My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006-08-25 TJR
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2006
>
2006-08-25 TJR
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 9:29:27 AM
Creation date
6/14/2011 9:29:25 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
was a requirement when they first built it. Because if there was then it looks like at this point <br />they’re not in compliance; and I’d like that clarified, please. <br />HAYASHI:Okay, as far as back in 1992, there was no Rule 17. However, when the <br />permit was amended back in 1998, there was, I believe Rule 17 was in effect. However, the <br />addition at that particular time, amendment to SMA 330 that was granted back in 1998, was <br />basically for the parking lot. As far as when we do Plan Approval, we normally do require that a <br />landscaping strip be provided, that was prior to the Rule 17 being adopted. So I would assume <br />that there probably was a requirement for landscaping along the property lines within the project <br />area. <br />SIRACUSA:And would landscaping then be required now if we approved this for all <br />three parcels, or just for the two parcels that are coming before us? <br />HAYASHI:Yeah, the permit that we’re dealing with, the parcels we’re dealing with <br />right now are only the two parcels and not the Parcel 86. So the landscaping requirement would <br />apply to Parcels 87 and 88. <br />SIRACUSA:But if 86 is not compliance with Rule 17, then it seems to me that we <br />ought to make them get into compliance. Could we, would it be possible to make that one of the <br />conditions? <br />HAYASHI:Perhaps legal counsel can respond to that. However, I’m sure that the <br />Applicant would be more than happy to comply with that requirement for the existing Parcel 86; <br />and perhaps that could be directed to the Applicant when they come up, appear before you. <br />ALAMEDA:Any questions for Norman? Commissioner Siracusa? <br />Mr. Torigoe? <br />SIRACUSA:Still, sorry. <br />ALAMEDA:Okay. <br />SIRACUSA:I’m looking at the letter from Troy Kindred of Civil Defense and he says, <br />“The Proposed project lies within the Tsunami Evacuation Zone. Furthermore, the Proposed <br />Project lies within the 20’ elevation mark and could be exposed to storm surge flooding during <br />hurricanes.” This opens up the possibility of non-point source pollution from vehicles and <br />vehicle fluids. “We recommend the Applicant develop an Emergency Plan that addresses all <br />hazards, including tsunami, hurricane, fire, and man-caused disasters.” And my question to you, <br />Norman, is has the Applicant submitted such an emergency plan? <br />HAYASHI:No, the Applicant has not submitted that for the proposed development. <br />That is a condition of approval recommended, that’s Condition No. 11. So at that time, those <br />things identified by the Civil Defense Agency would have to be incorporated in their Emergency <br />Plan. <br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? <br />EXHIBIT C <br />3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.