|
Now, one of the things that we did want to ask for some clarification on was with respect to the
<br />conditions. And behind me we have Mr. Yamamoto and the Hirayamas. They are longstanding
<br />vegetable farmers. We didn’t get a chance to put out our part of contested case, and part of that,
<br />and when I looked at the background report, it indicated that there had been no discussion about
<br />the effects of their farming on the operations, or vice versa, the effects of the proposed uses on the
<br />farming operations. And today we hear a lot about food safety. There are very stringent
<br />requirements to be certified for food safety. One of the concerns that have been raised during the
<br />hearing was how the activities that are occurring on the applicant’s property affect what’s going
<br />on next door in the farms. That’s part of the reason why we said no outdoor shower facility
<br />because they had never been approved by DOH. The flipside of that also is that there are, as you
<br />know, if you have been farming before, you have a lot of activities that go on; there is dust, there
<br />is some spraying that goes on. And so one of the concerns was the fact that you have this bakery
<br />that’s outdoors, and bread is taken from indoors, sits out there for cooling or, for a whatever
<br />period of time, goes indoors. So we said, well, move it indoors. We don’t have a basic problem
<br />with it being out, you know, a bakery operation since you are using the existing space, but we do
<br />want to have the bakery moved indoors. So there is a six-month period that we stipulated to. So
<br />what we are requesting, that the six-month period be a stringent one, and that it not be subject to
<br />an administrative time extension. So we are asking that, if you take a look at Condition 18 as
<br />proposed by the Planning Department, that Condition 6, which references a six-month period for
<br />moving indoors, also be included within Condition 18. That’s the only revision that we are
<br />proposing. Otherwise, overall we do believe that the Planning Department has done a great job of
<br />taking the stipulation that was entered into and kind of formulating into something that I think all
<br />the parties can live with. So thank you. And we are glad that we were able to resolve most of
<br />these issues.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Thank you.
<br />
<br />SELF: Because we have, some of the conditions now are going to change because of what
<br />Mr. Vitousek just stated that they are going to, that they’ve already moved the trucks off of the
<br />property, the Planning Director would like to ask for a continuance to have an opportunity to
<br />revisit the recommendation that you have before you, the one that was presented today, so that he
<br />can go through the conditions and eliminate the ones that no longer need to be in here, and also to
<br />look again at how other ones may be affected.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Okay, that – go ahead, Mr. —
<br />
<br />VITOUSEK: Yeah, well, you know, we are really opposed to a continuance. The Planning
<br />Commission and its counsel are perfectly capable of, and we already made an agreement on
<br />conditions, and, you know, basically we are here on hearing to, you know, based on the Planning
<br />Director’s recommendation that we are, to approve the Special Permit based on the conditions that
<br />were included in the stipulated agreement between the parties that has been filed with the
<br />Commission. If you want to remove the conditions about the Meadow Gold trucks, that’s really
<br />easy; there are two conditions that relate to Meadow Gold trucks, you take them out. But the idea
<br />that now we are going to go back and reconsider all the other conditions after we’ve reached an
<br />agreement on the other conditions, seems inappropriate to me.
<br />
<br />7
<br />EXHIBIT F
<br />
<br />
|