity. It does not make a distinction as to whether or not a private entity has the power to issue special assessments, but it does say there shall be no adverse effects. So, when we took a look at the site inspection, and maybe for the purposes of kind of refreshing your memory on that, you saw that from the standpoint that the Association’s or the Road Maintenance Corporation’s obligations and burdens, it takes care of 157 miles of roadway in the subdivision. Those roadways are in pretty darn good condition considering the task that it has both from a condition as well as a signage standpoint. When we got to the quarry sites, the conditions were much different. Yes, there are some conditions that are a combination of other quarrying operators, but when we got to the actual entrances to the quarries that are operated by the Applicants, both with respect to the driveway entrances of Arrow as well as Rodrigues, we could see very clear visible damage of entrances to these operations along with certain destabilization and problems with intersection. And, I’ll go through a little bit more specifically what we observed. Site 1 showed cracking and erosion along the road edge along Kailua Boulevard. The intersection of Lurline and Kailua showed inordinate wear and tear. The reason we stopped at the entrance of Arrow’s unpermitted operations were it’s already had been acknowledged it was 13 EXHIBIT D