My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003-09-11 TCLIFT
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003
>
2003-09-11 TCLIFT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 10:20:23 AM
Creation date
6/14/2011 10:20:20 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
FUJIKAWA:Okay, Mr. Tyler, the question is applied toward you. Can <br />you answer that? <br />TYLER:IÓm sorry, sir, did you want me to answer that? <br />FUJIKAWA:Yes, can you answer that? <br />TYLER:Uncharacteristically, one word, absolutely. <br />HAUANIO:Mahalo. <br />FUJIKAWA:Thank you very much. Okay, Mr. Fuke, please step <br />forward. <br />FUKE:Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. <br />FUJIKAWA:Mr. Fuke, you heard the testifiersÓ testimony happening -. <br />FUKE:Yes, IÓd like to just make a few comments and then, <br />secondly, kind of make a request of this Commission. <br />Just to clarify or respond to some of the comments that were made, one is that, you know, <br />we wanted to emphatically make clear that the property is not a shoreline property. ItÓs <br />approximately 4,000 feet mauka of the shoreline. ItÓs adjacent, <br />highway, but itÓs definitely not a shoreline property. <br />In terms of the land exchange, my understanding is that when the <br />relinquish or gave up coastal properties, the value of the coastal property, relative to the <br />existing MG zoning, was kind of like taken into account. <br />The other thing is that like what Mr. Tyler had suggested about like the best available, <br />you know, the BACT, best available technology for wastewater man <br />your potential concerns for your ground water and your near-shore water, and pretty <br />much along the line of what Commissioner Graham had raised, weÓr <br />that. And the Applicant is prepared to accept conditions that would be comparable to <br />what the Land Use Commission had required for the Lanihau project, as well as most <br />recently by the County Council for the TSA industrial project, to afford greater protection <br />of the coastal waters. <br />On the roadway and the related type of conditions, I believe that there are ways that can <br />be worked out to help address the concerns that were raised by Mr. Matsuyama, and <br />Mr. Tyler, and Mr. Gimpel, and others, and, likewise, also, with the issue about the <br />viewplane. And I understand like what Janice from the Sierra Club was talking about the <br />viewplane, you know, you can represent that the building is going to be only 40 feet but <br />then you raise the property by another 40 feet and, so, effectively, you have an 80-foot <br />21 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.