My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2023-01-19 Leeward Exh C (Item 3 Stevenson & Fumo PL-REZ-2022-000035)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2023
>
2023-01-19 Leeward
>
Stevenson, Stevenson & Fumo (PL-REZ-2022-000035)
>
2023-01-19 Leeward Exh C (Item 3 Stevenson & Fumo PL-REZ-2022-000035)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/16/2023 4:25:01 PM
Creation date
2/15/2023 11:11:05 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
PIPAN: Chair if I may. <br /> PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. <br /> PIPAN: A quick — <br /> DEFRANCO: Yes. <br /> PIPAN: — addition. If I understand correctly this fund for Kaloko <br /> intersection improvements was established in the 90's, and it's grown to $650,000.00 and we're <br /> just now getting to the studies of what's required to improve that intersection. I feel like,perhaps <br /> a more again systematic and better stewardship of those funds and what's required for safety of <br /> that intersection would make us feel better about contributing to it. If it's systematic, it applies to <br /> everyone and not again this kind of piecemeal tied to a request it's almost like pay for play zoning. <br /> Which I don't think we want to be a part of. I might also add that again the concurrency trigger <br /> for a traffic impact study for a project like this is 50 peak hour trips. We're contributing zero. So, <br /> we are no way near a requirement to conduct a study for this project. Thank you. <br /> PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. <br /> DEFRANCO: Thank you. <br /> CAMPBELL: Chair, can I jump in real quickly to elaborate I think on Deputy <br /> Director Darrow's answer to our commissioner's question. Our applicant did articulate for the <br /> Commission the proper legal test that you all should be considering when you are applying, it <br /> applies to all conditions, and I think in this case it bubbles up. But it's the one that you should be <br /> applying to all of your conditions and that is, in a more legal jargon it's nexus and proportionality. <br /> So, it is the condition that you're looking at rationally related to the impact of this particular <br /> project. So, and I think in this one that that is very clear. And the second piece of that test is,is <br /> the condition that's being applied proportional to the actual impact of this particular application <br /> and if you can articulate and find that the answer to both of those is yes, then your conditions are <br /> correct. If you can't articulate that test,then you need to consider whether the conditions are <br /> correct or not. So,just to give you that test and that's what you want to be thinking as you are <br /> evaluating these. <br /> [Indecipherable talking] <br /> PIPAN: And if I may add just briefly. Any— <br /> DEFRANCO: So, do want to respond— <br /> PIPAN: Sorry. <br /> DEFRANCO: — excuse me to the test that they're talking about? <br /> 9 <br /> EXHIBIT C <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.