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

Home

doing quarrying operations after the original Special Permit was issued, showed very clear damage to that driveway entrance. And, the reason we wanted to show you that is not only to say it should be bearing the burden of that repair but to also illustrate the kind of problems that exist when these kind of unfettered operations go on with heavy truck usage. Mahimahi is another illustration of what happens when you do not have proper engineering of cut slopes, the benching that’s being proposed, as well as appropriate setbacks, and then the absence of those kind of setbacks, why you need to have guardrails to avoid issues of safety. Both the intersection of ʽŌhiʽa and Liliana, and Liliana itself, showed clear damage coming from Arrow’s operations. The chipseal is gone on Liliana. You could see for yourself the tract emanating from the driveway entrance to the intersection, the turning radiuses that occur from heavy truck use and the damage to ʽŌhiʽa and Liliana. Those are the kind of issues that HOVE is saying it should not be responsible for bearing the burden of paying for that maintenance. When you go ahead and add to that the condition that these lots be consolidated, not only are you imposing that burden in absence of appropriate conditions but you’re creating a double whammy on the Road Maintenance Corporation to take less money on a general assessment perspective to repair these roads. Should the members of the Road Maintenance Corporation shoulder than burden or should from a direct relationship an issue of damage to the roads, shouldn’t that be the Applicants if the determination is going to be that these uses are reasonable? We respect the Hearings Officers’ recommendations. They did go pretty far, but from our position, they didn’t go far enough. The areas that, if you take a look at those conditions, and some of the ones that we requested, these are the principal ones that we feel should be imposed if this Special Permits be issued for both Applicants. One, restoration of cut slopes within the setbacks per Robert Thomas’s recommendations. Now, both Arrow and Rodrigues have said, well, the grading ordinance doesn’t say we need to do that. The reason I provided to you portions of Chapter 10 is because if you take a look at Section 10-3, Subsection (b), it says this chapter shall not apply to the following, mining or quarrying operations regulated by other County ordinance or government agencies, which is you. The reason I provided Planning Department Exhibit 9 is because it says the same thing, and what they say there is that exactly those kind of recommendations from Mr. Thomas if you flip to the back side of the page is this is not unweathered rock that the grading ordinance typically talks to. This is cinder. This is erosion that the kind of cut slopes and damage that you saw on the site inspection can create. So, whether it’s an 8-foot or a 15-foot setback, when you’re dealing with cut slopes, the same benching standards must apply. Not only that, but in the proposed condition by the Hearings Officers, there’s a determination that there should be a presentation of the stabilization plan. Now, the engineer for the Applicants has said they’ve done one, but that doesn’t solve the problem. The real problem is fine, we can 14 EXHIBIT D