My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005-01-21 TSUFFOLKOPUAA
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2005
>
2005-01-21 TSUFFOLKOPUAA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 9:43:44 AM
Creation date
6/13/2011 9:43:29 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
The Department of Public Works has recently asked that a change be made to Condition I <br />on both this application as well as the Puaa. And that is that Condition I, after the word <br />provided on the third line, that the words on Kuakini Highway be added. So it would <br />say, right turn deceleration shall be provided on Kuakini Highway at the Easement 1 <br />access. And that would be, again, on Suffolk condition, as well as Puaa condition. This <br />concludes the presentation. Are there any questions? <br />SPRINGER:Commissioners? Commissioner Graham? <br />GRAHAM:Jeff, maybe this question is more to Mr. Takemoto than yourself. <br />But in regards to whether the County should be processing these applications, I know in <br />our Background material we have a letter from the Land Use Commission and reading, <br />th. <br />directed to Planning Director Chris Yuen on October 20And in that letter, Land Use <br />Commission says, While we dont have specific objections, we do have strong <br />objections to the manner in which these applications are being processed. We believe <br />that both the Village Center and the rental housing project are part of the same Pualani <br />Makai master planned community and had been deliberately incrementalized to evade the <br />jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission. So I would question Mr. Takemoto about <br />what the Planning Departments discretion is as to whether we take these up or not and <br />why they made the decision to go ahead and recommend approval at the County level for <br />these two applications. <br />TAKEMOTO:The Director, subsequent to the Land Use Commissions letter, had <br />been in touch with the Executive Director of the Land Use Commission and, basically, <br />there were two conditions that he wanted us to establish before agreeing to what were <br />doing. <br />One is that we have confirmed that these are, in fact, separate owners and that this whole <br />developmentwasnot,youknow,some,whatyoucall,therewasntarelationship <br />between the two developers. So, on that point, the Director did check them out and <br />confirmed that they are independent and separate. <br />The second point is that between the Land Use Commission and the County is just a <br />matter of whos making the decisions. The issues and criteria concerns in terms of public <br />interest are the same. So, for the Land Use Commission, they just wanted to make sure <br />that the cumulative impacts of the two projects were being considered, cause that is what <br />actually would occur if these lots went before the Land Use Commission together, as <br />basically youll be looking at the impacts of both projects at one time. And we feel that <br />we are addressing the cumulative impacts of the projects. <br />GRAHAM:Thank you. <br />SPRINGER:Other Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa? <br />SIRACUSA:Im having trouble with these maps, of putting these all together. <br />This section, in the upper left-hand corner, is what youre showing us for the Suffolk. <br />5 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.